Making a Movie Camera

<p><strong>This thesis began without a thesis. It started instead with a curiosity, an internal itch that turned into an exploration of how I see the world and how I try to make things within it. What emerged is a body of work that isn’t so much about answering a question, but about discovering what the question even is. Rather than building on fixed theories or predetermined frameworks, this work let itself unfold through the act of doing. The ideas were allowed to form in their own time, often messy and unexpected. This allowed for a design that was always evolving, just like a conversation. The work led the way. This was never about control, it was about listening. At the centre of this is the idea that design could behave more like dialogue, always shifting and open. That imperfect communication might express something more honest and personal than clean-cut words ever can.</strong></p><p>This project resists the idea of clarity being a goal. Instead, designing the bits that machines can’t do. This is a practice of design not through knowing, but feeling around in the dark, through embracing the untranslatable. Along the way, it became a kind of antithesis to clear words themselves. This thesis sits between Kentridge’s words of “We need a mistranslation of the world to understand it” (Kentridge, 2022) and Wittgenstein’s widely spread, “The limits of my language are the limits of my world” (Wittgenstein, 2001 , p.68). In a world increasingly defined by clarity, certainty, and machine-like communication, this thesis moves in the opposite direction. It values mistranslation over explanation, feeling over definition. It explores the limits of communication, embracing the idea that sometimes, to understand the world, we need to let it speak in ways we can’t fully understand.</p>