Make a tool part of the question
Kooij’s workshop account describes improvised machines and a reconfigured robot. It presents the tools’ limitations as contributors to the collection’s visual language.1
That is an unusually direct way to explain the relationship between a process and an object. The machine does not simply reproduce a form decided somewhere else. Its way of moving, pressing or depositing material becomes part of what the form can be.
Two objects, different traces
The coarse layers of Endless make a deposited path visible.1 Meltingpot approaches material through another process: its current technical record describes a solid recycled-plastic table, rather than a thin printed shell.2
Seen together, the objects discourage a single visual definition of recycled-plastic furniture. A line can build a surface; a pressed mass can carry large movements of colour. Different processes give the material different ways to be read.
Keep the result in view
The Meltingpot sheet records a solid table.2 Its surface is a way to read a material body, rather than simply a pattern printed onto another material. The result keeps practical making and visual character in the same conversation.
The useful pleasure in these objects is the chance to notice making without seeing a demonstration. A thick line or a coloured solid surface can prompt the same question: what kind of tool helped this material become an object? The furniture carries part of the answer in its appearance.
