In this phase, I have expanded the narrative from ‘wild’ and ‘mild’ to also include a number of additional adjectives. These are partly based on my analysis, and as such they are an expression of a subjective judgment and relate back to the considerations and choices, I made already in the creation of the material tests.
The first two phases form a unified whole and are interactions between creation and reading, between synthesis and analysis. Theses interactions take place in the design process as a wordless or silent dialogue between me, the designer and the material. In these two phases, I, the designer has been both creative and analytical. I have both created an expression and read it. But the designer creates for others and therefore, in the third phase of the experiment, I place focus on the relationship between the design and the user.
To learn whether others read the material samples the way I do, I asked a number of people to be test persons and as such to make a spontaneous assessment of the material samples. This was done by the test person first ranking the twenty material samples on a continuum from ‘mild’ to ‘wild’. Thus, a comparison is made between the different samples. By using comparison as a method, the notion of ‘mild’ and ‘wild’ are not experienced as absolutes but as relative to each other.
Subsequently, the test person pairs the material samples with the expressive words from my list. These words describe the test person’s aesthetic experience of the materials or how the person interprets the narrative of the materials. There is predominantly consistency between mine and the test persons’ interpretation of the narratives in the material samples. The continuums of ‘mild’ to ‘wild’ are very alike. The additional expressions are more ambiguous. Most times, the test persons choose words with meanings that come close to my choice of words. In some cases, test person’s choose words with contradictive meanings.