critiques
this weeks reading about critiques is really, really, really helpful. it definitely made me feel that I am not crazy or alone in my reaction to them. the fact that I feel that they are too short, are full of idiosyncratic pronouncements, and a lot of the time are criticisms and not critiques. I find that during critiques, the way that the conversation drifts from topic to topic can make it really difficult for me as the student to follow what is being said. i like in the reading where it talks about the student and the panelist seem to be speaking different languages. like by the time I am kind of beginning to follow or understand what was just being said, stream of consciousness kicks in and the topic has already switched to something else. I really wish that I had the author of this reading with me in critiques so that they could translate for me what is actually being said.
I do recognize that I have a part in my experience in critiques. I have been under the impression that I have to open my spiel with the subject matter that is going on in the work. I have been confused about what the actual conceptual aspects of my own work have been. I am coming to see that when I am speaking about the technical aspects of my painting, I am speaking about the concept of it. That the conceptual aspects of the work are driven by the formal qualities of the materials and how they are being handled. so, this, along with speaking at length with dylan has pushed me to figure out what the consistencies in my work are. this is important because the individual paintings aren't blatantly cohesive when viewed as a body of work. this is something that has continued to be evident, that the body of work not be composed of multiples of the same painting.
the formal aspects of the materials used in the paintings become the concept of the work and determine how the subject matter is conveyed.
1. what is below the surface, how light reacts to the surface, digging, revealing what is below, whether or not what is below can be accessed either by touch or by light
2. reflective qualities of the different surfaces, shine so that the viewer can't get away from their own reflection in the work. different surfaces, based on their translucency, opaqueness, matt or gloss finishes, allow different levels and types of accessibility into the underneath.
3. color is used to either create a dissonance and or reduce each other to a local value.
I do recognize that I have a part in my experience in critiques. I have been under the impression that I have to open my spiel with the subject matter that is going on in the work. I have been confused about what the actual conceptual aspects of my own work have been. I am coming to see that when I am speaking about the technical aspects of my painting, I am speaking about the concept of it. That the conceptual aspects of the work are driven by the formal qualities of the materials and how they are being handled. so, this, along with speaking at length with dylan has pushed me to figure out what the consistencies in my work are. this is important because the individual paintings aren't blatantly cohesive when viewed as a body of work. this is something that has continued to be evident, that the body of work not be composed of multiples of the same painting.
the formal aspects of the materials used in the paintings become the concept of the work and determine how the subject matter is conveyed.
1. what is below the surface, how light reacts to the surface, digging, revealing what is below, whether or not what is below can be accessed either by touch or by light
2. reflective qualities of the different surfaces, shine so that the viewer can't get away from their own reflection in the work. different surfaces, based on their translucency, opaqueness, matt or gloss finishes, allow different levels and types of accessibility into the underneath.
3. color is used to either create a dissonance and or reduce each other to a local value.
Comments
Post a Comment