This wooden figure by Rob Hodgson is a good example of work that Lawrence Zeegan is perhaps pushing against. It has no function beyond being an aesthetic piece of illustration, to be bought and owned. It has no message or statement, it doesn't comment on or say anything. It's execution is very simple, the image making very basic, but it is not this that causes it's lack of substance, instead it's the reasons for it's production and the purpose it serves as a piece. The motives are personal to the creator however and little is given to hint at this in the finished object, but it is clear that it is not a reaction to anything particularly profound or deeper than probably the manifestation of the desire to make imagery and a finished product. It doesn't provoke any questions or even a specific reaction, and certainly doesn't comment on or nod to the big debates of society Zeegan believes illustration should.
What it does spark is the age old debate about the definition and requirements of illustration. Zeegan would perhaps not argue whether this is illustration in nature but more that it isn't pushing the industry forward, or reaching a wide audience or making a change. It is applied art so would fall fairly comfortably within the discipline, and if commissioned by a company it would then also have a more defined purpose, but as a personal product made to be sold as the object itself, it could be thrown into a grey area, only to be transferred to one discipline or another through personal opinion. It is more a commodity than a questioning, purpose-driven, change provoking piece of illustration.
No comments:
Post a Comment