Thursday, October 14, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
A box within a box within a box within a box.
Monday, October 11, 2010
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
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.
Friday, October 1, 2010
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!