Thinking Outside of the box - A Cardboard Case Study

Julia Woodmore - Portfolio > Thesis > A Cardboard Case Study

Thinking Outside of the Box

A Cardboard Case Study

The story of the use and development of cardboard through history is very straightforward compared to that of many other materials. The making of paper had been developing for many centuries. In 1856 the first corrugated paper was patented by two Englishmen known as Allen and Healey. Interestingly it was initially used to line gentlemen's tall hats. Throughout the 1870's further development of corrugation in paper to strengthen this flimsy material took place. By 1874 the cardboard that was being produced bore similarities that we share with it today. It began life as sheets used as a shipping material and in 1891 the first pre-cut cardboard boxes went into production in America. I imagine that due to the nature of its life as a shipping material this aided in speedily spreading this new phenomenon globally. Nowadays it is still predominantly used for boxes as packaging and storage for a wide variety of products, but it is also less commonly used to shelter the homeless, to break falls in stunt scenes and as a medium for growing number of artists.

'Individuals differ strikingly in their responses to the notion of media transformation. They range from those who insist that they are in total control of the media which they 'use' to those who experience a profound sense of being shaped by the media which 'use' them'. [5]

In October 2001 my class and I, the second year Design and Public Art students, were given the site of Shepherds Bush Green (from now on SBG) to work with. As a starting point we were asked to explore and research the public, the private, scale and the environment which would result in each of us producing something for this site using cardboard (A stockpile had kindly been donated by a former student.) Although the site and issues we were asked to research did not present problems for many of my class mates the idea of working with cardboard did. Many found that the pressure of working with this medium somehow affected the ability for inspiration and development of ideas within this project, thus limiting the 'greater picture' or final outcome. It was discussed that the cardboard should or could be used as a 'first draft ' to create models of proposals and allow experimentation in a cheap and safe way for what we would eventually propose to do at the site. For many there were still difficulties in getting past this idea of working with cardboard,

'I found it hard to start on my project with a view to using cardboard and even the thought of using it as a mock up was not something I was entirely comfortable with.' [6]

Was it the limiting factor of choice, i.e. if we had all been asked to work with stone for example would reactions have been any different? What is our reaction to the nature of the material?

There is a case study which highlights the importance of this situation involving Public Arts in Birminghams Centenary Square.

From the late 18th Century the region's economy was dominated by the manufacturing industries. Birmingham had an identification as 'the City of a thousand trades.' [7] The city's council made it explicitly clear that these trades from the past and present would play an important role in their consideration for the commissioning of civic 'public art' sculptures that they had chosen for the city. Among the many chosen was Anthony Gormley's Iron Man. A highly successful and un-controversial choice which reflected a trade that was abundant in the West Midlands (the iron trade.) I would argue that the use of this traditional material made it so there was almost no distinction or rather the association was so strong that the two ideas become intertwined ? local trade with material. This is made even more apparent when we look at how Raymond Masons work was received by the public. Another 'civic' sculpture, titled 'Forward' (the city motto).

'This image of the all-red brick city necessarily implies polychrome. Thus the material utilised would be synthetic resin - polyester and fibre glass, the ideal support for polyurethane paint.' [8]

There was a lot more controversy after the unveiling of this sculpture. This was not concerned with the content or context but the fact that it was made from these less 'associative' materials seemed to undermine its value as a civic sculpture. The sculpture was described as 'resembling 'a slab of rancid butter'..'cheap and nasty'. The materials were particularly criticized. 'Why it couldn't have been done in bronze or stone I'll never know.'' [9], whilst at the same time people spent more of their time trying to evaluate and understand what this sculpture was about.

'You have to stop and look at Forward time and again to see it ever more unfolding; it is grand, startling, humble in turn'. [10]

At the time I was still unaware of my own motivations for this project (my reasoning and choice of materials did not seem high on my agenda) but unlike others I knew that I wanted to use the cardboard to create 'something' for SBG that was always going to be cardboard ? not just a prototype for another material. From the first mention of this material within the realms of this project I was excited. For some reason I loved the idea of working with cardboard and it became my inspiration for looking into issues at the situations I was concerned with at the site. By the end of the project I had produced a helmet and go cart made entirely from cardboard and glue, then coated with varnish and dye.

'Art has a duty to transform. It takes materials, often unlikely ones, and magically turns them into something else'. [11]