- The portraits and the fragment photographs may be/are reading as related, as the same time or place, or tied in some other way. There is a natural inclination to associate and to try to create context and narrative.
- The optical style of the portrait photographs does not go unnoticed and needs some kind of explanation. Am I trying to create a portrait that makes the camera's presence so known?
- Information is someone playing a guitar. Their fingers come over the strings and the sings send reverberations into the air and back into the fingers and then the body. Information is the thing you let your eyes go over to reverberate you.
- Should there be a shift from information to sensation?
- I need to address the portrait work and if it is more than an emulation of Avedon, and if it is something unique to me and my artistic vision and what I'm trying to achieve. I then need to consider how, if and should those issues tie into the already resolved issues of the non-portrait works.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
5 Things I Heard Last Night...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The 5 most important things I recall from critique:
ReplyDelete1. Joe helped me to realize that I must figure out my relationship with the object, or the physical work. The statements I made about my indifference to and even rejection of the rectangular format of my pieces conflicts with the extreme care I take in placing them.
2. Though, as Billy commented, the variation in scale adds interest, the general consensus is that my large piece is most engaging. Many people brought up the idea of murals and want to continue seeing my work large and even larger. Joe, I believe, even suggested installation.
3. The narrative, sequential structure takes away from the work, as do the labels I used in this crit. It was suggested that I continue titling work in a similar manner to the titles from the fall show.
4. Since process does not read in the work, and is not my intention, I need to be careful about how I discuss my process with the audience and should avoid statements like, "my work is about the process." (major slip-up on my part)
5. Content-wise, Pat was very interested in the textures within the work which were reminiscent of paper because in those moments I am making the paper just as important as the charcoal. Anne was interested in the timeless aspects of the work rather than the figures which suggested a particular time period. If I use period objects, I need to have more intention.
5 Things from mid-term Crit
ReplyDelete1. Borders are weakening the panoramic of the latest work - letting the edge define, with surfaces and contrasting panels might be more effective in connecting parts to a whole.
2. Working with latest work on the computer – rearranging and reformatting, instead of starting from scratch could be effective.
3. Initial responses include questions about the distinction between watercolour and digital media – this distracts from the content of the image. Is there an importance to having physical media? Re-digitizing the work and printing onto one continuous surface is an option.
4. What kind of space am I making? Is it virtual, digital, real? These questions can lead to how ephemeral the idea of space really is.
5. Do not discount working within the vertical format. We are so used to absorbing work on the computer and in the gallery horizontally – so to work with the vertical might make the space created even more hyperreal, a one-on-one experience with actual space that hovers between digital and abstract.
1. where does this work stand in light of the nature/culture binary- consider exclusion.
ReplyDelete2. how much of this is truly real- how can I make it so?
3. do I have a problem with the object? art objects yes.
4. reconsider ways in which the displays may be used- why am i refurbishing the display to be in the gallery if the nature of the project requires the healing to happen on site, and the institution the gallery is actually the cause of such neglect.
5. how will, during the final show, the location not be seen ephemerally, not passed though with observation but with engagement. getting the audience to the site is only the first site, changing them from the audience to the creator is the goal.
more of this will have to come as I get more feedback- given the limitations of the trip I have yet to feel considerably acknowledged.
The five things I heard from Monday
ReplyDelete1. My work should be projected on a three dimensional surface instead of 2 Dimensional.
2. I should be looking at Chinese and Japanese calligrapher for the ritual process of stretching our my calligraphy into images. This is something I always wanted to do.
3. I should do shadow casting in my work
4. Is there any clue that I want to give my audience to let them know that this piece is about an experience of identity
5. How will you show language as a barrier in your new drawings
Five Things I Heard Last Night
ReplyDelete(just note I have had almost no time to think about this really yet with work and a midterm today, so it's a little rough)
1. What is my work's relationship to language? I need to clarify this some more, but it is clear that something interesting is going on there. Pat said that there was a relationship between my markmaking and text on a page, which I can see, but it's not my intention. Conceptually, the work is not about language, but it could be likened to poetry perhaps.
2. Billy said that it's good that I'm pushing myself with the work--going large, wanting to make a space. I don't think of this as "pushing" so much as just something I'm interested in trying, but yes, I am definately continuing to find things that intrigue me along this path.
3. People wanted to know why not working from photographs, if I'm pushing against that now, and I think I stated pretty clearly that I'm just more interested in painting (though it took a while to work through that in talking with everyone)
4. Billy commented that he feels closed in, that the density of the surfaces doesn't allow for much movement, but that this is also an interesting interpretation of oneness or unity. I have to think about this one more, and look at my work more too.
5. Ciscle was glad I'm looking for artists outside my medium. I should look into James Turrell (who I love, and should think about this relationship more--our subject matter is the same at least and we want to create an experience for the viewer and have one ourselves, his work is also about wonder and what is), and also Janet Cardiff, Edward Hirsch and William Burrows. Haven't looked at them yet, but I will.
Six things I heard from Sue and Carrie (well, mostly Sue):
ReplyDelete1. Am I doing this for myself or for the audience? It's too much in between right now--the audience is not given enough to really get it or stay engaged, and I am not painting totally for myself either. I have to choose one and do it for the next five weeks. (I've had lots of conflicting thoughts here the last few days).
2. They're too much the same. The viewer gets bored. I need more differentiation, more "not the same" to keep the viewer engaged. "You don't want to give the viewer the same experience everywhere they look."
3. They're not beautiful enough.
I am moving too quickly. I am the one who needs to slow down.
I need to give 30% more.
4. My statement doesn't actually mention my WORK. And the work doesn't say what the statement does--"am I always going to have it pinned up on the wall?"
5. There are things I can do with layering liquid acrylics underneath my oils to get more going on below. And I should pick out some fun colors--ones I just really like--and try them out. I should experiment with mediums, too.
6. Just one last thing I've been thinking about a lot. The large green painting is, to Sue, totally flat, and to Carrie, the most spatial. I see how both of them are seeing this, and I think the 30% more will help.
FOR MY PARTNER..
ReplyDeleteSarah
Looking at your work again, I started responding to the shape and size of the drawings. I also thought that they were very calm and they worked in a sequence.
What I found confusing is the fact that you want them to form a narrative. Considering what you have explained to me about your work, I do not think you have to worry about making them read in a sequence. I mean the fact that you gave them a title that wont make people relate to the images in the way you present them, then the way you put them on the wall should have no meaning.
Joe stated that they look like installation of time because of the way you presented them out. Is this something you going for?
Also, I think the different scales needs to be more worked on. I like the fact that some of them are small and the viewer has to come really close to the drawing to figure out what it is, but I also think that you should try and balance them out. Because having one small one within all the other big pieces will definitly suggest meaning.
Your drawings also reminded me of a comic book. The titles made them simple, but gave them meaning, and I not sure if that is something you like. I think if you want to get away from people relaying on your titles to create meaning in your work, then you should definitly do a make up language, that only you understands. In that way I feel that the viewer will have no choice but to create their own meaning off of your work.
What I heard people say during the crit:
1. If you were not going to work on paper, how would it looke like?
2. What is more important to you the medium or the sequence?
3. You are still responding to your images, you still suggesting meaning to your works by the way you hanged them, because afterall the way you hanged them is the way you want to see them.
4. Seems like tracks in an album of music
5. Your body of work is the process. The pieces of your work should narrate the process and the content.
Ok, so I really like the cloudy one, I must say.