This Isn’t Punishment,
It’s Design

The acrylic assembly for the theatre version was relatively straightforward, as it involved flat-to-flat bonding. However, during the vertical assembly of the library version, small gaps appeared, and I attempted to fill them for a more secure fix. In the process, excess glue seeped out and left stains, and removing the white residue caused the glossy surface to become dull. The workshop technicians suggested two options: ‘painting’ or ‘re-making’. To maintain consistency across the three-piece series, I ultimately decided to reproduce the prototype.

During the new cutting process, however, a zero-point error in the laser cutter resulted in a 2mm shift, producing an inaccurate cut. As a result, completing the library model became impossible within the given timeline, and that model was postponed to a later stage. The remaining two models still required fabric work.

Working with fabric was far more challenging than expected. One of my classmates suggested that while the original theatre version ‘opens upward’, another variation could instead adopt a ‘downward-falling’ form, which I implemented in the tube version.

For the theatre version, I inserted ‘dress net’ fabric between two layers of cloth to create tension and maintain the shape, then finished the piece with hand stitching. Because the fabric work took longer than planned, the tube version was completed only after the final presentation and later revealed in the exhibition. This version included an elastic band sewn into the hem, fastened with Velcro.

As in the midpoint presentation, I adopted the serious tone of tech companies such as Apple, Samsung, or Dyson. Material and production decisions were reframed as ‘theatre-grade fabric’ or ‘hand-crafted dedication infused with our collective frustration’, integrating these elements into the project’s narrative.

Concept-wise, many highlighted the line ‘This isn’t punishment, it’s design!’ as particularly strong and iconic. The project’s overall humour and playfulness, as well as its evolution into a critical and whimsical object, were clearly recognised.

Regarding execution, the work was described as elegant, purposeful, and cohesive, with both the video and the prototypes praised for their clarity of message.

For the prototypes, many commented that the materiality aligned well with the project, and that the range of formal and structural experimentation was evident. Some suggested that additional ‘low-fidelity sketches’ and ‘ergonomic grounding’ could further strengthen the design rationale.

In terms of use cases, several people asked whether I had tested the device in an actual theatre, emphasised the value of documentation capturing audience reactions or conversations, and suggested that the message could be stronger if more audience members were included in the video.

Due to various constraints, I was not able to test the device inside a real theatre, which was disappointing. However, I was able to gather indirect reactions through the exhibition and the video.

Initially, viewers struggled to intuit the function of the device. But once I briefly explained the intention, they understood immediately and often burst into laughter. Some memorable responses include:

Through humour, the project became easy to remember, encouraged awareness around theatre etiquette, and resonated with people who had experienced similar frustrations.

If possible, I would still like to test the device in an actual theatre. Though I’m not entirely sure I would make it past the entrance.