A representation or a justification?

An exploration or a persuasion?

Technical or emotional?

Rapport with a group or the sublimation of the author?

Component or element?

All of the above and nothing less than that.

Conforming and confirming style, fashion and cyclical evolutions of the individual within the group.

We shouldn’t just be searching for the igniters, but we should also be relying on the ones abling the transitions before them as the true innovators.

An image is becoming a disposable meaning. In architecture and in design the image has became almost ephemeral. Not because their content is extinguishing rapidly but because they’re consumed feverishly. There are phenomenal people identifying the situation and compliant with this system of production and consumption. They extract meaning and reproduce them semiotically at a rate that will for sure collapse the entire system, taking those temporary workers with it.

There are images, that are in the opposite group, enduring way beyond this disciplinary picture of revolving aesthetics and endemic social relevance. Most of the time, those pictures are only a written manifestation of the true innovator, thereby condoning the magnitude and magnificence of the vision to anonymity. Not at all anonymous to the ones who are aware of  them but for sure anonymous to the general public that is relating only with the work of the igniters: images. I think this is a thoughtful position, both of the distance to the phenomenal explosions of trends and of a necessary calm to continue and persist in constant innovation.

The igniters are all over the network but the true innovators are only a few. Usually teachers, not professors and I could point some names but if I have to do it I’m useless to you.