16 April 2026
Artist Highlight - Shivangi Vasudeva
Interview and Review
Based in London and India, Shivangi Vasudeva is a designer working at the intersection of furniture and textiles. Her practice centers on material culture and endangered Indian crafts, reimagining processes like loin-loom weaving into a contemporary sculptural language.
A Central Saint Martins MA Furniture graduate, she was selected by Corinne Julius for the 10th edition of Future Heritage and named one of House & Garden’s "25 Rising Stars of 2025." With exhibitions across London, Paris, Copenhagen, and India, Shivangi’s work transforms overlooked narratives into vessels for memory, cultural continuity, and renewal.
ARTIST INTERVIEW
1. The Takhat Counter Stool draws from vernacular furniture traditions in northeast India. What aspects of these cultural references shaped the form and presence of the piece?
The stool carries the grounded language of vernacular furniture found across parts of northeast India. I was drawn to objects that sit close to the earth, where form is shaped by necessity rather than decoration. Their proportions often feel monolithic, carved from solid wood with a quiet confidence. The Takhat Counter Stool reflects that sensibility through its weight, thick legs and simple joinery. It does not try to appear light. Instead it acknowledges furniture as something that holds presence in a room, much like the communal wooden benchs and everyday seating forms that inspired it.
2. Your work often emphasises weight and groundedness. How does the physical density of the stool contribute to its conceptual meaning?
For me weight carries meaning. Many contemporary objects aim to appear lighter and thinner, shaped by the logic of machines. The stool moves in the opposite direction. Its density allows it to feel anchored, almost architectural. That physical presence reflects my interest in memory and endurance. Furniture in many vernacular contexts is built to last across generations, not seasons. By allowing the stool to remain heavy and materially honest, the piece quietly resists disposability and suggests a slower relationship with the objects we choose to live with.
3. The piece foregrounds hand processes over machine led precision. How does this approach influence the character of the final object?
Hand processes leave traces of time and judgement in an object. When a piece is shaped by hand, small variations appear in edges, surfaces and proportions. I am interested in keeping those traces visible. They remind us that the object came through a process of making rather than pure automation. In the Takhat Counter Stool the carved wood and assembled structure hold that subtle irregularity. It gives the piece warmth and character. Instead of perfection, the aim is a quiet sense of human presence embedded in the form.
4. The upholstery incorporates recycled fabrics developed with textile collaborators. How does this material reuse contribute to the narrative of continuity within the piece?
The textile used for the stool was developed with Iro Iro using offcuts, deadstock and other non virgin materials from fashion production. Reworking these fragments into a new woven surface allows waste to become something structural and lasting. I find that transformation meaningful. It connects the piece to a wider material cycle rather than treating resources as disposable. The textile carries traces of many previous lives, but through weaving it becomes cohesive again. In that sense the stool speaks about continuity, how materials can be revalued and given permanence through craft.
5. Much of your practice grows from field research and collaboration with craft communities. How does this exchange of knowledge influence the design process?
Field research changes how I approach design. Spending time with craft communities reveals the intelligence embedded in tools, gestures and everyday objects. These insights rarely come from drawings alone. They emerge through conversation and observation. Collaboration also shifts authorship. Rather than imposing a form, the process becomes more responsive to the knowledge of the people involved in making. That exchange influences materials, proportions and construction methods. Over time it shapes the design language itself, allowing the work to grow from shared understanding rather than a single perspective.
6. The stool sits between functional furniture and sculptural object. How do you approach balancing everyday usability with symbolic or cultural meaning?
For me function and symbolism do not sit in opposition. Many traditional objects carry both without separating them. A stool, a vessel or a tool can be entirely practical while also holding cultural meaning through its form or material. I try to approach furniture in that same spirit. The Takhat Counter Stool is first designed to be used, to support the body comfortably and feel stable. But its proportions and references also carry a quieter narrative. If the object works well in daily life, the symbolic layer can reveal itself gradually.
7. Within The Invisible Made Visible the work highlights the labour and knowledge embedded in craft traditions. What aspects of this process do you hope viewers become more aware of when encountering the piece?
I hope viewers become more aware of the layers of skill and knowledge that sit inside processes of making in India. Behind a simple object there are many quiet decisions, carving the wood, preparing natural dyes, weaving structure from fibre, and assembling each element by hand. These practices develop through years of experience and are often passed through generations. Craft can appear effortless in its final form, which is why the work behind it becomes invisible. My intention is not to romanticise this effort, but to recognise the intelligence, care and time embedded within it.
WEIGHT, MEMORY, AND THE PRESENCE OF MAKING
Review by Chih-Yang Chen, Art Director
Shivangi Vasudeva’s work sits somewhere between furniture, textiles, and cultural research. What comes through most clearly is a sensitivity to how objects carry memory, not just through reference, but through how they are made. The Takhat Counter Stool reflects this approach. It draws from vernacular furniture in Northeast India but avoids turning that reference into something decorative or stylised. Instead, it stays close to the logic of use.
The form is direct. Thick legs, solid proportions, nothing exaggerated. It feels grounded, almost architectural. There is no attempt to make the object appear lighter than it is. That decision matters. In a context where many objects are designed to feel minimal or reduced, this stool moves in the opposite direction. Its weight is not hidden. It is part of how the piece communicates.
That sense of weight extends beyond the physical. It connects to ideas of duration and use. Furniture in many traditional contexts is made to last, to remain in place, to be used over time rather than replaced. Shivangi doesn’t state this directly, but it sits within the work. The stool suggests a different pace, one that resists the cycle of quick consumption.
The hand is also present, but in a restrained way. You notice it in small irregularities, in edges that are not completely uniform, in the way surfaces catch light. These details are easy to overlook at first, but they stay with you. They shift the object slightly away from industrial production, without making it feel overly expressive. It’s a quiet presence rather than a statement.
The textile element adds another layer. Made from recycled materials, it brings together fragments that have already had previous uses. Through weaving, those fragments are restructured into something cohesive. There’s a sense of continuity here, not just in material but in process. What was once discarded becomes part of something stable again. It doesn’t feel like a gesture, more like a continuation.
Collaboration is also embedded in the work, even if it isn’t immediately visible. The influence of craft communities comes through in the way the object is resolved. It feels informed by shared knowledge rather than imposed design. That makes a difference. The stool doesn’t try to speak for a tradition, it seems to sit alongside it.
What is interesting is how the piece balances function and meaning without separating the two. It works as a stool first. You can imagine using it without thinking too much about it. But over time, the references and decisions begin to surface. The object doesn’t demand attention, it allows it.
There is a sense of restraint throughout. Nothing feels overstated. The work doesn’t try to explain itself too quickly. Instead, it holds its position, both physically and conceptually, and lets its meaning build through presence.