This is really belated, but I've finally got some time. It's February break, and I'm visiting with friends in San Francisco! This is my first time here, and I'm loving it--the weather is perpetually my most favorite incarnation of weather (mid 50s with just enough sun and cool breezes to balance each other out), and people I love are here, and the food is astounding and there are palm trees and flowers and mountains and puppies everywhere! Anyway, my friend is working today, so I'm taking a break from being enthralled in order to backtrack and mine this sketchbook before I fill its remaining few pages.
Without further ado, the notes from my final crit all the way back in December:
Me: The installation was the most significant thing for me this semester. Pretty much everything here is an artifact or documentation from it (photos, de-install video, sculptural leftover paper form, drawings made from rubbings/monoprints off of the walls)
RG: Given the energy you spent, this kind of record-keeping, how do you feel about what you're presenting versus the original installation?
Me: I think of these things as an archive--keeping artifacts that I can save or re-use, giving it a new life/ shape. It's not the same experience as walking in/ being inside the original thing, but it offers hints
SPW: I'm interested in this idea of an archive--think about how it is constructed, seeing both. If you think about archival presentation--feels like record-keeping. Performance of de-construction--interesting to you?
Me: Yes, ways of expanding on it
SPW; Hand held--constructing video. Moving like drawing+ objects.
Me: Thanks, that's great because I think about basically everything I do in relation to drawing
SF: What do you want documentation to do? Photos have greater sense of space than video.
Me: Photos are kind of all that's left of what it was
SPW: conducive to archive. Each form does a different thing--how do they operate in relation to each other?
JW: Photo process provides idea of elegance of process--photos point out what was lacking from the installation--think of as a stage, draw from photos. Think about what works and what doesn't. Miss the juxtaposition in the installation. The installation was like a large still life. Need to figure out what it is.
SD: You ask about stance in work--where is the work coming from; how do you push forward. What is your stance on the work--how do you position yourself in the work?
Me: Working with shapes that come from everywhere--manifest into their own thing. Think about energy I want--talk about horror--made this piece darker--looked at how others reacted--people felt afraid.
SD: Watch the Five Obstructions--think about the principle of the film--which things are variable vs constant. Find them and work from--start to inform material choices
SPW: How do you see parallel
SD: sensibility/ taste vs. material. Haven't made it your own. Hasn't allowed it in. Vague--the work is vague
GC: Doesn't like photos/ documentation. Power of the installation was being able to get inside--got inside of what had previously been a planar relationship--photos take it back to 2. Need the interior-ness. Ambitious notion to get inside those shapes--a challenge to explore how to be inside 2D. Danger of documentation is that it returns so rapidly to flatness--lose interior needs of form. Delicacy of big drawing not brought to the installation--rough construction of forms. Crudity--push this notion. How do you get to the interior of the 2D world? Big challenge. Worth exploring
SD: But the photos bring up ideas of light, value not in the 2D constructions. Very useful.
SPW: very specific to photo--having the permission to stare. in imaginary environment
GC: viewpoint so frontal though. In the installation, you are surrounded and that is lost in photos--greater ambition to see what you are proposing. Think about how to explore this--sculpture?
RT: More sculpture--get off the wall. Allan Sarat (sp?). Fine wire mesh--holding own weight--changed the air. John Chamberlain--Dia Beacon. Form of sculptures can inform. Maybe paper too weak, material poor, but wire is good for tape/paper. Move to center of room.
AG: So familiar to how to draw--when scaled up in the big drawing--how do you translate in scale? Don't see beautiful drawing qualities in flatter drawings. What is the right form for this experience. Plaster? Heaviness of form. Love tension. Confrontational vs. fragile. Theme has been in your drawing before. Graceful vs. heavy could be an extension in sculpture. Materials give themselves up as construction. Natural formations--ice/ snow. Gravity. 3D
SD: Photo=different material to think about. Silver-ness--you can't tell it's duct tape--how do you transform materials in the room? How could you? Black takes on strange quality. Get into your work--test material
SPW: material is evident in work. Photo is another material to think about. Ink + paper--how can you explore this material. Broken printer?
RG: Hold onto the intensity/ energy of the room/ in your personality. RT is right--bring into center of the room/space
GC: you move through shapes. 2D can be experience when back is turned to it--can have a presence without seeing it--change the nature of the room. Take 2D and see what it looks like inside of itself. The roughness of paper is right. Look at Keith Hilton. Reduction of color/ world are good way to proceed
AG: Leonardo--good at drawing--seeing body cut open, realizes how inadequate he is, but taught himself how anyway. You did too! Camera is too quick, but way to re-invent yourself--go back and experience slow process of re-invention and discovery--build it again--teach yourself how to see.
SPW: Photo is another way of seeing--not the same as drawing
GC: need different camera--allow to capture the meandering/ surrounded-ness. Photo goes against original notion of expanding 2D--returns to flatness--counter-intuitive
AG: Bloom made drawings of outside/ forest--you are in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment