The nani project 2.0: evolving material

Nani 1.0 taught me how much possibility could exist within discarded materials. It began with the simple idea of transforming textile scraps into yarn and grew into a series of experiments with weaving, knitting, crochet, fabric, polythene and other forms of waste. The final material was vibrant, tactile and expressive, but once I began looking at it as a material for production rather than purely as an experiment, I realised that there were a few things that needed to evolve.

The first was neatness.

The irregularity that made the material interesting during experimentation also made it difficult to control as a finished textile. The combination of fabric and plastic produced a highly textured surface, but the loose fibres, uneven yarn and visible plastic elements could make the final material feel visually busy. I wanted to retain the character of the discarded textiles while creating something more refined and intentional.

There was, however, another concern that became increasingly important as I thought about taking the material beyond experimentation: uniformity in production.

In Nani 1.0, the yarn itself was highly irregular. When that yarn was used for knitting, the process had to account for not only the usual variable of knitting tension, but also the variable thickness and structure of the yarn. A conventional yarn is relatively consistent, which means that once the knitting tension and stitch count are established, the resulting dimensions are reasonably predictable. With our waste-derived yarn, every section could behave slightly differently.

This created a practical problem. Even if two pieces were knitted using the exact same number of stitches and rows, there was no guarantee that they would end up being the same size. The difference in yarn thickness, combined with variations in tension, could alter the final dimensions considerably. For a material that was intended to eventually move towards repeatable production, this lack of predictability was something I could not ignore.

Nani 2.0 therefore became an exercise not only in refining the appearance of the material, but also in making the process more controlled.

One of the first changes we introduced was sorting the fabric scraps by type. In Nani 1.0, different kinds of fabric could come together fairly freely. This created beautiful variation, but it also contributed to the inconsistency of the yarn. Fabrics behave differently depending on their composition, construction, weight and flexibility. Combining all of them without distinction meant that the resulting yarn could change considerably from one section to another.

By sorting the scraps according to fabric type, we were able to create a much more predictable starting point. Materials with similar characteristics could be processed together rather than allowing completely different fabrics to influence the yarn at every stage. This was a small change in the workflow, but it had a significant effect on the material.

The second major change was the decision to spin the fabric strips on a peti charkha.

The charkha gave us a way to bring the strips together into a more cohesive and controlled yarn. Instead of simply using cut fabric strips in their irregular form, spinning allowed us to manipulate the material and create greater consistency in its thickness and structure.

This also meant leaving the plastic bags behind.

The polythene had been an important part of Nani 1.0, particularly because it allowed us to incorporate another existing waste stream into the material. However, it contributed to the irregularity of the yarn and the final textile. Once the focus of Nani 2.0 shifted towards consistency and refinement, it became clear that the fabric itself offered enough potential to explore without introducing the additional variable of plastic.

Removing the polythene simplified the material system. Sorting the fabric by type gave us greater control over what was entering the yarn, while spinning gave us greater control over how those materials were brought together.

Together, these changes addressed both of the major concerns that had emerged from Nani 1.0. The material became visually neater, but more importantly, it became technically more predictable.

This distinction was important to me. The goal was never to make the material perfectly uniform. That would almost defeat the purpose of working with discarded textiles in the first place. The variations in colour, texture and previous use are what give the material its identity. What I wanted was controlled irregularity rather than unpredictability.

The evolution from Nani 1.0 to Nani 2.0 was therefore not about abandoning the qualities of the first material. It was about identifying which qualities were intentional and which were simply consequences of a process that had not yet been refined.

Nani 1.0 allowed us to discover what the material could do. Nani 2.0 asked how we could make that material more consistent without taking away what made it interesting.

The process became much more deliberate. Fabric was sorted by type, transformed into strips and spun on the peti charkha to create a more consistent yarn. That yarn could then be used in knitting with greater confidence that the same process would produce comparable results. The number of variables was reduced, making the material more suitable for repeated production.

This was an important shift in the project. It moved Nani from being purely an exploration of what could be made from waste towards thinking about how a waste-derived material could function within a design system.

For me, that is where Nani 2.0 became a true evolution rather than simply another version. The first iteration taught us through experimentation. The second began to translate those lessons into a more considered process.

The waste was still there. The imperfections were still there. The history of the fabric was still visible.

But now, there was a little more control over what happened next.

Nani 1.0 asked, "What can this material become?"

Nani 2.0 asked, "How can we refine it enough to make it again?"