3 ms·

I might agree with you as a knee jerk, but I believe "the medium is the message"[1] and I don't think there's anything particularly meaningful or evocative abou

• jameshart 8mo ago
  There is no meaning in converting a conventionally destructive, random, chaotic act into a directed, aesthetic, meaningful one? The fact he has a portrait of Kamala Harris called “glass ceiling breaker” and one of the victims of the Beirut explosion called #weareunbreakable suggests that you don’t need to dig particularly deep to find meaningful subtext in the choice of material and technique. If anything it’s maybe a bit on-the-nose.
  • hresvelgr 8mo ago
    > If anything it’s maybe a bit on-the-nose. This is what I was driving at. I should have been more specific to say not particularly meaningful or evocative to me. From the previews I've seen it's all based around shattering and breaking. Where I will give credit, there's one: "Transformation" where natural light is reflected at the shattered glass to portray a face which I find to be fascinating. The rest feel kitschy, it's not quite to my tastes.
    • thenthenthen 8mo ago
      Interesting technique, but indeed, painfully kitsch subjects.
• lo_zamoyski 8mo ago
  > but I believe "the medium is the message" > I don't think there's anything particularly meaningful or evocative about shattered glass as opposed to any other planar medium These seem contradictory? If the medium is "uninteresting", then how it can be the focus of interest?