Fundamental components of the modern landscape have evolved into a kind of paradox. Industry has developed to sustain our lifestyles of necessity and comfort, yet the actual means by which our merchandise and services are supplied develop into a backdrop of noise, or in some cases an invasive eyesore. Nonetheless, such accomplishments of engineering are paralleled with the growing appeal that industrial aesthetics has had in society. Looking at architecture and the modern industrialised landscape, my practice personifies those objects as man made fingerprints or artefacts incorporated within the bounds of the natural environment, conveying shifting degrees of harmony and tension.

By its own character, design endeavours to be diverse and ascribes a particular object its identity through changing it and eliminating prior ideas. Yet there has been and will remain types of inventive processes, where function becomes priority. Even though functional design methods are considered as impediments to an unbound ingenuity and that the basis is not the same, should not hinder us from recognizing a functional design method or artefact as design.

The subject of industrial aesthetics is one of the most profound creations consequential of functional design processes, and plays a considerable role in the broad-spectrum of aesthetics. Various structures that encompass industrial aesthetics for instance, factories, water towers, gasworks etc, are normal every day encounters which recapture the “constructivist” look we have long forgotten, but we barely notice them, and only stay within the everyday designs of our existence .

The design language of industrial architecture seems to be very clear-cut, honest, non competitive, and for the most part, non exclusive. It is this attitude of not wanting to promote its self that ascribes industrial structures with a certain degree of anonymity in their identities, and through time the anonymous has always remained an orientation for inspiration regarding artists like myself.

An ironical paradox concerning the notion of industrial aesthetics is that while industry is a mass manufacturing instrument with the purpose of generating homogeneous objects, industrial edifices themselves do not show such sameness or uniformity. I believe that a design which is functional can still posses a certain charm that can subsist without being portrayed as uninteresting and emotionless.

For instance, as a design movement Art Nouveau is recognized to be somewhat fertile in stylistic ornamentation, and can be regarded as one of the most graceful examples of industrial aesthetics, if one takes into account the variety of materials utilized, the ways in which they were put together and the development of the processes involved. So it is also possible to look upon the lattice-like amalgamation of strange shapes we see strictly in industrial architecture, as a form of ornamentation.

I consider there to be a hidden profundity within the symbolic implications that are embodied within industrial buildings. For instance, if we take the symbolism of modern architectural structures such as skyscrapers, there is an obvious portrayal of supremacy, each competing to out grow one another. While on the other hand, industrial structures do not share such symbolic significance. They are constructed without any apparent aesthetic concern as they represent the collective and for this reason
they could be considered as icons of anonymity.

Having established industrial constructions as loud, grimy and cumbersome things, we do not hold them in high regard as objects of beauty. However, my work aims to investigate the honesty and simplicity concealed within the powerful and intricate visualization of industrial aesthetics and to bring this ambiguous subject into our field of vision.