In space and materiality class, we were inspired by an artist who tears objects, that are industrialized constructed, apart and display them with patterns on a white background. By tearing “particles” apart, I see the ideas, techniques, materials, and effort that is put into this object.
I picked a black and white box with a lock and two keys, that is used for collecting small object such as jewelry. I found this box from a convenience store with 10$ because my original idea was not achievable. When we were assigned with the idea, the first thing that popped into my mind was “ how would it be to deconstruct a storing space such as a box instead of something that can be stored. My primary idea was a handmade music box that plays music when you spin the handle. However, after walking around NYC and all kinds of thrift shops, a music box was too expensive for my budget and way too rare to find. So I moved on to a collection box.
When I start the deconstruction, I realized it was unable for me to do so form the outside because all the nails are constructed towards the inside, which also holds the metals stands around the box. So I decided to start form the inside of the box and slowly deconstruct towards the outside. This decision made me consider how the idea of a box is made, that a box is supposed to be adamancy on the outside and vulnerable on the inside which perfectly serves the usage of a box which is protection. The stored object will be protected by the strong armor on the outside from outside harm while being “soft” on the inside protect the object from collision itself. It reminds me of a quote from <The Eyes of The Skin> by Juhani Pallasmaa, “an architectural work is great precisely because of the oppositional and contradictory intentions and allusions it succeeds in fusing together”. My box would be a perfect example.
As I tear down the fluffy clothes on the inside, the structure of the box starts to appear. I thought it would be easy to tear down once I see the structure, but the nails were what stopped me. It took me 8 hours to deconstruct this box which is extremely long compared to my classmate who finished in 1-3 hours. My friend happened to tell that “ isn’t it so ironic that a box that is supposed to serve a use of being opened is so difficult to ‘open’.” When she said that, a little brainstorm emerged in my mind: how much design there is to put in to make an easy action even easier, it just requires much more difficult structuring and designing.
Last but not least, I realized that the price or the value of a constructed object no longer depends on how delicacy the construction or design is, but the ideas and message that is conveyed in this object.
I learned that by comparing object that my classmate made with mine. One of my classmates brought a Barbie doll that probably worths 20-30$ and was deconstructed within an hour. Because the idea of a doll is to entertain and to bring join, while the idea of a box is to store. What makes the value of a box lower than a doll is that its idea is too tangible and concrete. What makes value rises is what people cannot grab and cannot easily achieve, the abstract and ideal things. The second reason that a box doesn’t worth much is because its field of an idea is way more competitive and conservative than the idea of a doll or entertainment. Designers are restricted by its conservative structure and which lowers innovation, while entertainment can be designed and formed in so many ways that make its message liberal and less competitive, therefore worth more.
I really did learn a lot from deconstructing this box and has totally changed my mind towards constructed objects that are now selling in any stores. 
Process documentary
