>>2995943>You're readying far to much into the obscuring of form.Since my position/reading was more conceptual and iconographic than formal, I don't think I was taking too many liberties. These are the exact issues that someone like Krauss would fix on immediately upon seeing your work, anyway.
>There's far more mimicry going on for the mantis then just visual when they are within their natural surroundingI wasn't trying to imply anything to the contrary. In fact that's the point--that mimicry in the animal realm, according to Caillois, whose argument I borrow, is far less visual (in the sense of resemblance) than it is formal. See Zeuxis and Parrhasios, in particular Lacan's gloss of it. Krauss has also written about it in "the optical unconscious," I am fairly certain.
>where you are getting this particular impressionNow, this was a purely formal reading on my part. I was considering the materials used when I wrote the above, mainly the pillars which look like glass or plastic, and the horizontal surfaces that look hard and reflective, like polished countertops. Pillars and colonnades are a common/popular enough architectural form that I'd say linking them directly to the roman empire is itself something that requires additional qualification.
>and a version darker the Eloi (HG Wells Time Machine) How exactly does the translation of a literary source into a visual aesthetic work (or is supposed to work) in this instance? I'm not being critical, this particular fact just seems very interesting to me. I assume that the previous representations of Wells' work in film and such must play some sort of intermediary role here. In terms of cultivating the familiarity of the aesthetic you want the audience to recognize, I mean.
