Thursday, 7 May 2009

Fake ID

Fake ID from the outset seemed like a very different bunch of guys compared to our usual lecturers. It seemed usually we receive lectures from people who are highly practical within their design discipline; applied art that is practical, and can be seen everyday and understood by most people Fake ID were not like this in any sense and almost revelled in the alienation of others

Usually even the most established designers will show you their work but these guys assumed that i had already seen their work and thought they would just explore notions of what interest them from a conceptual point of view. But they couldn't even do this, they just showed clip after clip of obscure cultural references and seemed enthralled with it yet at the same time had nothing to constructive to say about any of it.

The most interesting bit was when they refereed to the way people speak and the way their writing sounds and how this can change under different circumstances but these were all ideas based on other peoples work and wasn't elaborated on or interpreted in their own way. A good quote, which again was someone else's, was about an audience and its inability to close its ears off in the same way one can close their eyes to divert attention from something.

When asked a question about industry and its sudden surge of interest toward this type of conceptual art and design they said something along the lines of. He thought that they were trying to give something back culturally, close the gap between consumer and producer. I feel for a company like Nike approaching people like this is always for profit, to open up new target markets, to infiltrate anything, they seemed naive in this notion but when your getting paid who cares, right?

So in the end Fake ID seemed to be conceptual artists that were into obscure things that they could hardly relate to for no reason other than to just produce even more obscure work which they couldn't talk about earnestly, they had to read lines as though they were extracts from books they couldn't understand, they just seem unconvincing and unsure of why they were in the position that they were in. As though they woke up one morning and thought "this will be a laugh".
It seems that they get hired because of their leftfield way of tackling a brief, i'm all for the leftfield and weird but this just seemed pretentious and they weren't saying anything constructive about the things they were showing us. They were obviously intelligent and knew what they liked and why but i found it very hard to gain a better insight into their world,. Oh, and the PLEASE HOLD joke was just tedious, funny for a second but utterly pointless. I suppose that was the biggest question in my mind. What was the point?

No comments: