What my tutorial feedback revealed about the work, and how I would develop it through more subtle interventions, physical experiments and a possible game.WHAT WAS WORKING
During the tutorial, Houman responded positively to the systematic way I had documented the estate. He appreciated the consistency of my observations and how I had built up the project through different experiments. This reassured me that the repeated process of photographing, annotating, mapping and comparing was useful, rather than simply producing a collection of unrelated images.
He also highlighted the symbolism in my interventions, particularly the way I added a new layer to an existing sign. By changing or questioning the original message without completely removing it, I was able to create a new interpretation from something already present. This connected closely to the central idea of the project: official signs communicate rules, but their meanings can be interrupted, challenged or reinterpreted.
FEEDBACK: WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED
One of the main suggestions from Houman was to make the work more playful. He also encouraged me to find more subtle ways of communicating the ideas, rather than making every intervention so direct or explicit. This was particularly relevant to the signs where I used written questions such as “WHO GIVES PERMISSION?” or “WHO SAYS?” Although these communicate my argument clearly, they can also explain the idea too literally, leaving less room for the viewer to discover the meaning themselves.
The discussion about fences was another important point. The fence communicates authority through its physical form: it creates a boundary, separates spaces and implies that movement may be restricted. Rather than always representing this through an obvious sign or written statement, I could investigate more subtle ways of using the fence itself as a visual element.
My classmate Flora also suggested looking beyond graffiti on walls to consider other traces left by people, such as chewing gum. This expanded my understanding of what counts as an intervention or an informal mark. Evidence of everyday behaviour does not always take the form of a deliberate image or written message. Small traces can reveal how people occupy, use and alter a managed environment.
Houman and Dora also suggested printing my work and returning it to the place where I had observed it, allowing it to exist in its own context, even temporarily. They encouraged me to consider what might happen to the work once it was placed back into the environment, rather than treating it solely as a photograph or digital composition. I went back and did this), see ‘06 – my own signs‘.
HOW I WOULD DEVELOP THE WORK
In response to the feedback about subtlety and playfulness, I would experiment with interventions that do not immediately explain themselves. Instead of writing a direct question over an official sign, I could alter a small detail, introduce a visual contradiction or make a subtle change to the symbol. This would allow the viewer to notice something unusual and gradually question the original message.
I would also explore the fence as more than a symbol of authority. Its bars, gaps, shadows and repeated lines could become a visual language in their own right. For example, I could use the fence’s structure to create a graphic pattern, a sequence of barriers or a set of rules that become increasingly difficult to follow. This could communicate restriction through form and experience, rather than relying on explanatory text.
The suggestion to investigate other traces is equally valuable. On a future visit, I would document small details such as discarded objects, marks, repairs, stickers, chewing gum and signs of wear. These traces could provide a different perspective on the estate: not only the systems designed to manage it, but also the everyday ways people use and change the environment. I would need to distinguish between what I can actually observe and what I can only infer from a trace.
I would also develop the idea of putting the work back into its original context. I could print selected interventions and temporarily position them within the site, photographing how they relate to the existing architecture and signage. I would then return to observe how they sit within the environment over time. This would help me investigate whether the work looks out of place, blends in, changes the reading of its surroundings or attracts attention. Any physical placement would need to be appropriate and permitted.
PLAYFULNESS AS A VISUAL STRATEGY
The reference to the final pages of Bloomberg Businessweek was particularly interesting because it suggested that playfulness can create a different relationship with serious subject matter. A playful visual language does not necessarily make a subject less critical. Instead, the contrast between the style and the content can make the message more striking.
This is something I began exploring through the Monopoly-inspired zine. The familiar board-game aesthetic transforms the estate into a system of movement, rules and restrictions, while the graffiti-style questions disrupt the apparent order. However, with more time, I would develop this relationship more deliberately. I could experiment with the visual language of game cards, chance, instructions, scores and penalties, using these elements to reveal how the estate’s systems operate.
FUTURE DIRECTION: FROM RULEBOOK TO GAME
I would have liked to develop the zine into a playable game. The rulebook already contains the beginnings of one: a route through the estate, instructions to follow, restrictions on access and questions about who creates the rules.
A future version could ask players to navigate a simplified map of the estate while encountering different systems of control. Some spaces might be accessible, others restricted, and some routes might only become available after a player has interpreted a sign or responded to a rule. Chance cards could introduce unexpected interruptions, while graffiti or informal traces could offer alternative ways of understanding the environment.
The game would not simply reward players for following every instruction. It could ask them to decide when to comply, when to question a rule and how to respond when different systems contradict one another. This would translate the project from observing control to actively experiencing the choices and limitations it creates.
I would also like to consider whether the game could include competing perspectives. One player might follow the official rules, while another notices overlooked routes, traces or contradictions. This could reveal that the estate is experienced differently depending on what people notice and how they interpret the environment.
REFLECTION
The feedback helped me recognise that the next stage of the project does not necessarily require more documentation. Instead, it requires a change in how I communicate what I have already observed. My research is systematic, but the outcomes could become more playful, subtle and open to interpretation.
The most useful direction is to bring the work back into the physical environment, experiment with the visual language of the estate itself and develop the rulebook into something that can be experienced rather than only read. The game remains a future possibility, but it provides a way to test the central question of the project: what does the estate become when its systems of control are translated into rules, choices and consequences?
Leave a Reply