Part I :
I thought the critique went very well. Literally everyone in the class participated, which is unusual compared to most other critiques I have been to. It is certainly a good sign about the works that there was a great deal to discuss about each. Listening to everyone's different ideas and feedback about each other's project was definitely inspiring. I enjoyed seeing how different people interpreted the same project. All of my classmates seemed to receive valuable feedback that will surely help them if they wish to push their ideas further and if not, in future projects. Unfortunately, my work was not critiqued on wednesday. Since my initial project was a disaster I was not able to have my second one prepared to be shown for the critique. However, I did benefit from listening to my classmates' critiques. Although it was not about my work, it was still informative for me to see what aspects of each piece my classmates thought were working and which parts could be stronger. I am looking forward to having my work critiqued after seeing the helpful feedback each piece recieved. The only improvement i can think of for critique wold be to have the time divided evenly. I understand this is difficult to do when there is so much to discuss in only a couple of hours.
Part II :
I am writing a response to Tisa's work. For the most part I found her work to be quite intriguing. She had many individual parts to her work that she showed us. Each piece was unique from the others. After Tisa informed us that her work was not conceptually driven but very literal and focused on the aesthetic, I appreciated it more. It was really intended for the viewer to come up and carefully inspect the different parts. I had been searching for a meaning that wasn't there to begin with. I think the faces on certain pieces of her work were what made me search for a meaning. Her work is really about the study of and relationship between materials. It seems to ask the question of where nature ends and man-made begins and how blurred that line can get. The objects all look as if they are ancient. They are very weathered and have a fossilized appearance. Some even look as if they could have been a ceremonial piece from an ancient civilization. I found the pieces that looked like vertebrae to be the most interesting because of the intricate and delicate shape. I think Tisa was successful in her study of materials and attempt to blur the lines of what makes something natural. I wish the beautiful aesthetic quality of the work would be pushed a bit further. Since she has developed such an interesting visual appearance, i think it would be wonderful to see these aesthetic skills applied to a more developed concept. Overall, I think Tisa's work was a successful study of the relationship between materials.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Ben's Blog 3
I think that the crit went very well compared to most that I am involved in at this level. It progressed much further than, "I like this because it reminds me of my grandma's old sofa that smells like soap." I am glad that we got into materials choice and craft and how it interacted with the work or concept. People also contributed a lot and there was constructive crit that was very useful that many are afraid to say for fear of stepping on toes. For me I think that I got what I wanted and that was the dialogue that was created by all of you as viewers. I really didn't expect you all to understand the piece because the experience that it was conceived after is by no means very common but you all danced in and out of the concept very well. I was also happy that it became a dialogue and an interesting one because it was interpreted in your own ways relating to your experiences or beliefs. I think that it confirmed for me that my piece was successful. I do agree with the fact now that the faces should have been more different, but in my original concept they were supposed to be me experiencing others memories and I thought that the faces being altered forms of me would have made that more apparent, seeing that no one really understood that I think I should have made that change. Today's crit = Good.
I really liked Tara's work. I obviously am fascinated by the human body/biology since every one of my projects have involved some sort of biological form. I think that her work effectively created a dialogue and that it kept us interested for a good amount of time. The craftsmanship was also done very well. I liked how we were all wondering whether or not the fetuses were deformed or just interacting on some other level, and just what the piece was about. My affinity for political art is wavering, sometimes I find it interesting and others I don't. I think that not knowing what the piece was about was more fun and created a much more interesting dialogue among us, but on the other hand finding out that it was about agent orange after our whole talk it made an impression. So I am really torn on whether or not I would want to know about that if I were in a gallery setting, because as Joe said it kind of cuts everything short, and with such well made objects I don't know if I would want that myself. I enjoyed the project as it was but some part of me would also like to see another related project that would be more abstract and be super surprising. This project did give me a surprise when I found out what it was but if you wanted it to be known that it was about agent orange, I think that to keep the viewers from cutting it short you have to connect with them through a common experience and move them on a very deep level in order to keep them in the concept and interested in what is happening. All in all I think it came out successful.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Class Critique/Ashley's Shoes
The class critique went differently than i expected. I am not an art major, so i dont really have them that often, so maybe that's whay i didnt get what i expected. I did not really find the critique that beneficial for 2 reasons. 1) I got very little feedback on the actual craftsmanship of my piece, and since i am not continuing with this piece, the other feedback seemed of little use to my future as an artist and 2) the focus of almost everything was on the joke that i had incorperated into the piece as an after thought instead of my main concept. The cold feedback I got was great. it showed that my piece properly conveyed my message that if we mix natural and artificial intelligence disasterous things can happen. I wanted to show an exploded head as the disaster, because if that were to happen to an actual person it would be. unfortunately, i did lose some of the pieces of scalp, so that did detract from the piece, and i could not splatter the fake blood everywhere, for it stains terribly (i was scrubbing the floor in the crit space, and it is still stained red), so that was not great either. Also, I left the brain in tact, because i felt that if it were in pieces it wouldnt convey my message properly. and, it was only the head that was supposed to have exploded, not the inner contents.I really did like the idea of having an eyeball on the side as part of the explosion, and if i were to do this again, i definately would incorperate that. I also would also make a bust instead of just the top of a head so that would be more obvious. I also would not even bother mentioning the joke, because it was barely even a part of the piece and was just taken wrong. Apparently I didnt convey my concept well when talking about it, and that is def something i can improve on for the next critique.
Ashley's shoes obviously showed a lot of work and attention to detail. Her shelves were a nice extra touch, as were the boxes with the individual labels. She obviously put a lot of care into all the details. One place where I saw room for improvement was mentioned in class--that the boxes were not obvious, and should be displayed with the shoes. Another place was with the darker boots--i believe they were supposed to be snakeskin. the insides looked unfinished compared to the rest of the shoes. I would have liked to see all the pieces glazed, but i do understand that to get the right textures that wsnt possible, but it would have been nice none the less. the concept however was not immediately obvious with her piece. I suppose that since many shoes now a days have animal prints, that aspect did not stand out. even then, I wasnt sure if the shoes were representing real animals as the label suggested), or if they were supposed to be a statement againts animal skins for fashion. that would be something to consider making more evident for the next piece. Overall good craftsmanship and great display!
Ashley's shoes obviously showed a lot of work and attention to detail. Her shelves were a nice extra touch, as were the boxes with the individual labels. She obviously put a lot of care into all the details. One place where I saw room for improvement was mentioned in class--that the boxes were not obvious, and should be displayed with the shoes. Another place was with the darker boots--i believe they were supposed to be snakeskin. the insides looked unfinished compared to the rest of the shoes. I would have liked to see all the pieces glazed, but i do understand that to get the right textures that wsnt possible, but it would have been nice none the less. the concept however was not immediately obvious with her piece. I suppose that since many shoes now a days have animal prints, that aspect did not stand out. even then, I wasnt sure if the shoes were representing real animals as the label suggested), or if they were supposed to be a statement againts animal skins for fashion. that would be something to consider making more evident for the next piece. Overall good craftsmanship and great display!
In response to the critique, I really liked the way it was run. I think it is always a good idea to have the artist let people respond to the piece first and then talk about their project and what direction they were heading in. As far as my project goes, it was nice to hear people actually telling the truth rather than just pretending to like it. Although I was kind of disappointed that people were focusing more on the hospital bed presentation rather than the actual piece itself and I don't know if that's my fault or just different peoples way of interpreting it. Overall I was pretty disappointed with my piece and I don't plan on taking it any further. I tried my best but unfortunately the idea in my head didn't match the finished project.
Kat's piece
When I first looked at Kat's piece I interpreted it as more of a tree rather than a brain. But then the more I looked at and saw the visual clues like the gel, I realized it had to be something else. I really enjoyed how there was so much movement to it with each twist and curve in the structure and also the way the gel moved down the pedestal. The gel definitely added a softer texture to it as opposed the brain which had a smoker’s lung effect from the glaze. Whether or not this piece was supposed to be touched, many people were drawn in by the gel and ended up touching it which was a great way to keep people interested in the piece. My favorite part of the piece was the area at the bottom of the brain where the gel met and the brain and sort of magnified the areas it was on top of.
Kat's piece
When I first looked at Kat's piece I interpreted it as more of a tree rather than a brain. But then the more I looked at and saw the visual clues like the gel, I realized it had to be something else. I really enjoyed how there was so much movement to it with each twist and curve in the structure and also the way the gel moved down the pedestal. The gel definitely added a softer texture to it as opposed the brain which had a smoker’s lung effect from the glaze. Whether or not this piece was supposed to be touched, many people were drawn in by the gel and ended up touching it which was a great way to keep people interested in the piece. My favorite part of the piece was the area at the bottom of the brain where the gel met and the brain and sort of magnified the areas it was on top of.
