When we had our second review, I realized the limiting factor in the piece was meaning. There wasn't anything there. Rather than make up a concept to suit (aha) the existing concept (ie ridiculing the monarchy like they're in the stocks and we're in the French Revolution) I took some time to consider what we talked about in class.
One of the things we discussed was the visuals of the end result. Given enough time, all we'd have left is a black or red piece of paper. Without some story behind it, that would be a really disappointing product after so much work. Professor Gallanter mentioned the idea of entropy, of the trend of things towards chaos. He suggested the idea that rather than painting over the picture, the audience could instead rearrange the pieces. I shrugged off the idea too quickly because I couldn't see how it could be conceivably done except on the computer.
After class, I started thinking over the potential meanings behind such a movement. It could symbolize confusion, or inner turmoil. I wanted to bring in the leadership connotations of the Kings of the four suits. Then I thought about what could happen if I were to instead take pieces from one king and switch it with another. Then we're bringing in the ideas of mixing cultures and ideas, the sort of cultural drift, social melding that occurs when two countries comingle.
If we were to modify the original concept to draw from two decks, and the suit of each card selects a King and the number refers to the row from which we select, we will be left with a visually interesting piece on top of the more robust concept. I am making the decision to leave the border which contains the suit and K. This will result in the final card being recognizable only by name and a few remaining pieces, similar to the concept of a country that has in essence merged with its neighbors, retaining only its most ingrained traditions and customs.
No comments:
Post a Comment