Our friends at Earlyarts are taking a stand (No. 8) at the NurseryWorld Show this Friday and Saturday (17 & 18th February) and will have packs of StoryCubes available to buy, as well as presenting our Outside the Box set of StoryCubes. The show is being held in Islington’s Building Design Centre 9am to 4.30pm : 52 Upper Street, Islington, London N1 0QH.

Earlyarts is an award winning national network for people working creatively with children and families in the arts, cultural and early years sectors.

Nursery World 2012 is designed for everyone in the early years community and provides an opportunity for visitors to meet supplier companies and organisations to get real, practical support for running their nursery business.

We’re looking forward to hearing feedback from early arts practitioners on how they would use StoryCubes and what kinds of additional resources (stickers sets, printed cubes sets etc) they’d like to see us offer.

We’ve reduced the prices on packs of 27, 64 & 125 StoryCubes in both Original and Medium sizes. Please visit our store to buy online. Offers end on December 14th (last posting date is 15th December).

There’s also a 10% discount on bookleteer  Short Run Printing in the run up to Xmas, so if you’d like to create some festive StoryCubes as an alternative to the usual Christmas cards, or make an eBook family photo album or collection pof stories, sign up for a free account and take advantage of the cheap printing prices.

Haz Tagiuri has written a detailed, illustrated post about how to do this over on the bookleteer blog.

Photo by Simon Pope

This week we tested StoryCubes made with the bookleteer API, as used in artist Simon Pope and programmer Gordon Joly’s StoryCube Cairn project. Simon & Gordon have been experimenting with a simple interface allowing people to embed web links (URLs) as QR Codes onto the cubes which can be read by devices like mobile phones. For the project they have been creating a series of walks and embedding maps and other media links as playful wayfinding tools.

Find out more about the event here and sign up to bookleteer for your own free account here to start making your own StoryCubes.

Alice and Orlagh created a set of illustrated cubes that were the result of conversations with parents, carers and workers. Quotes from the conversations were represented on the StoryCubes which were then used to encourage conversations at the summit.

Other projects that have made use of StoryCubes include Manchester Beacon, As it Comes and the iHuman Youth Society. To find out more on how you can commission Proboscis for one of your projects click here.

To celebrate the launch of the bookreader, we’re offering a special 20% discount on Short Run Printing orders this month (June 2011). Take a look at the prices on the estimator & use code : BKLTR0611-20 when ordering.

(This offer cannot be combined with any other offers or discounts).

Happy Bookleteering!

RP: What inspired you to use a StoryCube as the invitation leaflet?

MB: I chose to make a storycube for several reasons. My exhibition was of a sound piece made with people on Portland in Dorset imitating birdsong. I wanted people to have something to take away to remind them of the installation and encourage them to look out for and listen to the fantastic birdlife on Portland. I also wanted people to be not just passive listeners but to take part. So I set up tables with blank postcards, pencils and crayons for drawing, bird and wildlife books for people to read and double-sided storycubes for people to make. And finally I wanted a memorable invitation card during a festival with many events happening at the same time.

RP: How did people respond to this alternative type of invitation? How did they use it?

MB: People found the storycubes novel and playful. On one side were silhouettes of birds featured in the installation with a transliteration of their call – such as “kee-arrrk kee-arrk” for peregrine falcons. On the other was a map of Portland marked with places where these birds were heard. So over the two sides there were photographs, images, text, a map and credits.

RP: Was there any interest surrounding the cubes at your exhibition?

MB: Yes there was a lot of interest. People had not seen them before though they reminded them of things from their childhood. And sitting down at the table to make up a storycube encouraged people into conversation.

RP: Were there any interesting stories that came up?

MB: People often were surprised they could take them for free. And one afternoon a group of children stacked lots of the storycubes to make pyramids and structures – which kept falling over in the (powerful) winds that blow over Chiswell.

RP: Would you use the StoryCubes again? For the same or other purposes?

MB: Yes I would definitely use storycubes again – If they were right for the project. They are memorable, flexible and both reflect and encourage participation.

I really like the strong positive reaction the StoryCubes got, from being a conversations starter, the surprise factor ’could take them for free’ as well as encouraging children to play with them.

Come back to read more featured posts coming soon.

