Drawing on a 1:1 Scale II

This project spanned two years where I attempted to articulate ideas around the personal and the universal, the subjective and the objective and the overlaps that are created. Each version of work produced under this title addressed these ideas from a different angle, and using different mediums.


Many of the ideas that the performance came from, have been articulated in a text that published in Open! In the article I address the multiple open ended positive feed back loops within which our sense of time, our sense of self, our practices, potentiality and territory function. Each feed back loop is represented by a diagram. The basic premise of the article is that nothing exists in isolation; it exists only in its relation with other things. This is where a thing’s potential lies: within the boundaries of the orbit that it takes (that is, its periphery) and in its intersections with other orbits, between the inner and the outer and the elaborate mimicry that is played out within their relations.


Drawing one a 1:1 Scale I

This project spanned two years where I attempted to articulate ideas around the personal and the universal, the subjective and the objective and the overlaps that are created. Each version of work produced under this title addressed these ideas from a different angle, and using different mediums.


Video projection of large white paper 6:59 min; Performance for the duration of the video

With this project, I began my interest in finding very precise but generic concrete actions that can be abstracted into being emblematic of larger conditions the human takes part in. Repetition then takes the action forward, linking it with the generic. For example in the work Drawing on a 1:1 Scale, I was interested in ways we digitally and geographically exteriorise identity: multiple selfies were set in a 360 degree rotating landscape. An additional gesture performed live was me attempting to draw the landscape horizon embedded in the moving background. A voiceover spoke about the collusion (in content) of three forms of thinking: a religious who did not want to be named (I interviewed a hindu monk), modern science-philosophy (from the work of Thomas Metzinger) and ‘inwardness’ as a philosophical undertaking (the work of J. Krishnamurthi). I included some of my own thoughts in this amalgamation as well.

To think, is to reason, and it is not location specific. While the means can be local, the ends of thought/action/deliberation cannot. Rather than to neglect a concrete starting point, it is to realign the tendency from the constant return to the site/individual as a binding distraction into an enabling form, where the horizon doesn’t end at the locus.

For this specific piece, more than create an abstract drawing, I was interested in creating a drawing of abstraction – a drawing of the forces that create the individual, along with its own time and space. How to create a map of digitality – something that operates in 1’s and 0’s? Can this be a mapping of the disembodied self?




Thinking Feeling Reason

essay for Makhzin edited by Ghalaya Saadawi, Mirene Arsanios and Iman Mersal


It is the contention of many philosophies, regardless of their location, that when a state of ‘no thought’ is achieved, there is the end of time—an inner time— and with it, the process of becoming ends too. This is akin to being One with consciousness.[1] It also means the end of identity: when the subject does not identify with being Harsha or Sandhya, or whomever. This positive emptiness is what thought tries to achieve through introspection, by stopping itself in its tracks in order to effectively destroy itself. When moving alongside thought in real time has been mastered, it is possible to stop thought itself: to be able to reach a point where the subject severs itself from its constructed identity.

What constitutes the ability to think of thinking? The “catching oneself” in the act of knowing is the re-affirmation of the humanness of the human. To catch oneself from time to time isn’t enough: we want to be eternally caught. But we are also afraid of being in a state of the eternally caught. It is thus this pull of oppositional needs that sets the human apart from other forms of being. As much as we want to be human, we also do not want to be merely human.

In our continuous striving to find a working definition of the human, we largely construct three categories: the human, technology and the natural ‘everything else’. Are we all three? Two? Only human? The Virtual Reality (VR) Goat Simulator formalizes this quest through technological abundance. Nothing is lost here: the subject can choose to be a techno-goat-human, reminding itself that it was once less human and hence more animal, retaining its techno-human sensibilities.

I am reminded of an old story about a newly-wed couple and their male companion. They were passing through a forest infamous for its dacoity. As expected, the dacoits descended upon them and in the ensuing battle, the two men got their heads chopped off. The newly-wed bride was distraught. She pleaded to the gods for help. One particular god appeared before her and assured her that the two men would live. As the bride dried her tears, the god went on to attach the heads back onto the bodies, except they were now interchanged: the wrong head went to the wrong body. Who was the groom now? The one with the head or the one with the body? After much debate, it was settled that the groom resided in the head.

In this situation, the ‘I’—the subject—remains intact. It was, after all, the head that contained the mind, and the mind was all there was to the human. But this is perhaps too convenient an explanation. Of course, the ‘I’ doesn’t reside anywhere—within the body, or without. It is not a unique, essential, invariant entity like a spirit or a soul. The self is simply an experiential construct that disintegrates completely when we fall into a coma or a dreamless sleep.

