Philip Junk

Gummi bears for debate  –  No°3 – Material Studies

After a horribly failed first attempt to produce gummi bears, I managed to create a couple of decent looking pieces of gummi.

IMG_0479

Taste: you don’t want to try

Look: no bubbles inside the material and a clear consistant shape

IMG_8851

 

 

Material Studies – pt.2

 

Melting and dissolving gummi bears

Heating up a couple of gummibears results in a sticky glue, that’s mainly what I learned in the last couple of days. But let’s turn the sticky glue into something interesting. Dissolving the shape of gummi bears brings a lot of associations and possibilties with it.

IMG_8881

IMG_8883

IMG_8887

IMG_8890

IMG_8891

IMG_8893

IMG_8895

IMG_8898

 

A way to use the associations of melting bears could be an infographic. By melting gummi bears in cylinders made of glass, the process of e.g. death could be shown. A certain number of people dying could be visualized in real time.

7 Comments

    1. No. In this case I just used genocides as examples. It could be any kind of topic, that makes people feel uncomfortable.

  1. Jellymongers: http://bompasandparr.com/projects/filter/category/jelly
    And the weapons project was actually done by Kyle Bean (http://www.kylebean.co.uk/portfolio/cutmagazinesoftguerilla), sorry I got that wrong.

    I like the idea to use ‘harmless’ or ‘childish’ materials for serious topics that deal with the cruelty of the world, violence, war, death and so on, in order to create controversy and start a discussion, but with your first example… well, I don’t know. It just struck me as a bit inappropriate and maybe… disturbing just for the sake of being disturbing? But maybe that is what you wanted to achieve, a discourse about what we find inappropriate and why? Not sure…

    1. Yes, the idea was actually to produce something disturbing to make people talk about the topic. The objects in themselves are so absurd, that they instantly create a discussion.

  2. And also I think that with Assad and the attacks on civilians… I think the reason why nobody could agree on anything was more because what is going on there is really complex, there are heaps of different warring factions and experience has shown that intervening in another country’s civil wars is not actually that easy (‘We go there, kill the bad guys, and that’s it’). So therefore everyone obviously has very different opinions about what to do. I’d say simplifying or reducing the complexity of the situation actually makes it worse and is maybe the wrong message in this case. But that’s just my opinion…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*