Critique of Rebecca's first project
(In this review, I am taking into consideration that this creative work is an academic endeavor in response to a course assignment about considering "nature and manmade; and what makes something natural versus artificial" )
Rebecca's gory piece was a finished mixed media piece with a core of fired, brightly glazed ceramic form representing the split two hemispheres of a human brain, with real and colorful wires attached and spilling out from its ceramic bowl, representing a broken skull. The central piece was embellished with patches of "scalp" and human hair strewn about. The piece was presented upright on the floor with a perfect circle of splattered blood stains around it.
It is very clear that the brain,skull,scalp and hair were the natural component and the electrical wires were the manmade component. What was not clear, was the cause of the broken skull with the splattered blood, the explosion and destruction of the brain with its wires attached. It was also not clear what the relationship of the wires to the brain was. The viewer is left with lots of uncomfortable questions in attempting to understand the piece: Was it attacked by a vicious predator? Was this the brain of an insane person who was "hardwired" to self destruct? Did the wires represent some sort of spreading matrix of lethal metatasis of a cancer? Was it some sort of electric shock treatment gone horribly wrong? Clarity on the concept came from the artist: the piece was about a dumb blond, whose brain exploded from information overload...it was meant to be a play on the old dumb blond jokes. But considering there was actually a brain there (and not an empty air head )we actually see a blond with a brain. Unfortunately , perhaps because I am a blond, I fail to see how that concept addresses nature versus manmade.
The brain and the bowl skull were well crafted but looked a bit too intact
to be effective as the result of an explosion. If part of the brain spilled out of a more lopsided bowl, the effect of an explosion could have enhanced. Had the blood been in a less perfect circle and a more chaotic it also would have conveyed the idea of an explosion. Had the brain been on top of a torso with long flowing blond hair, dressed as a self centered image-conscious female body, it may have conveyed the idea of a dumb blond better. As a whole,the construction was symmetrical and orderly and probably would not have held my attention if I had seen it in another setting. Shock value alone never holds my interest.
In spite of appreciating the evidence of much time, work and full use of the entire ceramic process by Rebecca, I question whether she has really conveyed her concept and I question if she really addressed the question of nature versus artificial as assigned.
Rebecca's gory piece was a finished mixed media piece with a core of fired, brightly glazed ceramic form representing the split two hemispheres of a human brain, with real and colorful wires attached and spilling out from its ceramic bowl, representing a broken skull. The central piece was embellished with patches of "scalp" and human hair strewn about. The piece was presented upright on the floor with a perfect circle of splattered blood stains around it.
It is very clear that the brain,skull,scalp and hair were the natural component and the electrical wires were the manmade component. What was not clear, was the cause of the broken skull with the splattered blood, the explosion and destruction of the brain with its wires attached. It was also not clear what the relationship of the wires to the brain was. The viewer is left with lots of uncomfortable questions in attempting to understand the piece: Was it attacked by a vicious predator? Was this the brain of an insane person who was "hardwired" to self destruct? Did the wires represent some sort of spreading matrix of lethal metatasis of a cancer? Was it some sort of electric shock treatment gone horribly wrong? Clarity on the concept came from the artist: the piece was about a dumb blond, whose brain exploded from information overload...it was meant to be a play on the old dumb blond jokes. But considering there was actually a brain there (and not an empty air head )we actually see a blond with a brain. Unfortunately , perhaps because I am a blond, I fail to see how that concept addresses nature versus manmade.
The brain and the bowl skull were well crafted but looked a bit too intact
to be effective as the result of an explosion. If part of the brain spilled out of a more lopsided bowl, the effect of an explosion could have enhanced. Had the blood been in a less perfect circle and a more chaotic it also would have conveyed the idea of an explosion. Had the brain been on top of a torso with long flowing blond hair, dressed as a self centered image-conscious female body, it may have conveyed the idea of a dumb blond better. As a whole,the construction was symmetrical and orderly and probably would not have held my attention if I had seen it in another setting. Shock value alone never holds my interest.
In spite of appreciating the evidence of much time, work and full use of the entire ceramic process by Rebecca, I question whether she has really conveyed her concept and I question if she really addressed the question of nature versus artificial as assigned.
The critique process yesterday was much more informative than I have ever experienced in my ceramics classes here at UD. I learned how much more practice you all have had at presentation! I appreciate that the instructor tried to involve everyone in the process and that she kept us thinking about how to ask and look at things. I do wonder at just how far away from the original assignment some people strayed....the instructor seemed to allow these interpretations of her question " what makes something natural and what makes it artificial? " but I wonder whether some of the pieces actually addressed that issue as assigned?
