Non-Objects
Context is often what drives design, and it is the responsibility of the designer to ensure that they communicate effectively within those limitations. A simple gesture can symbolise a great variety of ideas across different cultures, environments and people. Something that was initially thought to be basic or neutral carries a wealth of information which cannot always be controlled. Vandalism is illegal and undesirable, yet locals cover Banksy’s work to preserve the notorious street artist’s pieces. Duchamp’s Fountain is proudly displayed in exhibitions, despite being a urinal. It’s this latter point on which this project was based – the non-importance of objects and the process of recontextualisation of those objects through the medium of art.
Many will testify the importance of stuff – objects which carry value (whether it be emotional, physical or spiritual) and non-objects which have no value whatsoever. The subject of these paintings are non-objects. However, considering the context in which they’ve been placed have they become objects of worth? A burnt camera is rendered useless through destruction, but its value is reinstated when it becomes a painting. Or was the camera always a non-object seeing as it was disposable enough to burn? Dead birds become the subject of a still-life, their bodies long since decomposed. Does it constitute as a non-object? Do we in effect become a non-object in death?
