These were the last two drawings I attempted for this project and for me they encapsulate two musings of mine. I really wanted more so than the other works, to place the viewer right in the middle of the two drawings. Not to compare but more to ask questions to what the differences meant. ‘Shade’ was drawn first with a lot of layers and pressure so that the surface is dense and reflective. The figure is a figure but because of the light many of the features are hidden. For ‘Shades’ I photographed the finished ‘Shade’ on my phone and simply upped the contrast. It revealed so much more of the image but I was left wondering how much of this was computer generated. How much was this new image created digitally? It made me think a lot about truth and reality and what I was really looking at. If this small manipulation was so dramatic and revealing surely one can always manipulate images for their own purpose. With our ‘faith’ in photography as the most reliable way to capture/document something, it seems far too easy to deceive a viewer with the simple manipulations on phone. In a dramatic sense this simple point could undermine the very foundations of our society in terms of things like the law. Could a prosecution up the contrast on a photo and reveal damning information, that is computer generated, to win a court case? Can a manipulated photo disprove someone’s story? Secondly I was watching an Attenborough documentary about colour. A theory that was proposed during the show was about the Zebra. The zebra due to its unique patterns and colour seems like an evolutionary anomaly. The distinctive stripes would seem as if it would be more of a hindrance to evade predators. However Attenborough states that optically the stripes confuse the predators in predicting the zebras movements and therefore allow an escape. He further strengthens this argument in reference to research on flies. It has been proven that far fewer flies land on the zebra and graze, than the other beasts in say the Serengeti. Again this is thought to be because the fly optically is confused and can’t land. This made me consider how we as humans land on images and discern information. Are there aesthetic landing spots that feel comfortable for us humans? Once we see something why do we engage with it or even dismiss it? By creating two similar drawings I hoped to create a scenario where one would be intrigued to land and think about what one was looking at. To ask questions. Optically I think the eye and then the brain will automatically trigger responses based on very subtle differences between two similar things. Like a child’s game of spot the difference. Maybe by creating two images it actually solidifies as one and particularly with colour, the more one looks at it the more the colours become apparent. A two point perspective becomes a single point perspective.
You can unsubscribe or change your preferences at any time by clicking the link in our emails.