The front page asked to draw themselves as either an artist or a designer, and the flip side questioned why they had chosen to depict themselves in such a way.
The survey began;
And the results were as follows,
The artist had to say that he/she embraces vulnerability and shuns security; that he/she creates whatever is in the mind, an 'illogical extension' of the person, with an utmost sense of freedom.
The designer says he/she is an universal problem solver. In his/her work, she applies and questions the principles of art and it's history to produce a valid and rational product for the better of the community.
They say they belong to both the worlds. They are 'role-players'. They morph into what is in need of.
They say they are both, then say they are neither, then are content with the juxtaposition in their answers. Is it better to understand one's self in this manner; would you answer that for me please?