But art direction is also much more than that. With the business, equipment and paraphernalia of film production becoming increasingly hi-tech, it is one of the most important ways to put back some sense of organic ``life'' into the film as it is being made, to make it feel human and real. And its ultimate purpose, along with the other ``intangible'' crafts, is to hide all the hi-tech and all the rope-tricks that are a part of this process, and reveal only the mirage.

As art director for these ``social fantasy'' films,she has an interesting role: since they are in no way modelled on, or encumbered by, reality, she has more creative licence than probably most Western art directors, who are for the most part called upon to recreate a time and place that is somehow real (apart from sci-fi and special-effects-heavy films). She has to create a world we aspire to, a world very un-Indian but one which has a logic that is strangely plausible to Indian audiences. In India, there are no singing and dancing camps, or for that matter college campuses like the mythical Xavier's of KKHH. But Sharmishta made us believe, that if there were, this is what they should look like.

But I suspect that these sumptuous visual feasts are made the same way an oyster produces a pearl. There is a grain of discontent within her, one that wonders about her work, our films, and our generation in general.

She wonders that beyond pretty pictures, beyond the image, there is little else. That as a generation we are doing not much more than markingtime, with no ideas that will impassion us, no thoughts that will address social realities, and no dreams that will allow us to rise above ourselves.

This is not really a complaint, but more a musing -- after all, an art director would desire a peek at the grand design, if you will.