A Critical Text by Frederik Lesage

A recurring theme underpinning Proboscis’ work is storytelling. Their preoccupation with it is not only reflected in the stories they have told – through works such as Topographies and Tales and Snout – but also in their efforts to explore the practices and forms that enable people to tell stories. For a group of artists to embark on this latter kind of exploration may at first seem counterintuitive; the artist as a teller of stories is a familiar role, the artist as one who helps us tell our own is less so. It is beyond the scope of this paper to convince the reader of the value of such a role. Rather, I will set out to investigate how a specific tool developed by members Proboscis helped to shape one particular collaborative exchange with Warren Craghead in a work titled A Sort of Autobiography. By doing this, I hope to demonstrate how collaborative processes for storytelling like the ones that Proboscis are developing require new frameworks for understanding the kinds of work taking place.

What in the world is a StoryCube?

I often hear this perplexed question when talking to people about my research into Proboscis’ work. Most often, my answer is similar to the one that Proboscis themselves give on their diffusion.org.uk website:

StoryCubes are a tactile thinking and storytelling tool for exploring relationships and narratives. Each face of the cube can illustrate or describe an idea, a thing or an action, placed together it is possible to build up multiple narratives or explore the relationships between them in a novel three-dimensional way. StoryCubes can be folded in two different ways, giving each cube twelve possible faces – and thus two different ways of telling a story, two musings around an idea. Like books turned inside out and upside down they are read by turning and twisting in your hand and combining in vertical and horizontal constructions.”

This answer, for the most part, tells my interlocutor what one can do with a StoryCube – it encompasses a number of actions as part of a process wherein one makes and uses this particular type of object. The StoryCube represents a way to print images and text onto a different kind of paper surface in order to share these images and texts with others in a particular way. But I often find that this answer does not suffice. In this paper I will argue that this problem arises because, although a process description of what one can do with a StoryCube does provide part of the answer for what in the world it is, a more complete answer would require more worlds in which it has been used.

To clarify this obtuse little wordplay, I turn to two different authors who provide two very different models for understanding how culture is made and how it is interpreted: Howard Becker’s art worlds and Henry Jenkin’s story worlds.

Art Worlds
Disciplines such as the sociology of art have gone out of their way to show how artists are not alone in creating cultural objects. It has arguably become a cliché to state this fact. But one must not forget its implication. Howard Becker’s Art Worlds (1982), for example, demonstrates to what degree artistic practices from painting to rock music constitute complex sets of relationships among a number of individuals who accomplish different tasks – the people who make, buy, talk about, pack and un-pack works of art are connected through what he refers to as art worlds. These worlds are populated by different roles including artists, editors, and support personnel. By artists, he means the people who are credited with producing the work. By editors, he means the people who modify the artwork in some way before it reaches its audience. By support personnel, he means the people who help ensure that the artwork is completed and circulated between people but who aren’t credited with producing the artwork itself. This might include a variety of different people including framers, movers and audience members. If one were to apply Becker’s art world model to the world of book publishing and printing, for example, we might say that the artists are the authors, that publishers are editors and that the book printers are part of the support personnel: they reproduce and maintain a set of conventions for the production and distribution of an author’s work.

Part of Becker’s point is that even if we credit authors as the source of a book’s story, significant parts of the book’s final shape will be defined by choices that are the purview of support personnel like printers rather than by the authors: what kind of ink will be used to print the text, the weight and dimensions of the book pages, etc. These decisions, be they based on aesthetic, economic, or other considerations, can often be made without consulting authors and have a significant impact on what readers will hold and read when they get their hands on the finished product. Nevertheless, there are arguably varying degrees of importance attributed these different choices. After all, few of us read books because of the kind of ink it was printed with.

But one should also remember that the distribution of these roles within an art world is not necessarily fixed. In Books in the Digital Age, John B. Thompson writes that it was only in the past two centuries that there has been a distinction in the Western world between what a book publisher does and what a book printer does. Prior to this differentiation, the person who published a book and the person who printed it were one and the same. Just as the distribution of printing and publishing roles can change over time, the significance attributed to these roles might also change.

Becker’s art world model is useful for the answer to my initial question stated at the beginning of this paper because it is a social world model. Placing the StoryCubes into an art world allows me to populate the process answer provided above with a number of different roles:

Proboscis are the designers of the StoryCube who created it as “a tactile thinking and storytelling tool for exploring relationships and narratives”. They invite all sorts of different people from different disciplines to play an artist’s role by using the StoryCube to “illustrate or describe an idea, a thing or an action” and to “build up multiple narratives or explore the relationships between them in a novel three-dimensional way”. The results of all of these different peoples’ work are then made available in various ways to anyone interested in these relationships and narratives. These audience members are invited to “read [the StoryCube] by turning and twisting [it] in your hand and combining in vertical and horizontal constructions.” In some cases, these same audience members take-on additional support personnel roles such as “printers” when they download the StoryCube online and print and assemble it themselves.”

