A Tool for Creativity: Interviewing XXV Art and James Kirby
I created a survey to find out what creative thought about subversion and if they think about it when creating work. You can view this here.
I wanted wanted to see what illustrators in particular think about subversion and what they think about it being an attractive concept. Here follows the interviews from two illustrators that I consider to be subversive in some way.
XXV Art is the creative alias of Tom Stroud (#tomstroudbestartistintheworld). Stroud often has a range of projects on the go besides his own work and commissions, including collaborative work in the form of LWGSP. He is also the founder of Creative Control, a group looking at the "underdogs of the creative world", showcasing work through events and interviews. It is also a closed group aiming at bringing creatives together in a friendly, positive environment to share work and get advice from peers, something that might not otherwise be available in the life of a creative.
So firstly, could you briefly describe what subversion means to you?
Subversion for me is the purposeful contradiction of mainstream ideals, regardless of the scale of the body of work . That could be to do with the way the work is crafted, or the message it puts across.
Nicely put! In what ways do you consider your work to be subversive?
I try to be quite conscious of the themes I'm putting into my work, a lot of it is more violent or blunt that perhaps the mainstream would like to view, but a lot of the time the violent stuff isn't trying to say anything other than be shocking, which I don't consider subversive, it's just shock factor. Maybe my work isn't subversive? Maybe it's down to the viewer? I'm not too sure. Basically some of my stuff is because it's directly and bluntly pissing on the status quo, like the illustration I did of Theresa May getting shanked in the face, or the (multiple) cop I drew with nazi symbols all over him. Otherwise they're just a bit visceral I think.
Thank you, yeh you've basically touched on what I'm thinking about subversion at the moment. You mentioned audience, do you think subversion can be attractive to an audience, perhaps to one that identifies itself as being subversive? How so?
I think subversion can certainly be attractive to an audience. I think that's as basic as the fact that they probably identify or relate to an aspect of the subversion themselves, and agree with a part/all of the piece.
I wanted wanted to see what illustrators in particular think about subversion and what they think about it being an attractive concept. Here follows the interviews from two illustrators that I consider to be subversive in some way.
XXV Art
XXV Art is the creative alias of Tom Stroud (#tomstroudbestartistintheworld). Stroud often has a range of projects on the go besides his own work and commissions, including collaborative work in the form of LWGSP. He is also the founder of Creative Control, a group looking at the "underdogs of the creative world", showcasing work through events and interviews. It is also a closed group aiming at bringing creatives together in a friendly, positive environment to share work and get advice from peers, something that might not otherwise be available in the life of a creative.
So firstly, could you briefly describe what subversion means to you?
Subversion for me is the purposeful contradiction of mainstream ideals, regardless of the scale of the body of work . That could be to do with the way the work is crafted, or the message it puts across.
Split with Death Designs
Nicely put! In what ways do you consider your work to be subversive?
I try to be quite conscious of the themes I'm putting into my work, a lot of it is more violent or blunt that perhaps the mainstream would like to view, but a lot of the time the violent stuff isn't trying to say anything other than be shocking, which I don't consider subversive, it's just shock factor. Maybe my work isn't subversive? Maybe it's down to the viewer? I'm not too sure. Basically some of my stuff is because it's directly and bluntly pissing on the status quo, like the illustration I did of Theresa May getting shanked in the face, or the (multiple) cop I drew with nazi symbols all over him. Otherwise they're just a bit visceral I think.
Thank you, yeh you've basically touched on what I'm thinking about subversion at the moment. You mentioned audience, do you think subversion can be attractive to an audience, perhaps to one that identifies itself as being subversive? How so?
I think subversion can certainly be attractive to an audience. I think that's as basic as the fact that they probably identify or relate to an aspect of the subversion themselves, and agree with a part/all of the piece.
James Kirby
James Kirby is currently an illustration student. I think he is subversive in the way he works, he seems to subvert the idea of what illustration is. His work is often very dark and leaves a large portion of those who view it feeling uncomfortable, perhaps faced with something they recognise.
Briefly Describe what subversion means to you.
It's deviance in it's own way. An alternative way of undermining authority through any means. It's denying something. It's individualism. Freedom of thought, but these are specifics.
In what ways do you consider your work to be subversive?
In the way that it has integrity. Because it's honest, most people inhibit themselves by not being honest. They chose to ignore. It's cowardly to themselves and everyone else. Regardless of the message, my work is brutal honest to myself and I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks of it. I take into account what lecturers say but when it boils down to it, it's my work.
Do you think the idea of subversion is attractive to the audience? How so?
Yes but not in a good way.
Would you consider then that subversion is a tool to aid creativity? Please elaborate.
No and yes. Whet people think is subversive, they believes helps to develop the work. It's an illusive subject, it's too subjective. Doing work that is subversive comes from a need of it. If you're trying to be subversive, you're not subversive.
It's organic, you can tell when people aren't. Music came from oppression, the blues came from slaves, they creates a way to get out.
It depends on how you define it.
Work in progress
Comments
Post a Comment