Realizing that "conceptual" is a big deal around here, I was not surprised to see a lack of balance of interesting composition of most of the exhibit . I was however, rather surprised to learn that very few of the concepts were actually conveyed as the creator intended. It seems that the concept is just a spring board or a starting point for creating a piece. Since the answer to my question, "Does it matter that no one understands your concept? does it bother you? " was usually "No, let the audience interpret as they will", it sort of begs the question: what is the point of conceptual if you can't convey the concept?
After reading our assignment and links about art critics, I am convinced that it should be impressed upon art students to consider FORM, DESIGN, COMPOSITION, BALANCE, VALUES,LINE, PROPORTION,RHYTHM and SPACE/JUXTAPOSITION, NUANCES and CRAFTSMANSHIP /SKILL if we are to actually consider a creative work, a piece of art.
Realizing that "conceptual" is a big deal around here, I was not surprised to see a lack of balance of interesting composition of most of the exhibit . I was however, rather surprised to learn that very few of the concepts were actually conveyed as the creator intended. It seems that the concept is just a spring board or a starting point for creating a piece. Since the answer to my question, "Does it matter that no one understands your concept? does it bother you? " was usually "No, let the audience interpret as they will", it sort of begs the question: what is the point of conceptual if you can't convey the concept?
After reading our assignment and links about art critics, I am convinced that it should be impressed upon art students to consider FORM, DESIGN, COMPOSITION, BALANCE, VALUES,LINE, PROPORTION,RHYTHM and SPACE/JUXTAPOSITION, NUANCES and CRAFTSMANSHIP /SKILL if we are to actually consider a creative work, a piece of art.
Dan Rucker- 3rd Blog Assignment
Part I
I thought that yesterdays critique went very well. Everyone was participating and had great feedback. As a class, the crit space looked amazing. It was filled with various types of ceramic projects that really looked professional. I liked the structure of the crit, with the cold feedback coming first and then questions and answers after. I think formatting the critique like this helps to really get an idea for what is going through peoples heads when they look at your work. Especially for my type of artwork,which is at first confusing because it doesn't involve recognizable objects, its good to know that people may be confused but can at least have an idea as to what i was trying to do with the piece. After hearing the feedback about how people wanted to see my piece in large scale, it has only motivated me more to work on my second piece.
Part II
Larkins, project was very intriguing. Initially when I saw the piece I was curious to understand the meaning behind such an odd paring of objects. A log, and an electrical cord are never normally associated with each other unless its trying to tell us something. The concept of the draining of power/ energy and the switch from natural to artificial is defined in Larkins piece. Her ideas were well thought out and applied to the clay. Technically, the log looked very realistic. The scale of the log did not bother me. It wasn't necessary a massive stump, but it also wasn't a dinky little twig either. The electrical cord was well done as well. I like how it was black and not some other random color. It added to the level of realism. The plug was a bit larger than your average, but the size allowed viewers to identify what it was right away. The cord /coil was also well shaped and positioned and showed no cracking along the bends. All in all the project was well done, I cant really pinpoint anything that was wrong with the project. The craft was clean, the concept matched the piece, and it was a simple and aesthetically pleasing design.
I thought that yesterdays critique went very well. Everyone was participating and had great feedback. As a class, the crit space looked amazing. It was filled with various types of ceramic projects that really looked professional. I liked the structure of the crit, with the cold feedback coming first and then questions and answers after. I think formatting the critique like this helps to really get an idea for what is going through peoples heads when they look at your work. Especially for my type of artwork,which is at first confusing because it doesn't involve recognizable objects, its good to know that people may be confused but can at least have an idea as to what i was trying to do with the piece. After hearing the feedback about how people wanted to see my piece in large scale, it has only motivated me more to work on my second piece.
Part II
Larkins, project was very intriguing. Initially when I saw the piece I was curious to understand the meaning behind such an odd paring of objects. A log, and an electrical cord are never normally associated with each other unless its trying to tell us something. The concept of the draining of power/ energy and the switch from natural to artificial is defined in Larkins piece. Her ideas were well thought out and applied to the clay. Technically, the log looked very realistic. The scale of the log did not bother me. It wasn't necessary a massive stump, but it also wasn't a dinky little twig either. The electrical cord was well done as well. I like how it was black and not some other random color. It added to the level of realism. The plug was a bit larger than your average, but the size allowed viewers to identify what it was right away. The cord /coil was also well shaped and positioned and showed no cracking along the bends. All in all the project was well done, I cant really pinpoint anything that was wrong with the project. The craft was clean, the concept matched the piece, and it was a simple and aesthetically pleasing design.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