This newly revised version of my answer now has artists and audiences who are working with Proboscis and StoryCubes. But it still seems quite vague. What are these “relationships and narratives” that seem to be the point of making StoryCubes in the first place?

Story Worlds

The second world I turn to for putting my answer together is what I refer to as Henry Jenkins’ “story world” model. In his book Convergence Culture, Jenkins argues that a convergence is taking place between different media that is not simply due to technological changes brought about by digitisation. He believes that in order to understand the changes taking place in media, one needs to include other factors including economic pressures and audience tastes. One of the ways in which he demonstrates this is by analysing how storytellers like the Wachowski brothers developed The Matrix franchise. Jenkins argues that the brothers were not only engaged in the process of making films but that they were in fact engaged in an “art of world building” (116) in which the “artists create compelling environments that cannot be fully explored or exhausted within a single work or even a single medium” (ibid). The Matrix was not only available as a movie trilogy but was also explored and developed in short films, comics and novels by a number of different contributing artists. In other words, today’s creative people – be they individual artists or media conglomerate business executives – need to start to think about a ‘story world’ that is manifested in multiple, interdependent media.

I would argue that one should not interpret Jenkins’ model as suggesting that story worlds exist independently of any specific medium. Rather, the model suggests that other people, not just the author credited with originating the story world, can contribute to the development of a story world. Audience members and other authors can actively reinterpret aspects of story worlds not only through an active interpretation of the text but also by authoring their own parallel contributions. This is significant because it suggests there are contingent relations of power involved in the negotiation of the overall representation and interpretation of those same story worlds. The simplest example is how laws for copyright are employed to ensure that authors and their publishers maintain certain kinds of control over the development of story worlds.

For me to explain how Jenkins’ story world model is useful for answering my initial question will take a bit more effort. In order to fully clarify why I have gone through the trouble of bringing these two very different worlds from two very different research traditions, I will need to demonstrate how they can be combined and applied to a specific example which follows bellow. For now, however, suffice it to say that the story world model deals with meaning and how the narratives and relationships that stem from the process of making and reading StoryCubes do not appear in isolation from other related meaningful artefacts. How one interprets the meaning of a particular StoryCube is embedded within a particular set of intertextual relationships that I refer to as a story world.

We now have two different ‘world’ models for explaining what are StoryCubes:

1. the art world model as a way to understand how a particular artwork is produced, distributed and appreciated through a set of interdependent roles enacted by people and
2. the story world model as a way to understand how meaning can be conceived as part of a number of different texts produced by a number of different people.

A sort of printing experiment – The case of Warren Craghead

I will now examine Warren Craghead’s A Sort of Autobiography and how some critics interpreted his work as a way of illustrating how both models presented above enable me to better answer what in the world is a StoryCube. A Sort of Autobiography is a series of ten StoryCubes whose outer faces are covered by drawings of Craghead’s own making. Taken together, the ten cubes are intended to be interpreted as his “possible” autobiography – hence the title of the work. Here is a description of the work posted by Matthew J. Brady on his “Warren Peace” blog as part of a longer review of the project:

With the onset of digital comics, an infinite number of possible ways to use the medium has erupted, and even the weirdest experiments are now visible for any number of people to experience. This is great for comics fans, who can now experience the sort of odd idea that creators might not have shared with the world otherwise. Warren Craghead’s A Sort of Autobiography is a fascinating example, using the tools provided by the site Diffusion.org.uk to create a series of three-dimensional comic strips, with each in a series of ten cubes representing a moment in his life, separated by decades. Some of them seem to simply place an image on each side of the cube (with one side of each working as a “title page”), while others wrap images around the surface, and several working to make faces representing Craghead at that cube’s age. It’s a neat way to use the medium, if you can call it that.”

