6 Responses from Simon Downs.
1. Has working on this subject/theme altered your drawing process in any way?
In all honesty the ‘∆’ theme fitted into an existing research agenda I had been pursuing: that of technology disrupting existing design practice and culture. Although not trained as a typographer, typography is one of the most obvious places to play with these disruptive technological artifacts. As an area of culture it has been continually made and re-made through the action of technological disruption, while still retaining its creative origins in the act of drawing. The conceptual seed is realized through the act of drawing and finally disseminated through technology ‘x’, ‘y’ or ‘z’. The drawn form remains, and dominates, the broadcast technology is subordinate.
As such the very ambiguous vacuity of the ‘∆’ pandered to my interests.
2. Has the idea of a possible collaborative outcome altered your thinking/working methods in any way?
The prospect of so many peers ‘reading’ my work is quite terrifying. But all I can do is work and write honestly in the hope that someone will find something that sparks his or her curiosity.
My industrial practice has been founded on working collaboratively on scales from teams of thirty [large multimedia studios] down to two [me and a client]. In truth I’m not sure I can think of ‘work’ as a solitary activity.
3. How has the experience of your practice being reviewed and viewed by your peers in Triptych influenced the work?
Fear, panic and mind-numbing paralysis: peers are intrinsically more frightening than clients. A disappointed client merely goes away, peers stay and gift you with their thoughts. This awareness of ongoing scrutiny has engendered a degree of scholarly care in my practice that would normally be reserved for my written research.
4. Have you discussed this piece of work/process with anyone else in Triptych while carrying out the work?
I’m shamed to say I habitually use several of my colleagues as well-informed sounding boards. They are very tolerant.
5. Has anything you saw at the Triptych IMMA symposium influenced your thinking or process in any way?
As one of the Tracey Editors I am continually amazed at what people consider ‘Drawing’ and continually heartened by the uses they put it to. The IMMA symposium reinforced this view. Viva Drawing!
6. What collaborative outcome would you suggest as being appropriate for this research group?
I’m not sure that a single collaborative outcome is the point. Like humanity itself, we are best, strongest and most beautiful in our diversity. The power of the Triptych Project lies in this multiplicity: in a myriad of voices all calling out the word ‘Drawing’.
While I accept this is the sort of thinking that does not easily win research grants, it gains strength precisely because the outcome is unbounded and unpredictable.
Let us be mutual, but united.
In all honesty the ‘∆’ theme fitted into an existing research agenda I had been pursuing: that of technology disrupting existing design practice and culture. Although not trained as a typographer, typography is one of the most obvious places to play with these disruptive technological artifacts. As an area of culture it has been continually made and re-made through the action of technological disruption, while still retaining its creative origins in the act of drawing. The conceptual seed is realized through the act of drawing and finally disseminated through technology ‘x’, ‘y’ or ‘z’. The drawn form remains, and dominates, the broadcast technology is subordinate.
As such the very ambiguous vacuity of the ‘∆’ pandered to my interests.
2. Has the idea of a possible collaborative outcome altered your thinking/working methods in any way?
The prospect of so many peers ‘reading’ my work is quite terrifying. But all I can do is work and write honestly in the hope that someone will find something that sparks his or her curiosity.
My industrial practice has been founded on working collaboratively on scales from teams of thirty [large multimedia studios] down to two [me and a client]. In truth I’m not sure I can think of ‘work’ as a solitary activity.
3. How has the experience of your practice being reviewed and viewed by your peers in Triptych influenced the work?
Fear, panic and mind-numbing paralysis: peers are intrinsically more frightening than clients. A disappointed client merely goes away, peers stay and gift you with their thoughts. This awareness of ongoing scrutiny has engendered a degree of scholarly care in my practice that would normally be reserved for my written research.
4. Have you discussed this piece of work/process with anyone else in Triptych while carrying out the work?
I’m shamed to say I habitually use several of my colleagues as well-informed sounding boards. They are very tolerant.
5. Has anything you saw at the Triptych IMMA symposium influenced your thinking or process in any way?
As one of the Tracey Editors I am continually amazed at what people consider ‘Drawing’ and continually heartened by the uses they put it to. The IMMA symposium reinforced this view. Viva Drawing!
6. What collaborative outcome would you suggest as being appropriate for this research group?
I’m not sure that a single collaborative outcome is the point. Like humanity itself, we are best, strongest and most beautiful in our diversity. The power of the Triptych Project lies in this multiplicity: in a myriad of voices all calling out the word ‘Drawing’.
While I accept this is the sort of thinking that does not easily win research grants, it gains strength precisely because the outcome is unbounded and unpredictable.
Let us be mutual, but united.
posted by TRIANGLE at
3:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home