Let us try to unpack the conditions that bring about the construction of identity, the generic experience of it, the waning of agency, and its subsequent reaffirmation. Are these created by the subject to keep itself at bay? Is it a reaction to the big data explosion, or a combination of political, societal and technological forces that render the subject helpless? It follows: Are we losing our collective willingness to reason? That is, are we no longer willing to see the operation of construction, disintegration and affirmation at work as a self-sustaining loop? Instead, are we allowing ourselves to be content with what can pass off as the will to reason (the irreducible individual as the basis for thought)? Or, is it the desperation of being unable to reasonably decode the very operation at play? The construction of “community”, and therefore of the
“individual”, suddenly seems much larger than otherwise thought.

The subject has always prided itself on its uniqueness. What happens when a sustained lack of autonomy and the yearning for subjective agency come together? The melting of this singular uniqueness (first as agency, and then slowly as idea) and the simultaneous creation of a digital identity, have created in us a peculiar sense of agency: a generally anonymous, but highly subjective, digital being persistently looking for a positive form of engagement with itself; looking to create meaning using itself.

The conviction that with the widespread use of the internet a better form of democracy will be brought about has been discarded, is being discarded. There is, in its place, a helplessness in the face of dense oligarchies. Nostalgia for an old kind of subject–subject interaction and subject–government interaction can also be seen. Sayings such as “We are like drops individually, but like an ocean collectively,” begs the question of whether putting the body/ies out there is as effective a form of protest now as it once was.

One intention could be to allow for a systematic reduction of the human into the status of an object, but retain the object’s subjectivity by forming a relationship between the knower and what is known. To us sapient beings who are aware of having a conscious state, aware of the feeling of the feeling, our consciousness is the ability to not attend to many things in order to capitalize on our actions and direct them. The aim is to focus attention away from a centre and redirect it to its peripheries. Consciousness is making itself conscious of being aware of consciousness.
While this can be construed as an act of “inwardness”, it is perhaps more useful to see it as a balancing act between how we see ourselves and what modern science tells us about ourselves.

Rather than understanding this as an exercise in self-reflexivity, we must seriously consider whether a demystifying experience can be extracted from the confines of a purely subjective logic, and allow for it to aid the process of reason. If perception of experience is to be reasoned with, there must be a way in which it enters our range of knowledge and understanding as an object available in thought, corresponding to the external world.

More and more, imagination, creativity and the individual—spaces that were once understood as infinite, and once relied upon for their association with the infinite—are now being reconfigured in their relation to finite categories: the fields of constraint within which they exist, and which allow them to create themselves. These spaces can now be quantified and measured as algorithms. It seems that there is a drive to measure the extent to which the infinite operates. Is the play now being transferred onto that space between the subject actualised through data, and the subject as ontic? If so, should they still be seen as two separate categories?

With the increasing reality of data as information, data as knowledge, and data as proof, there is also a simultaneous reaction to this trend: the subject finds it difficult to comprehend “where” something is happening. What do I think anymore, if nothing is in my hands? Instead of turning to the endless “sayings”, lines from fortune cookies, various gurus telling us to “live freely”, and purposeful organics to give us the impression that thinking is underway and that meaning is being made, I would like to suggest a working realignment: to find a better mode of engagement, we need to find a better way of experiencing ourselves and our relationship to what the external is. [2] Meaning, we see things, we experience, we identify and are identified with, and we also believe these are inseparable from each other in such a way that to divorce one from the other would create an abyss within our very understanding of ourselves. However, can we also see that these experiences of, which form the base for our identity, are not open-ended, but allude to the idea that they cannot be accounted for. Their status as being open is their very function.[3]We have to consider extracting and demystifying experience from within the confines of irreducible singularities, and allow for it to aid the process of reason.

1-Many philosophies (Buddhism, Sufism, some strands of Hinduism among others) seek total transcendence, i.e. being One with consciousness; where the thinker is the thought. There is a slowing down of time when observation and transformation occurs along with the thought in real time. To morph is to change forms, shape and structure from the inside-out, and from the outside-in, simultaneously. Where attention is given to the flux, a spotlight is cast on the movement of thought, in pursuing the image that arises, and embodying that image. Like the job of the amateur scientist, the job of watching oneself in the process of flux is to watch what happens in between thoughts and in between movements, between the inner and the outer and the elaborate mimicry that is played out within their relations.