If we attempted to place A Sort of Autobiography in the art world model presented earlier, it would be fairly easy to follow Brady’s lead and look to comic strips as a guiding template. One could say that Craghead is the artist-author who created the work. Determining who plays this role is fairly easy because Craghead has authored a number of comic strips using a similar visual style. Things get a bit more complicated when we try to determine who is the editor-publisher. Based on the information I’ve been able to gather, there doesn’t seem to be anyone other than Craghead who makes editorial choices about the content of the final artwork – the style of drawing, the way in which the story unfolds, etc. There may be some “invisible”, un-credited co-editors who help Craghead with his drawing and choice of subject matter but they are not formally acknowledged and I have not tried to enquire whether or not this is the case. What is clear, however, is that Proboscis also do take-on aspects of the editor-publisher role: Proboscis commissioned the project as part of their Transformations series, the works are made available through Proboscis’ Diffusion website and, of course, Proboscis designed what Brady refers to as the “tools” used to publish the project.

It is this last aspect that seems particularly problematic for Brady. If we focus (rather narrowly) on some of the comments Brady makes in passing about the StoryCubes as a support for the work in his review, it is clear that they make it more difficult for him to pin down the project. Much of Brady’s review seems to implicitly be asking “Is this a comic?”. In describing the work, he uses the language of comic books to help him describe it. For example:

“Some of [the cubes] seem to simply place an image on each side of the cube (with one side of each working as a “title page”) […]”

Here Brady suggests that Craghead employs a particular convention of comics – the title page – as part of how he constructs some of his cubes. But though one of the panels located at the same place on each of the ten cubes does have writing that indicates the year and how old Craghead is at the time (ex. 1970, I am zero years old; 1980, I am ten years old; etc.), there is little to suggest that this choice is necessarily drawn from comics. This might explain why Brady puts “title page” in quotation marks. Brady seems pleased with the overall results of the project but also refrains from categorizing the result outright as a comic. Recall how he ends the paragraph I cite above with:

“It’s a neat way to use the medium, if you can call it that.”

Further along in his review of the project, Brady still seems hesitant:

“Does the whole thing work as a comic? Sure, if you want to put the work into interpreting it, not to mention the assembly time, which can make for a fun little craft project.”

One could argue that Brady may be pushing the comics category a bit: Craghead’s own website doesn’t seem to put so much emphasis on whether or not this, or any of his other projects for that matter, should be interpreted as comics. But Brady is not the only one who approaches A Sort of Autobiography in this way. Inspired by Brady’s reading, Scott McCloud – an authority on the comics medium if there ever was one – characterizes Craghead’s work as an “experimental comic”. Brady and McCloud’s categorisations of A Sort of Autobiography as a comic matter in part because it strengthens a number of associations with the comics art world. For example, if one reads A Sort of Autobiography as a reader of comics, then it does involve some additional assembly time. But what if one categorised it as part of an origami art world? Then this assembly time would be taken for granted (but Craghead’s drawings on the cubes might be interpreted as an oddity).

But Brady and McCloud are able to make this kind of association in part because they are familiar with the author’s previous work. Craghead is an established comics artist for both Brady and McCloud. It is therefore possible to compare A Sort of Autobiography to his other works. This is where I need to bring in the second world model presented above – the story world. As stated previously, the definition of story worlds based on Jenkins’ work depends on a set of possible meanings within “environments that cannot be fully explored or exhausted within a single work or even a single medium”. One could argue, that Craghead creates a similar kind of story world based on a particular style of illustration and subject matter that is consistent with other works he has created. So rather than working with comparisons to other comics, Brady’s reading can simply refer to Craghead’s established story world.

But instead of placing Craghead’s biography as the foundation of our story world, why couldn’t we instead use the StoryCube’s story as our starting point? That is, rather than assuming that authors are the only ones who create meaning by telling stories, what if we assumed that Proboscis had designed a compelling story environment “that cannot be fully explored or exhausted within a single work” and that Craghead’s A Sort of Autobiography was only one of the many parallel contributions to the meaning of this medium?

This kind of inversion is problematic because our contemporary culture, for the most part, depends on consistent formal conventions to be able to make comparisons and value judgments. That isn’t simply at the level of individual artists, but as a whole. Jenkins’ story world model does allow for all sorts of different media, but most of the media he discusses are based in familiar art worlds – comics, books, television programmes, videogames, and movies – art worlds whose implicit formal conventions allow authors to tell their stories in relatively unproblematic ways. But if we don’t know what a StoryCube is, how are we supposed to know what these conventions are? How can we know if this is a “good” or “bad” StoryCube since most of us don’t know how a StoryCube is supposed to work

I would therefore argue that Craghead, Brady and McCloud are telling us their stories of the StoryCube that involves mixing together art world and story world. They are using the more or less familiar narrative of how one makes and reads comics to tell us how to make and read a StoryCube. Craghead is relating to us the tale of how an illustrator can assume the artist’s role in the process of making a StoryCube by making different kind of drawings on it. Brady and McCloud are producing accounts of how to be readers of StoryCubes. Just as with any other kind of story world, these contributions provide only partial insights into the whole story environment and how one might participate in its creation and extension.

