GradEx is now over. I regretted not being able to design my display properly before setting it up. But I also missed opportunities for making observations. Initially I thought I just missed an opportunity to observe visitors’ eye levels, but it looks like I have missed more.

Another thing I could have observed was the number of people staying to see the display versus the number of people skipping the display. This is probably easier said than done, since this is probably difficult to observe when traffic is heavy. In any case, someone else who was showing work commented that my display drew attention. I actually disagree: My feeling (since I didn’t do a proper observation) is that roughly half the people skipped over my display or the room entirely; my display only drew the attention of maybe half the people.

Not many people seem to have scanned the QR code. Some might see this as proof that QR codes are useless, but the room had especially bad cell reception. Maybe I should revisit doing this QR code thing later when something is shown somewhere else with better reception.

Now I just have to make sure, somehow, that they get into GradEx.

One book that I thought would be promising was Later Islamic Pottery by Arthur Lane, published in 1957 by Faber and Faber (no ISBN, NK 3880 L251 at OCAD’s Dorothy H. Hoover Library). I scanned through the book and identified a number of potential works for investigation (plates 12a, 20a, 52a, 60a, and 72b), but when I looked at the text, I found that all of these bowl-like forms have been described as “dishes”.

Another book I borrowed from Dorothy Hoover was Masterpieces of World Ceramics (ISBN 9781-851-775279, NK 3780 V42), which I also thought was promising. I scanned through it and noticed exactly one piece with writing and which has actually been listed as a bowl. However, the writing looks more like lettering than calligraphy.

So here are already two problems: Where do I find a list of potential works to investigate, and how do I restrict my search to pieces that actually are considered bowls? Or—since a good number of bowls I saw at Empty Bowls and in 500 Bowls actually looked more to me like dishes—when is a bowl a dish and a dish a bowl?

I guess this means I’ll need to take my tripod back from the studio.

A wooden tool seems to show some promise. It’s scoring too little, but I’d rather that it scored too little than too much. It looks like I can be more precise too, which is a good thing, I guess.

I would have caught this if I could spend just a little more time testing my design. I might have needed just an hour or two. It is so unfortunate that OCAD is on “summer hours” and we no longer have access to any proper facilities on weekends.

It is okay to score the heavier paper — with the back of an X-Acto. But scoring is not a substitute for folding. If I wrote “fold”, fold.

The perforation needs to be done last. Otherwise you risk ripping the thing before you even have a chance to fold it.

Cut the flaps before folding. It’s too easy to accidentally cut off flaps if the cover is folded first.

Gluing with a glue stick is a problem, for multiple reasons; but I don’t think rubber cement is okay for this book. So I don’t know what I can do…

At this rate the chance of me getting any of these bowls to the museum before Tuesday is zero.

The back of an X-Acto is not a bone folder. Use a proper bone folder. Even the back of an X-Acto is still too hard; it applies too much pressure and weakens the fold. Having to use the mending tape drastically slows you down, because it’s so hard to take the backing sheet off the tape.

Scoring before folding might make sense if you’re working with card stock, but scoring paper weakens it too much. Just fold it carefully at the corner, then use the bone folder.

Did I say use the bone folder? It’s essential.

The assembled package, including an envelope, measures almost 3 mm.

This is just a trial run and one of the things I had to test was tearing off the perforation. It was much harder than I expected. I should have tested perforations with the same paper stock.

Stapling the first signature also turned out to be much harder than expected. It would have been much easier if I had access to a proper studio. Alas…

Now a new question: Would this be too heavy for regular postage?

During first year we were told that we would have access to the graduate studies building 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Notwithstanding that a new winter break policy eventually made 365-day access impossible, I have to point out that students in my program do not have any studio space or even locker space. I cannot store my work (let alone make any of that work) in the graduate studies building; they have to stay in the ceramics studio, which is in the main building.

Access to the main building has never been ideal, but in the summer hours are so restrictive I cannot imagine how any student could get any work done. I know undergrad students who are taking two ceramics courses this semester and this weekend the building is not open a single hour; they paid regular tuition, the course schedule is compressed, yet they have only half the access they had in the previous semester.

So even if I could finish assembling my questionnaires today, I still cannot deliver all my bowls because half of them are still in the studio, locked due to the “long weekend”. Why students are not allowed to do coursework during long weekends when they have extra time to catch up is a great mystery; it is unacceptable and needs to be rectified.