Notes:
reproduction of fungi - spores, airborne, rely on air flow/chance
wood carving prints - forgetting the broadness of art and science, accepting that they are artifice, an enhancement of nature
Helen Chadwick - dread of the inside (body) uncanny, trauma of seeing inside and outside together.
Scope, circular frame of drawing, anything beyond the frame is imaginative, more intuitive
Mark Francis - Large abstract paintings, microscopic views, photoblur etc.
Not chosen to look at science/art, aware that people pick this up in his work, implications of science in his work without trying to illustrate it
Detune science from my work process, create more artwork first without trying to illustrate 'science'/'nature', later on re-frame generated work with the implications of science. Need to use a light touch of science in work, not heavily suggest it
Create video's of drawings, can look at them with fresh eyes through the video - possibly create drawings from these video's?
While talking to Stephen about my work since the first year, I found that I couldn't articulate my ideas or thoughts about my work very well at all. Maybe this is an indication of a lack of engagement or interest in what I was working on? Stephen suggested that it may be because I'm not entirely sold on the ideas that I'm attempting to create work from.
I told him about several of the ideas discussed with Liz in the feedback tutorial, such as the prints, and showed him the prints I created from the carved wooden plank. He gave me a 'micro-critique' on the prints, telling me that they are an enhancement of nature, I've enhanced the wood by carving out the growth pattern - less to do with real nature and more artifice. and they are more decorative. They didn't really comment on nature in the way I wanted to. I understood what he meant after he explained this to me.
Trying to discuss what ideas I was working on, he quickly pointed out to me that 'science', 'art', and 'nature' are extremely broad terms, and encompass so many different things that it's impossible for me to be able to work under such a large umbrella of information. He suggested that I narrow down the ideas I have into something much more manageable. I completely agreed with him with this point, as I felt that last semester I often felt overwhelmed by these terms, and it may have stopped me from being as creative as I could have been because I was so focused on the idea of having 'science' and 'nature' present in my work.
Trying to discuss where I would go next, it became apparent that I was struggling, like I mentioned in a previous post. Stephen said that he sensed a lot of anxiety in my voice as I spoke about my work, and said that it seemed so different to my first year. He said that I seemed to have lost a lot of confidence in my abilities, which I agree with, although again I'm not sure why this has happened. He also said that I've tied myself into a knot last semester, and that I need to loosen up again with my work and go back to doing the things I was doing in my first year (in terms of working practice) that I was good at. He added that I have a very good, intuitive ability for drawing, and that I should go back to this. He said that forenow, it would be a good idea for me to completely forget about trying to illustrate or even consider 'science' or nature' in my work, and just concentrate on generating work again - with what Liz said in my feedback about referring back to my drawings to create more work from. Much later on, he said I could reframe the drawings to give viewers the implications of science/nature in my work, without trying to illustrate them wholly and letting that restrain my work - like mark Francis. The realisation that I had been approaching the subject the opposite way really lifted the burden off my shoulders.
No comments:
Post a Comment