The horn takes a beating from Jo, she finds it contrived, and “overloaded” with meanings – it’s not paired down enough (not rigorous), as I try to explain, this is THE first work in the space, and I so happened to “trap it in time” with ideas (putting tabloids on the outside, and broadsheets on the inside (close to my “voice”)), which creates only disappointment for them. Again, I see where they are coming from, but it’s interesting to think that they deal with things so literally (critically), without letting a possibility breath (these, again, I stress are not finished works). We talk of the use of the paper, Jo isn’t interested in the “obviousness” of the positions of the papers (pub philosophy was mentioned at one point, thanks!) – but these are things I want to discuss, just because they are not interested in them, am I wrong? (be strong, is the message I am getting). Tom likes the trumpet shape, the flower like qualities, the broadcastability – but he (more constructively) tells me it is “overloaded”, several ideas shoehorned into one sculpture. I will try to separate the concepts, to compartmentalise the elements. I think it’s fair to say that the “sun vs guardian” is un-necessary and I need to look at refining the use of the paper in the sculpture – “it looks like papier-mâché” – I need to think more about the covering – red & gray might be a possibility, I might also think about just using headlines – making tabloid and broadsheet indistinguishable.
They are more positive about the newspaper ball (“full stop”) – because of its paired down “it is what it is” appearance. They liked the idea of the layering of the paper (again, avoid stripping paper, use whole sheets). I can turn it into a layering diary, a calendar – turning the ball into a large strata documentation of daily opinion (nee news). The augmentation of documentation of a trail of what paper, when , what date etc would sit beautifully as a companion for the full stop – it’s the opportunity to create a static “tomb” alongside what appears to be a never-ending account of its content. It’s the simplicity and clarity of the work – self contained – and this is the nub of any artwork – it should “speak for itself” – no need for a statement, knowledge of historical development – the difference between a sketch and a realised work (not to say that it is “complete” – as these works SHOULD move on and live in other forms.) The only “problem” with the ball, is that it is too small “cheating” would be the only option at the moment – to create a larger skeleton underneath, to then apply a larger surface area of papers onto it. It would be interesting to see that over time, as the ball grows, not one paper would cover the surface, giving rise to the opportunity to see the past papers. I’d imagine that the ball would have to be enormous – that’s not going to happen in the next 6 weeks…but, these points must be considered.
I quickly show them “my problem” (me writing lines in the nude). It is incredible the response they have, where I see nudity as a form of honesty – vulnerability, they see it as voyeurism. It again becomes a sort of battle between who’s right and wrong (not literally, as that’s impossible in art), but the battle between who’s understanding of a concept (or direction it takes) is “more valid” – I get the “I didn’t think about that at all”, but I did, so am I “wrong”, and they have it down? This ties in with the need for a work to “stand on its own”. Again, I confuse myself (by not understanding the complex formalities and language “fine artists” operate within: the idea that an artwork must be contained that it speaks for itself, yet is ambiguous and creates discourse – the opportunity for the viewer to get out of the work what they will, to stimulate and titillate the senses. How is anyone supposed to be able to tick all of those boxes in one work ? Jo and Tom are very confident that their work operates perfectly in these ways – ambiguous but accurate, specific but open. Me and my logical brain just can’t take this level of (apparent) contradiction. They do agree that this back to back video work is “strong” – they appreciate that the history of it, how I came about making it (as a reaction to criticism from them) is enough to merit its life, and it is also “open” enough to be interesting and engage someone without knowing that I am writing, that I am chastising myself (“my problem”) The title suggests a two sided argument (or approach too), it’s my problem that I have to deal with these critiques as an adult and as a practicing artist (for it is my choice to present myself as so, choosing the MFA and not the Mdes) but also as an open statement : “my problem with….” I feel very strongly about this work, and I think it is that confidence that carries my talking about it – I understand the work, but it still gives me plenty to think about when I see it.
Tom talks on the whole about the space, the knowledge of what will be in the space (again, a bit early to talk definitively about it), but I hear him – minimal and focused is the order of the day. They are concerned that I am attacking too many things and that I am not fully focused on the creation and critiquing of the work, but I still feel within me that I need to explore lots, to know where I need to go. Tom does point out that it is great to see such a level of activity, the engagement of action – making, testing a practice – but it is the level of my criticality that is the apparent problem. Jo says it is apparent that I am capeable of creating interesting ideas, and can easily sketch ideas that might address my questioning, but she advises that I need to slow down, and focus on one thing at a time – to really extract and assess the options a work can afford me. This is all good advice, but I felt I tried to be “critical” last semester, but was noted that “you seemed to do more work last semester” (sem 1). So I am going for LOTS of stuff to show that I can create ideas, and then hone them (perhaps, again, Jo and Tom are talking to me on a Doctorate level, and forgetting that this is coming to the end of an MFA?). At the moment, I still want to create to critique, to have an arsenal of visual language to play, edit and react to. I don’t think that this is the time for me to pair down so much, it’s like tring to put a lid on something I should be celebrating. I’ll leave that for the last 2 weeks after the dissertation hand in…ah…that’s right, I need to write a dissertation…best get on with that too…(shite).
I again go back into Gray’s at night, to make a start on the “Full Stop” ball, I’ve created a mock newspaper – to document the paper, day, headline(s) and sub headings. It’s such a laborious task, sticking sheets of paper do a deflating ball…perhaps that’s a metaphor in itself! – I also need to mix up some paints to start playing with colour on the horns… I need to start thinking about morphing the horn idea into a paired down focused execution. I have sketched in my book, that I’d like to have several inputs into the horn, newsreaders from channels, me reading newspaper, all blasting through to one cacophony. I’ll need some more pipes, and some more cones. I’d also like to try and create some very small metal horns, perfectly made, as opposed to the shoddy (but interesting) card models. I need to phone Barkley Maitheson’s steel merchants to get my large sheets of steel, for the hearing aid for a shed…so much to do!…….
No comments:
Post a Comment