Process pictures for the Analog Connection for Couples Device (working title, not sure if I’ll keep it).
Sharing something has always been a token of intimacy between couples. Be it a small locket containing a loved one’s hairlock, commitment rings or passwords for social networks, having a tangible representation of commitment is an ancient practice that has, evidently, changed considerably throughout history.
Concurrently, the dynamics of relationships have also changed profoundly. The budding discussions on traditional gender roles, heteronormativity, reproductive rights, gender identity and sexuality begin to be discussed within sociocultural and political spheres, traditional notions of what constitutes a romantic relationship begin to shift accordingly, slowly creating space for a more diverse perception of human intimacy.
This object was designed as a ritualistic tool, aimed at reconnecting with your partner by the end of each day. The object keeps two people closely boung together, as equals, while sharing a breathing device. Not enough to suffocate one another, but close enough to offer a (perhaps too) intense moment of intimacy.
In an era of instant communications, where couples can send each other emails and SMS messages throughout the day, will an object like this become a way of creating reconnecting within the real world, a personal space known only to the two people within it?
I was just reading a few papers on intimacy and relationships and it just struck me that ALL, and I mean ALL OF THEM, whilst claiming to have carried out experiments on “a wide range of relationship categories” or a “wide range of backgrounds”, described their subjects as heterosexual, white, middle class people in monogamous relationships (and, I suppose one can also assume, gender-normative).
Wide range, really?
Science and academia are indeed terribly biased.