Empire

In chapter 8 ‘Empire?’ of Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders : From Polynesian Settlement to the End of the Nineteenth Century, author James Belich talks about the beginnings of European colonisation in New Zealand. The colonisation initially began in 1771 when New Zealand was ‘discovered’ by James Cook (Belich, 180).

Before full British sovereignty was acquired, the British had to convert, conquest and gain complete authority over the Maori (Belich, 181). They did so with missionaries, who justified British expansion; advocates of colonisation, who formed the New Zealand Company in 1837; and traders and merchants. Between 1840 and 1850 the six main settlements in New Zealand were formed and colonisation grew out from these settlements (Belich, 188).

By 1860 Pakeha were in most parts of the country, and by 1866 the imperial military had grown to 10,000 soldiers from 100-200 in 1845. Pakeha ‘swamped’ Maori communities, causing them to lose their power of resistance and their independence (Belich, 193). Belich says “agreeing to the Treaty of Waitangi, welcoming agents of the state and selling land were three… acts of Maori consent to the advent of Pakeha state and society” (197).

These events impacted on visual culture in New Zealand. European maps of New Zealand were influenced by the cartographer’s ideological views: nomadic iwi who occupied land were not included in New Zealand maps and there were no Maori place names. The 1830s saw the first New Zealand flag, the United Tribes flag, which was replaced by the Union Jack as soon as the Treaty was signed.

These events have also influenced modern visual culture, as can be seen in Maori activist Tame Iti’s shooting of the New Zealand flag in a powhiri in 2005. He was metaphorically shooting British sovereignty.

Works cited:
Belich, James. ‘Chapter Eight: Empire?’ Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders : From Polynesian Settlement to the End of the Nineteenth Century. Penguin, 2001. 179–203. Print.

Object 3: Final

The base for this object is based off the base from object 2; model 3, except it is circular to allow it to rotate in another piece. I had real trouble making it circular, until I worked out that I could make one of the four sides and then just mirror it until I had all 4. This first image, bottom right, is my first attempt.

Here I realised I could mirror it, and it made my life so much easier and it was also more accurate because I only had to make one side. I used the slot joint tolerance from my base from object 2; model 3. I knew that this object could fit a slotted piece of 4 mil ply (the material I’m using for the laser cut pieces). The slots are 4.5 mil wide.

The base fits into another bottom piece that it rotates in. I knew from my tolerance tests that a 0.7 mil tolerance allowed good rotation in circular pieces so I made the hole in the bottom piece 0.7 mil wider than the diameter of the base.

This is the final object:

 

 

 

 

Object 3: Iteration 2

These shapes are based off deconstructivist architecture that I found during my initial moodboard research. They’re more angular than my last design.

The inspiration:

I made these shapes on Inventor so I didn’t have to go through the arduous process of converting the Illustrator file to the 3D model. Because they’re quite geometric they’ll be easy to reproduce on Illustrator, and I might find out if there is a way to take a file from Inventor to Illustrator. I much prefer these shapes to my last design. They reflect my topic a lot better.

I made a cardboard version to see how it would fit and look inside the base. The base needs to be larger to hold it better and circular so it can spin inside the bottom piece.

 

Object 3: Iteration 1

Because deconstructivism is characterised by “unpredictability and controlled chaos”, I figured that a good way to incorporate this into my design would be to hand draw the laser cut parts using my drawing tablet. They’ll have natural flaws that make the design more unpredictable and unique. I made this quick printing document to trial on the laser cutter. I made the shapes asymmetrical and different lengths from one-another. The slot joint is not in the centre.  Obviously the lines have been thickened so you can see them here, but when I print I’ll change them to 0.1pt ‘vector red’ lines.

I learnt how to export Illustrator files as DWGs and then import them into Inventor to create a 3D model. I did this to see how these laser-cut pieces would look assembled. I think that the pieces should not be so long because they’re going to be connecting to a base so it makes the length redundant. I think also that they should be less organic-shaped, and instead be more angular and unpredictable.

Object 3

Taking inspiration from some moodboard images I came up with this idea that combines one of my laser cutting iterations and some 3D printing. These are the images I drew inspiration from:

The image on the left looks like a spinning object, and the one on the right is my first iteration from my first object. I wondered what would happen if I 3D printed some sort of platform and had a slotting piece like the one pictured here that spun on the platform.

The movement would be possible by two pieces, one which holds the slotting piece and fits into the other base piece, allowing it to rotate. The shape of the slotting piece isn’t very interesting at the moment, and thought about how I could incorporate some deconstructivist/biomimicry into it. Maybe I could use a similar slotting piece to object 2; model 3, but cut it on the laser cutter.

 

 

Object 2: Final

My final object is based off some deconstructivist shapes I found during my initial moodboard research.

 

It is made of three pieces: two pyramids that fit together and a base piece that they sit on. The two pyramids fit together using a pin technique. Two pins fit into two holes, much like a lego piece. I worked out the best tolerance for the holes during my initial tolerance tests.

One pyramid has a hole in the back that the base piece slots into. I based the tolerance for this joint off the slot joint tolerance testing I did during my initial tolerance tests.

