The Two-Way Interaction Between Human State and Material Behavior

In long-term records of material behavior, the person involved is always a constant variable. Materials do not complete their transformations entirely isolated from people. Human judgment plays a part in choosing colors, deciding where materials land, timing an intervention, adjusting the scale of a movement, and deciding whether to continue, modify, or keep a specific state.

In observed samples, the relationship between people and materials is not a one-way control. Instead, it functions as a two-way process: a person's physical and mental state acts as a background variable that influences their judgments and physical actions; once these actions are applied to the material, the resulting form and feedback from the material change the person's state, which then influences the next phase of work.

1. The Relationship Between Human State and Final Results

Observation records show that when a person is in a poorer state, material behavior is more likely to diverge from original expectations. However, this observation does not equal the formula: "The better the person's state, the better the material's final result."

Different materials carry different degrees of inherent unpredictability. For materials with high randomness, even if a person remains stable, focused, and clear in judgment, the final outcome will not necessarily match expectations.

Therefore, a more accurate statement is: When a person's state is poor, their judgments and actions are more prone to fluctuations, increasing the likelihood that material behavior will be affected by these action changes. Human state fluctuation and material randomness remain two separate dimensions of observation.

2. Two-Way Dynamics Across Different Material Systems

1. High Human Control (e.g., Watercolor)

In watercolor samples, human physical involvement is high. Selecting colors, dipping the brush, picking a point on paper, guiding movement, applying pressure, controlling speed, and deciding dwell time all depend on direct physical control.

In these samples, changes in human state enter the material process at multiple points:

• Selection and Mixing: Color choices and mixing tendencies align with the person's state at that moment.
• Action Execution: The brush's path and dwell time on paper respond to physical stability.
• Timing Decisions: Choosing to stop early or end a session altogether acts as a judgment node.

What watercolor samples record is not just the final state of pigment on paper, but also the different decisions made regarding colors, movements, and session duration under varying personal states.

2. Material Feedback Reactions (e.g., Oil Pastels)

Oil pastel samples show a noticeable feedback loop. In an early sample where the operator was unfamiliar with the material:

• Build-up and Removal: As pastels built up on paper and deviated from expectations, that visual state first reached human judgment, altering the person's emotional state. This led to corrective actions: scraping off the surface to start over.
• Repeated Modifications: When a specific area missed expectations, modifications continued for an extended period. Overlaying, scraping, and re-applying built up local thickness over time. However, extending work time did not necessarily lead to an outcome closer to expectations.

In this sample type, a clear chain forms: Material Form → Human Observation and Judgment → Change in Human State → New Physical Actions → New Material Form.

3. Materials with Flow and Unpredictability (e.g., Alcohol Ink)

High-flow liquids spread and evolve across open space, meaning they cannot be completely dictated by human effort.

• Recipe Failures and Compressed Action: Ink formulas do not remain permanently fixed. When a formula performs poorly or loses effectiveness, the operator often feels disappointed, rushed to finish, or less willing to continue testing. This state compresses testing time and simplifies movements into repetitive, basic steps just to check basic results.
• Sensory Feedback from Odor: The noticeable odor from alcohol ink acts directly on human sensation. Prolonged exposure can cause discomfort, reducing hand stability or causing the body to tilt away from the source. These shifts in posture further redirect the ink's movement path.

The feedback path here runs as: Material Odor/Flow State → Human Sensory Perception → Body Movement Shift → Change in Ink Path.

4. Local Spreading and Chain Reactions (e.g., Acrylic Cell Pouring)

Acrylic cell pouring also features high fluidity, with close connections between local details and the overall work:

• Unmet Expectations and Mood Feedback: If mixed fluid paint fails to form expected "cell" patterns as it pours and spreads, this visual shortfall causes disappointment.
• Local Errors Spreading to the Whole: Fluid materials lack the pinpoint accuracy of a brush. When a localized area strays from expectations, corrective attempts easily spread through the flowing paint, causing broader shifts across the surface.
• Cascading Decisions: Frustration from failed local adjustments often prompts the operator to scrape the entire canvas or scrap the current piece.

5. Precise Preparation and Loss Avoidance (e.g., Handmade Pigments/Colorant Bottling)

From raw dry pigment powder, to liquid mixing, to final bottling, human state often dictates when to intervene.

Because mistakes during this process carry a high re-work cost, operators in a poor state tend to choose non-intervention: pausing or delaying work to avoid operational errors.

Conversely, physical issues during preparation (such as recipe errors, air gaps during bottling, or changes during storage) enter human judgment as passive triggers, forcing a decision to rework the batch or adjust steps.

3. How Local Changes Spread to Overall State

For high-flow or heavily layered materials, local anomalies easily expand into a re-evaluation of the entire work:

1. A local area shows an unexpected form or fails to meet expectations.
2. The operator notices the anomaly, triggering a shift in judgment and mood.
3. The operator intervenes to make local adjustments.
4. If the material is still moving, local intervention can cause wider shifts across the surface.
5. The operator re-evaluates the entire surface, ultimately deciding to keep, modify, or redo the piece entirely.

This shows that keeping or discarding a sample depends neither solely on material properties nor purely on human intent, but on the continuous exchange between both.

4. Summary and Archival Value

In long-term records of material behavior, the human-material relationship is a closed feedback loop:

Human State → Judgment & Choice → Action Execution → Material Form Change → Visual/Sensory Feedback → Human State Shift → Subsequent Actions

In a material behavior archive, the person serves as operator, observer, and recipient of feedback. Documenting the exact nodes where human states enter the material process—and where material feedback reshapes human action—forms an essential element for tracking long-term material evolution.

Recording these two-way interactions is not meant to eliminate fluctuations, but to preserve the true trajectory of both material and person across time.