I've been looking at podcasts, reading books etc (as you know)...and I think it's starting to sink in...
I keep forgetting to note an artist I'd found recently, who uses natural inputs to generate technological outputs : Keny Marshall's Apophenia (on youtube) certainly looks like the lo-fi mad scientist "made in a shed" ensemble that I could certainly feel comfortable talking about... I am just about to head out the door...but I'll be back to write about Keny's work, and how my crit went...
----
well, today went really well...I showed Jo and Tom my shed model, and they liked the concept, but were a bit worried i was just "dotting around", making art with no collective concept, or understanding of one work leading to another...I disagreed. I think that the Hearing Aid for a Shed is on the same tack as the "you and I" work (MfA project space). It doesn't involve computers (yet?) but it does carry my theme of nature "vs" technology... I understand their point that the work didn't "directly" lead out from my last work, but I think if that is the only way of making art, it's restrictive, in a sense that one thing HAS to lead from another, but as Sol LeWitt said "Ideas do not necessarily proceed in logical order". I do have a feeling (a knowledge) that all my work MUST be related, as it comes from me. I do have a core ethos to idea generation, and that is to explore the (a) relationship between natural and technological, with the human element as a conduit or interface for both. So, having that knowledge and confidence to say, "it is related, perhaps you can't see it" is a leap forward for me. I do know what I am talking about, I do understand my position in relation to my work, context and within the art world. The "full picture" of my context is not apparent as such, but would it ever be? If any position is "complete", what would be the point in continuing making art? Would I desperately have to find a new avenue of research? I think there is much mileage in a wide concept as human "interaction and relationship with an environment"...I certainly have the tools to take any situation forward. I am building my visual and written language day by day, my position can only get stronger.I had several invaluable advisory points from Jo and Tom:
When showing my work at the end of semester two (4 weeks away, I was informed) is that I should be absolutely honest with my criticality, that is, tell the assessor / tutors what exactly I thought went well, what didn't go well, what Ideas had merit, and what ideas did not. Jo had said perfectly "not all Ideas can be as good as each other".
Criticality is key to success, and progression. When assessing a space, or a potential site for an installation / sculpture, understand the parameters of the work. The work must evolve (in the mind, or in reality), e.g. when talking about the "trumpet", Jo talked of criticality with materials (of which I have invested much time thinking about what it will be made of). They also talked of the understanding (criticality) of budget. If the budget restricts the scale of the project, so be it. I might end up with a perfect, silver ear trumpet on a plinth, if that's where the work takes me; the idea is not to compromise the idea, but to evolve it for the best "outcome".
I did explain that when I see a possible work, forming in my mind's eye, I have a "gut instinct" to go with it, and "bash it out" on paper, in writing, as a model etc, and almost felt that this was "cheating". But, they disregard, interestingly they agreed with a stance of initial reaction being moved forward. It's comforting to hear that, knowing that an "in" to making, can start with a simple "reaction" to place, space or concept derived form another work - or other artist. It's all about confidence...100%
We discuss the larger issues about being an "artist" after my crit on the work I've done and am working on...It's an interesting discussion about money, lifestyle, choices and "reality". I'd explained my position about taking time out of a well paid job, how this course, time at uni, having poppy etc has made me evaluate what is important in my life, it's nothing to do with "being the master of your own destiny" (being your own boss etc), it's about leaving something behind, for future generations. I want to be as creative as I possibly can, I want to make things that people appreciate, or make people think, I want to produce work of merit, of "importance"...and it's finding that level, or where I can make work that might lead me to larger audiences, or even just like minded audiences that can then further my understandings and position, from dialogue and discourse...I want my life to be interesting, and not a 9-5 of inconsequential bread and butter work. We did discuss the need for work (or the fact that you can't escape "it") to make work that is a compromise of your "purist vision". Collaboration, in the best sense, is all about ideas sharing, idea evolution and "compromise" (without the "dirty" connotation)...Tom Waits is a brilliant collaborator, he relishes the fact that someone else can move his ideas to another plane, knowing that it was his original seed that made the progress possible...
Tom closes with a good piece of advice, in that someone who approaches art with a "solid view" of what it is to be one, and how they are going to live that life, will run aground, where as someone with a flexible and elastic approach to working, will survive. I agree, and I do feel flexible, I do understand that my future as an artist isn't going to be an easy ride, but with hard work, dedication and an understanding that I (we, Gabi and I) need to compromise, but not ditch integrity is essential.
All good stuff, and a far more positive crit, from J&T, and myself. Confidence to steer and disagree is easy, if you know your position in art.
Sol Lewitt's sentences on Conceptual art
Richard Serra's list of verbs
Listening to : asva - futurists against the world : Liars - They Threw Us All In A Trench & Stuck A Monument On Top
No comments:
Post a Comment