My first iteration was to test the joining technique – two cylindrical pins that fit into holes.

My second iteration had a section cut out in the middle that allowed the pyramids to be joined in two orientations. It didn’t work too well but I wondered what would happen if I had a section cut out in the back…

… which lead to my final object.

 

Principles and Values

In “Ngā Pūtake o the Tikanga: Underlying Principles And Values”, author Hirini Moko Mead identifies the concept of noa. Noa is the restoration of balance of tapu (sacredness) (Mead, 31). The amount of tapu a given thing has can change. For example, the head is the most tapu part of the body and if a very tapu person, such as a rangatira (chief), were to touch their head with their hand then that hand would too become tapu (Best, 85). This would render the hand useless until it had been ‘purified’, that is, rendered noa. In an art or design practice, noa might need to be applied when an artwork or design is finished, for example at the unveiling of a new marae. The tapu from this artwork would be lifted, thus allowing people to interact with the art.

One way that intellectual property and copyright laws are insufficient to address the misuse of taonga works is that they allow “a considerable number of permitted uses of copyrighted works”, one of which is the publication of images of publicly displayed taonga works (that is, culturally and socially valuable works) (New Zealand, Waitangi Tribunal, and Tuatara, 35). Taonga works have kaitiaki – people whose relationship with the works gives them an obligation to protect them from misuse – and by allowing images of these works to be reproduced, the copyright laws are overriding the kaitiaki and the cultural and social background of the works.

Works cited:
Best, Elsdon. The Maori as He Was: A Brief Account of Maori Life as it Was in Pre-European Days. Rev. ed. Wellington: Government Printer, 1974. Massey University Library. Web. 13 Aug. 2016.

Mead, Hirini Moko. “Ngā Pūtake o the Tikanga: Underlying Principles And Values”. Tikanga Māori: Living by Māori Values. Huia Publishers, 2003. Print.

New Zealand, Waitangi Tribunal, and Te Taumata Tuatahi. “Taonga Works and Intellectual Property”. Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and Identity. Wellington, N.Z.: Legislation Direct, 2011. Web. 15 Aug. 2016.

 

Glossary

This is a glossary of key terms that I’ve come across in the paper 237.131 Conversations in Creative Cultures.

• Mana – power, status. The more prestigious something is, the more mana or tapu surrounds it
• Tapu – sacred, prohibited
• Tikanga – the correct procedures, norms, customs embedded in the social context
• Whakaminenga – the Congregational Church, i.e. a Protestant church run independently by its own congregation
• Mātauranga – a body of knowledge, values and insights brought to New Zealand by the Polynesian ancestors of present day Māori, that has developed throughout Māori history. Traditional knowledge
• Taonga – highly-prized objects or resources, including culturally and socially valuable works. Traditional cultural expressions
• Kaitiaki – concept of guardianship; trustee, minder, caregiver etc.
• Kaitiakitanga – guardianship, protection or preservation. The traditional Māori world-view of managing the environment
• Annex – seize someone else’s territory (without their permission) to add to your own territory
• Tutelage – guardianship; helpful guidance; teaching of a student by a teacher (‘tutor’)
• Vice – immoral behaviour
• Inundated – to be overwhelmed with things to be dealt with
• Sojourner – a temporary resident

Model 5

My fifth model uses the same components as in my first model, but with some adjustments and an added base piece. This is the model it is based off:

I liked the base pieces from my third and fourth models and I wanted to add something to this object to make it more interesting. I thought of how I cut out the square in the centre of the pyramids to generate my second model, and wondered what would happen if I cut a square out of the back. This lead to me developing a base piece which slots into the back of the pyramid. The bottom of the base extends out to counter the weight of the pyramid.

The object is quite modern and sleek in its form, and reflects deconstructivism in its pointed, angular shape.

Because I’d printed a pyramidal piece with a pin in it before, I knew that I wouldn’t need any supports to keep the pin intact. I printed the base piece lying down so the fill would be in the best direction to support it. The pieces printed well, fit together tightly and the object looks like I wanted it to.

Model 4

My fourth model is a display object like my third model, and is made to be looked at. It is based off the deconstructivist objects I found in my initial research.

I wanted to make an abstract design that is more asymmetrical than my last objects. This object is made of three joining parts that stick out at odd angles. I added some aesthetic features to the object like the sliced cuts on the back of the middle piece and the rounded edge on the bottom piece to make it more interesting.

The base is the flat piece with the cylinder sticking out of it, and the middle piece joins to the base using the cylinder and hole; the same method I used to join my pyramidal pieces. The top piece slots into the middle piece at the top using a dovetail joint. This is the object when it is assembled:

I printed the object at 60% size and that seemed to have messed up the top layer. You can see that the top layer of the base piece is very thin, if there at all. It still fits together pretty well. Because I used a touching build plate support when I was printing, there was a lot of ‘gunk’ left on the pieces, and I had to scrape that off before it would fit together. I think I could have orientated the pieces so they didn’t require the support, and that would have made the prints more accurate.