The confirmative praxis is somewhat a continuation of the explorative praxis. Whose purpose is to consolidate the outcome of the explorative praxis into more refined or high-quality pieces of work. The outcome of my explorative praxis was developing a design process. Also at the same time showcasing how the process can be used. Anyway, the outcomes/outcome are the basis of the confirmative praxis. Hence the explorative praxis shouldn't technically be thrown to the side and ignored just because you want to try something new in the confirmative praxis. The reason being is that the explorative is your support argument that persuades or even clarifies why you are doing what you are doing in the confirmative.
When I had received feedback on my explorative praxis, it had been described as being a hypothesis of random formulation to generate undefined objects/artefacts by means of free writing and word definition. If I'm being honest this was a good way to describe what I had done. This hypothesis consisted of me proving or demonstrating how you could create forms (in 2d or 3d) that represent relationships between words. Hence the free writing and word definition are used as the stepping stone for the proposed explanation (the hypothesis). By being the evidence needed to formulate an assumption on how the hypothesis can be investigated.
What was being investigated was not only the relationship between words but how could the relationship be turned into a visual form. Where the form does not need to be an exact representation of the written words. The start of the investigation or project was researching why interaction is interaction?. From there I attempted answering this which became the introduction of the project. The introduction was written research initially but I turned that into a word map simply because I wanted to compress the research into a simpler form. Next, I set out to begin the main body of work which was finding a relationship between words starting from the compressed form of the introduction.  This created a much larger word map. Which I then sectioned into different parts/areas. These areas would be used to create visual forms that represent the relationship between words.
The image below is some of the initial research for the introduction
The word map below represents the introduction its compressed form
Next was to begin the main body of work which consisted of creating the much larger word map. shown below.
Next was to section the introduction away from the main body and then i sectioned the word map into different areas (colour coded)
In the below image certain sections have been filled in to show what sections I was able to create visual forms from
The final image is to show which sections/areas I wasn't able to complete.
As stated, I was developing a design process in the explorative praxis. Yet there is a slight problem. I haven't got a name for this process. I had called my explorative praxis, why is interaction interaction?. I can't and won't name the process that since it seems to do it no justice in why it should be called that. Therefore I won't focus on naming as of now. Instead, I will name the process further down the line.
Before I start the confirmative, I intend to redevelop the design process, meaning, to be more refined. The reason is that I had given myself too much to work from initially in the explorative praxis causing a few problems. The problems are as follows:
First of all, I had made too many sections. I knew early on that it was highly unlikely that I was going to make a completed form for each section. Therefore the only way at the time that I thought would be a fair method to solve this issue was to choose sections at random. In actual fact, the problem is not with the random choosing. Instead, it's the sections that furthermore is to do with the amount of research I did before creating the map. then a suitable way to resolve this may lay within changing the method at the start before I get carried away with the research.
The second is how to know how many words is enough per section. this may not seem problematic but as in the previous word map, I've got one section with 4 words and another with 20. Hence do I set a minimum and maximum so that there is more of a fair playing field (if you get what I mean) when it comes to making an equal amount of work per section.
Basically, this is where you are able to know when to stop making sections, therefore when to stop the research. Before I had made the sections on the explorative word map I had done all the research beforehand and had aimed for it to start with interaction and end with interaction.  This did happen but I didn't take into account how many sections I actually needed.
What I mean by this is that what word or type of word is suitable to start researching to create an introduction which will then be turned into the first section of the word map. I don't want it to be a random choice but more considered with the intention of the chosen word being selected for an actual reason rather than just because I felt like it. 
The last problem has two parts. These are how to clarify and present the work so that it is easy to understand. I'm aware that the process is an odd way to create forms as in objects/artefacts, so how do I make it not odd.
solving the problems
To summarise everything. The amount of words per section is between 6-10. before deciding on those words you are free to research and include as many words as you want. This section will be the original and the refined section will be the 6-10 words chosen from the original. Note when starting a new section the initial word can only branch off from a previous refined section.
Note: I've changed the third map name to extra instead of what if?
Before actually staring the confirmative i made further changes which are shown below
Click the buttons below to explore different parts of the project
Back to Top