"Did you choose the colours for a reason?"
The colours are not in some way symbolic, but follow the (arbitrarily chosen) rule that no colour is used more than once (if we are being pedantic here, I guess I mean "shades" - no specific shade of a colour is used more than once). I could make up a reason why the colour choices are somehow significant or meaningful, but I feel that that would go against the intention of the piece. The colours end up being meaningless; each is chosen with aesthetics in mind and goes with the colour next to it, but all together they make up a muddled selection of unplanned-looking rainbow colours arranged in a pattern that to me conveys both monotony and chaos, and well as being kind of ugly but also kind of pretty. I guess the idea is that you'd ask, 'What exactly are you going for here?' and the answer would be, 'Nothing, but it took some time.'
"Should there be more contrast between the pink letters and the orange surrounding them?"
Aiming for readability would imply that the piece was created for a purpose, and then it would not be 'unnecessary.'
"Does the piece's setting matter?"
I think it's best taken out of context, so that it doesn't refer as specifically to a certain type of person or lifestyle. The way it's presented currently creates an ambiguity that I like. It's folded up, and there is a lot of unused fabric behind the embroidered pattern; it makes an effort to be neat and finished, but gently fails. It looks soft, like a cushion or quilt, but it does not have a function. Putting the piece in some sort of context risks upsetting the balance.
"Should it be bigger?"
A smaller amount of unnecessary labour is as unnecessary as a larger amount of unnecessary labour. It is either unnecessary or necessary, and the quantity does not affect this.
I may have to come back to this with further made-up questions, but I feel as though the nature of the piece leads me to answer every question, even those posed by myself, with some variation of, "This is all inconsequential."