2-(Part of this text was produced in collaboration with Misha Stroj titled “Every Meaning Happens For A Reason”, and part is from an on-going project titled “How Would We Know It If We Couldn’t Feel It”.)

3-Brassier quoting Sellars, Nihil Unbound.

Name Names Herself

text, video, performance, drawing

Text/Poster: Name works in the archiving section of a museum documenting information about a (newly discovered) specimen. As she carries out her work, she realises that in order to define the specimen she has to first define herself. The project directly looks at the conditions that make the human, human – identity, alienation, abstraction, and conversely the ‘everything else’. How does the production of subjectivity of the character allow that of the specimens’ to be created? Are the distinctions that clear?

Video: attempts to articulate how we look at hope/hopelessness as axioms, with people scraping out scratch cards, alluding to financial anticipation in its most exciting form: will I win something?

Performance: I drew along with the scraping action in the video, as a gesturing of recording financial anticipation. A drawing emerges.

name names herself text


click here to read poster

unnamed (1)

Installation view


Would We Know It If We Couldn’t Feel It

Lived experiences are not as uniquely singular and as impenetrable as we think they are; they are artificial and incomplete. Using the precarious see-saw between indulgence and enquiry, the work tends towards the generic individual as a pre-condition of thought; where time is not understood at the level of this singular lived experience; being and non-being are in tandem with each other. To consider the non-individual would be to accept the generic; to consider thought as non-subjective and irreducible to ourselves, we have to find a useful way of embracing the generic without autonomy or authenticity where patterns of self-affirmation and negation take place simultaneously – generic patterns of experiencing the particular. While this seems an obvious at the outset, and living as per the tenets of i-am-not particular is (near) impossible , it is pattern recognition that allows us to think of ways to avoid offering subjective claims as solutions.

In the video the face acts as the site of subjectivity, and the passport size framing as the site of the generic. Three individuals are seen in conversation with each other, recounting some of their most personal moments.

What Work Works


(Collective Text in collaboration with Ali Mir, Noor Abed and Mark Lotfy)

To begin writing this text, our guiding question was a very simple one: What kind of artwork is of consequence? We very concretely kept our individual works as a bedrock from which to think ahead. We have attempted to outline together what our place within the art-field is.



The singular is insufficient

An individual subject cannot deal with reality individually. An artist has temporal positions with specific professions. However, these ‘undetermined places’ are particular borders with clear attitudes and determined goals, no matter what the story and study of each artist is. Without acknowledging this, it is hard to press on.

Furthermore, if no human is being asked to stand on his/her own, then no art work should be asked to remain single and without association, either. Even if this is not being asked of the work specifically, and if we are inching toward forging a community at every given instance, we may be required to specifically ask this of a particular work as well.

All forms of thinking/art making must outline, with precision, what is at stake

This may not be particular easy, for to do this would be to actively ask (force, rather) oneself and others to stand by what they have produced, and defend it. The reluctance to propose something coincides with our fear of failure. To not stake a claim is to necessarily never fail.

What is understood as linear is not; the future makes the present:

There is no point in trying to somehow exit time, and there is even less merit in seeking transcendence. However, to over-emphasize a now, is factually incorrect when looked at through the lens of pre-emptive wars, the derivative market, proscriptive analytics. To define an inside of time, we would need to take stock of reality as is, for reality is more complicated now than ever before: the future is collapsing into the present.

Strategize honesty:

The work should be weary of speaking about or around. The work should be weary of pretending to be able to speak about or around. A work starts from its own urgency/need and points to its own collapse. Therefore, the work should expose the social dynamic, the way it exists, without glorifying it. Understanding the structure we exist in realistically, not tendentiously, then evoking it in all its complexity.

The work should be passionate, not emotional. Passion is different from emotion: emotion fits into an individual perspective of subjective experience as a strong feeling, while passion has something to do with the formation of collective identity; in the formation of a ‘we’. Passion applies objectivity and reason to emotion, and entrenches itself comprehensively in the subject.

Intention and action need to be re-caliberated continuously. What is intended (the proposed outcome of the said work), more often than not, will not be in congruence with its action (the said work). When this happens, intention-action strategies must be re-caliberated.

Curate yourself at every given instance, and pathologize structural conditions:

To curate oneself is not to magically seize agency, it is, rather, to retain primacy in the idea of the de-fetishized individual as one who is seen as magically capable of seizing agency. It is to make apparent what is implicit: the structure that you operate in and are operated by, is not particular to you, and dealing with reality is not enough. We need to understand reality as not solid, but as being constantly shaped in real time. We have to curate ourselves with conviction and precision.