Open worlds

The example of A Sort of Autobiography suggests why Proboscis’ initial definition, the one presented at the beginning of this text, was left under-developed: their objective is to develop a meaningful world in which people can tell stories – one that invites people to populate it with their own art worlds and story worlds. In order for there to be enough room for others to create and sustain this kind of world, Proboscis may have to allow the StoryCubes to remain an insufficient process and an incomplete story. But they must also continue the delicate work of articulating how this incompleteness can itself be a meaningful and fertile ground for others to complete. The bookleteer platform is arguably one step in this direction in that it is an attempt to generate an online community of people who use StoryCubes and other “Diffusion Shareables”.

In the end, the true challenge may not be whether any of the answers about “What in the world is a StoryCube?” are sufficiently clear or exhaustive, but whether or not one of them can entice you into telling your own story of the StoryCube.

Frederik Lesage, March 2011

RP: Why did you choose to use StoryCubes in your workshop?

ST: I am very keen to develop and use 3d tools when delivering training because it appeals to the kinaesthetic learners and suits people with a visual rather than text based learning preference. Plus, 3d objects are more likely to end up on a table not tucked away in a folder with all the a4 paper handouts.

RP: Do you think they are an effective tool? If so, please specify.

ST: they are a highly effective tool, they demand a high level of engagement from a participant, you can’t just coast through an exercise you have to work out what you think and answer the question that has been set.

RP: How did people react to the StoryCubes? What did they do with them?

ST: they always react to them very well, they are part of a full one day workshop where every activity is accompanied by a 3d object … a visual mnemonic for the learning. the task is to select appropriate stickers from a wide selection and create a storycube to act as a reminder of actions to undertake as part of marketing communications.

RP: Were there any interesting stories that came up?

ST: well the stories that tend to come up relate to the participant having to make choices … there are only 6 sides and about 20 possible stickers so they have to be focused in their selection and they can’t fit in more than one sticker per side.

RP: Would you use the StoryCubes again? For the same or other purposes?

ST: I’ve been using them for several years with this workshop and have recommended them to others, I will continue to do both.

RP: Have you used the cube format in any other projects?

ST: I use them from time to time in other workshops and when designing new learning experiences.

RP: What qualities do the StoryCubes bring to a project like this?

ST: easy to use, versatile, inexpensive, accretive, promote dialogue & conversation.

Sarah gave some really interesting insights here. My favourite quote is, ’3d objects are more likely to end up on the table not tucked away in a folder with all the a4 paper handouts.’ This, to me illustrates the different type of dimension the StoryCubes bring to the table – much more interactive, playful, and way more exciting than in a piece of paper.

Judging by Sarah’s response, not only is there a positive response from the participants, ‘they always react well to them’ but also from Sarah herself, ‘i’ve been using them for several years, I will continue to do both… they are a highly effective tool…’

Be sure to come back to read next week’s surprise feature post!

I emailed Lisa especially because of her design knowledge and background and she came back with some insightful thoughts.

Asked why and how the StoryCubes were used Lisa mentioned,

“The Rijeka StoryCubes were designed for a conference-like gathering…they were part of a gift-like package of items.“

Lisa also mentioned,

“they were designed to be more like a souvenir shareable than an interactive tool.”

I like how the StoryCubes, in any situation can create a more relaxed atmosphere, which in turn I believe can create more interesting and inspiring narratives. In my email response, Lisa went on to say,

“I used the StoryCubes for this because , as there was no formal activity planned, their playful quality would encourage the participants to explore the information.”

One of my favourite parts about using StoryCubes is that you can put anything from text, pictures to drawings on each face and I like the idea of having just an image, as it enables someone to interpret it for themselves. My thought co-insides with what Lisa mentioned about the shape and the images used on the StoryCubes,

“I think that the 3 dimensional display of the imagery also meant that in playing with the cubes, different combinations of images would get displayed together, potentially suggesting a sense of the different narratives.”

Looking at what Lisa discussed, I think the cubes were successful in their purpose, in terms of informality and being informative about the city.

Keep posted for more featured posts!