'Andre'
(92x75cms oil on canvas)
'Andres'
(100x170cms oil on canvas)
(100x170cms oil on canvas)
'Theophrastus'
(90x65cms oil on canvas)
(90x65cms oil on canvas)
'Elson'
(90x65cms oil on canvas)
(90x65cms oil on canvas)
'Romuald
(90x65cms oil on canvas)
(90x65cms oil on canvas)
'Dr Bathybios'
(90x65cms oil on canvas)
(90x65cms oil on canvas)
'Arthur'
(90x65cms oil on canvas)
(90x65cms oil on canvas)
The ‘Absurdity’ series plays between serious symbolic meaning and the kind of critical absurdity we can attain sometimes through the regular media.
It is intended that the ‘Absurdity’ series drive us to draw no firm conclusions, but debate our own ideas of beauty and ugliness.
The ‘Absurdity’ series relates to the symbolism of ridiculous and pedantic figures likely equating with contemporary politicians, real estate tycoons, and techno billionaires. Juxtapose these against fictional characters and their written texts could shock the common sense, general public opinion, respectable education, religious beliefs, good sense and the entire predominant order.
These metaphoric elements portray the absurdity of both rationally coherent human behaviour and the subtlety of animal instinct intending one to appear more rational over the other.
It is therefore predictable to see as ‘monster’ anything that behaves against what is believed as being normal. Any being will act as per it’s nature, i.e. it’s normal self! Do we then also name as ‘monster’ any being with it’s original, limitless splendour, surely absurdity in itself if we are to imagine who or what the symbolic image represents in our own minds.
The ‘Absurdity’ series plays between serious symbolic meaning and the kind of critical absurdity we sometimes attain through the regular media, intending to drive us to draw no firm conclusions, but to debate our own ideas of beauty and ugliness.
These metaphoric elements portray the absurdity of both rationally coherent human behaviour and the subtlety of animal instinct intending one to appear more rational over the other.
It is therefore predictable to see as ‘monster’ anything that behaves against what is believed as being normal. Any being will act as per it’s nature, i.e. it’s normal self! Do we then also name as ‘monster’ any being with it’s original, limitless splendour, surely absurdity in itself if we are to imagine who or what the symbolic image represents in our own minds.
The ‘Absurdity’ series plays between serious symbolic meaning and the kind of critical absurdity we sometimes attain through the regular media, intending to drive us to draw no firm conclusions, but to debate our own ideas of beauty and ugliness.
info@5537Gallery.com
