Learning about the restriction

Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.

At a design exhibition, I examined a wooden stool made from many short pieces joined together. The surface was level, but the number of joins made it look unnecessarily complicated. I wondered why the maker had not selected three longer lengths of timber.

A label explained that the exhibition challenge required participants to use only discarded offcuts, none longer than thirty centimetres. I looked again and began to appreciate how carefully the different pieces had been fitted. The restriction turned what I had seen as untidiness into evidence of planning and patience. Even so, I remained uncertain about how easily all those joins could be maintained after years of use. The challenge explained the design, but it did not settle every question about the finished stool.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

The short film remained in one room, with the camera fixed in a corner. At first, I found the unchanging view frustrating. Important conversations sometimes took place at the edge of the screen, and I wanted the camera to move closer.

After the screening, the director said that every film in the workshop had to be recorded from a single position. Watching part of it again, I noticed how the actors crossed the room to reveal changes in their relationships. A character who began alone in the foreground gradually moved towards the others. The fixed camera now seemed like a demanding problem that the director had handled thoughtfully. However, knowing the rule did not make every distant moment effective, and I still felt that some expressions were difficult to see.

In each extract, the narrator finds out that the work had to be made within a rule set for its maker.

What similarities are there in how this knowledge changes each narrator's response to the work? Use evidence from both texts to support your answer.