Concept Sketch - Preliminary

Started thinking about how the 'hit' could directly alter a course of action. Its almost like the undoing of something. The breaking of something set. I pictured a man walk monotonously and upon a certain number of hit, you are able to change his course, and change it again and again.

And what if that basic a narrative were to apply to a herd. Something like a Simon Says situation. Taking that further, what if there were a group of people marching (with great purpose) and upon an allotted number of hits 3 people leave the group to Jay walk on the other side. And then more join them...

and some more, until the previous action has no basis left.

Yet a new group has been formed and you need to go through the whole thing all over again to break that new 'conformity'.

It illustrates a helpless situation, at the same time, hoping, in small amounts, to give the viewer a sense of accomplishment of having achieved something only to realise it was futile.

This narrative im hoping to drive through one of the developed loops from my previous approach :

There is a box within a box within a box within a box.

Breaking every conformity results in yet another..

Though there is still something missing... it still stands as an extremely generic narrative. How can it be pushed further into something more visceral.

Not just men and boxes... ?

Working on the loop

A box within a box within a box within a box.

Having decided my strongest loop and metaphor to construct a narrative, i have gone ahead constructing the preliminary loop for the interface.

4 layers to be peeled off the box.

Relooking at my content. When it all made sense.

I went back to my proposal to look at how i'd broken down my project into the criteria specified earlier, hoping that its clinical nature would bring some clarity to my content.

I needed to streamline it.. So i re read the brief.

Today, in a world of fast developing technology, where one can’t decide whether a phone is

a camera, a compass or a gardening tool one begins to question the origin of objects,

products, tools that feed and manipulate everyday routines, lifestyles that of basic human

living.

Are we creating a near artificial army of products that is making life so easy that it stunts the

basic natural evolutionary processes of man?

What is the basic need for development? What is the basic need for

consumption/consumerism? What drives competition? And how will all this play out?

More importantly, what drives us, as individuals? What is the core reason for being today?

These are questions I wish to use to direct the viewer through the scenario.

As an illustrator, I would like to use image building to create a space and an image that is

relevant and that resonates with our everyday lives, our routines, our goals, our aspirations

and talk about the loss of simplicity in the face of it.

On the other hand juxtapose this idea to a fictionalised character, namely “Box” and its

evolutionary process alongside us and how he/it may attain a certain spiritual side that we

have nearly lost.

I had begun by questioning material and commercial culture. Our relationship to objects and things that we use and why we so conform to them. How would you look at a coke bottle without its name and brand identity, through its sheer shape . Sure you recognise its shape as a bottle, but it doesnt speak out to you anymore. In a way you don't trust it. But that line of questioning was preliminary.

It moved beyond just speaking environments toward philosophy, political ideology and social positioning of oneself, thats where depiction became a challenge and very nonspecific and impersonal to a great extent. I as a 22 year old am not that politically sound and nor do i have the experience or the right in one way to talk about these issues at a generalised level.

I was never getting into specifics of what the box actually is. In one way it is for the viewer to realise it for themselves. The box is differently constructed for different people. Again. It is constructed by them.

At the same time aesthetically, i need a complementary action to my breaking the box. Conformity. The conformist and the nonconformist. Every broken conformity leads to a 'nonconformity' which leads to a conformity. A box within a box within a box.

This is what i want to say very simply put at a basic level.

Tryouts

Created a 15 sec stop motion to see how the illustrations could be treated / what they evoked / how people would interact with them / interpret them or even understand them for that matter.

They didn't or as a matter of fact i didnt.

Well.. better now than later :|

Ramesh's Feedback

The imagery isnt really painting any picture. It moves from one abstract to another and one cannot expect the viewer to digest all that.

The subject has the capacity to hit a point. What is that point? Do you want to hit a point?

There can be two approaches. One which is explanatory and the other that says something specific. Both are valid.

Its okay to not have tangible, real things to show to say what you want to say.

If its absurdity you want to play with, then go absurd all out. Don't hide or be scared.

Its not that you can't speak through abstraction, its just that, in your situation, you need to have two complementary things to say if you want to put 2 and 2 together.

The act of breaking a block is strong, violent and that needs to be justified by a visual or a connection equally strong.

What do you want to say? And whatever it is, say it strongly, set a bracket for yourself. Be a little more specific in the realm of abstraction and drive the point home!