Skip to content


March 26, 2012

I can’t believe how much I relate to the two-dimensional plane… Working on the prototype for my Seven with Another collaboration with Robert Davidson, it’s interesting how I naturally and quite automatically think about creative responses in relation to a two-dimensional surface as opposed to a three-dimensional form.

I originally trained in ceramics, however, my practice has gradually moved almost solely to working with colour, pattern and scale within a two-dimensional framework for both commercial and personal projects. Surface design for wallpaper and textiles and a love for repeat patterns has highly influenced my arts practice through an invigorated passion for making works on paper and small, intimate studies in textiles, namely embroidery.

In relation to creative practice, if we understand three-dimensional form as sculptural, architectural, of the natural world, the object and the artefact, and two-dimensional work as works on paper, illustration, drawing, photography – what is imagined and translated to view on a single plane, where does that place Robert’s practice as a composer and musician? Because we can’t see it or touch it, it is not visual or articulated in space as an object, does that mean music is one-dimensional? If that is the case, and we bring together sound (one-dimensional) and visual elements (two-dimensional), by means of addition, could we in fact create something that is three-dimensional?

Dictionary definitions largely describe:

One-dimensional as: having one dimension only; and having no depth or scope (For me, music is full of depth and scope and therefore, must rule it out as being one-dimensional.)

Two-dimensional as: having dimensions of height and width only; having it’s elements organised in terms of a flat surface, especially emphasising the vertical and horizontal character of the picture plane; and shallow, unconvincing, or superficial in execution (Here I agree with the physical definition, however, I would like to believe most artwork to be anything but shallow, unconvincing and superficial unless that is it’s intention.)

Three-dimensional as: having or ‘seeming to have’ the dimension of depth as well as height and width; and being ‘fully-developed’ (Again, I agree with the physical definition, but are works of art only ‘fully-developed’ if they’re three-dimensional? And here, what does ‘fully-developed’ really mean?)

It makes me wonder what music might look like and what patterns, drawings and images might sound like. If music were to take on a physical form, would it be in colour or black and white, would it be two-dimensional or three-dimensional? This is highly subjective territory with no right or wrong answer – only our individual interpretations…

It also makes me ask… What happens when you put a composer/musician together with a visual artist/surface designer in Seven with Another?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: