New Project: Rebeccah Ulm Archives

I'm starting a new project.  It's still in its very early conceptual stages, but I feel comfortable writing about it now before I actually get to work on it.  Right now, the concept is a website.  I've already starting creating the new blog (there's nothing up yet, but it technically exists: http://ruarchives.blogspot.com/).  The idea is that I will post visual evidence of my existence.  The sorts of things a person would encounter after I've died, which would give that person a sense of the life I've lived and the relationships I've cultivated.  I want this to be extremely inclusive.  I'm talking scans of everything from Mother's Day cards to journal entries to sketch books.  I wrote in my sketchbook:

"I want this to include both the kinds of things that Mom would look at to remember me by and the kinds of things that future art students would look at to learn about me in their art history class [because if I'm going to construct my own personal history of myself, I might as well do it with the presumption of eventual historical significance].  Everything that is me is included.  Everything.  Not chronologically either.  Everything at once"

The only kind of "organization" I see happening here will be some abstract blogger tags: People (probably mostly photos of me with family members, friends; maybe some correspondences, depending on how I decide to deal with privacy concerns), Places (I've lived, visited, experienced--mostly photos, maybe descriptions from travel books or written accounts?  Press releases, photos from gallery shows/ museum exhibitions), Things (I've owned, collected, coveted.  This could get really out of hand--it could be everything from books to bracelets to albums) Thoughts/Ideas (this will likely be mostly journal/ sketchbook writings), Projects (resolved manifestations--there'll be some decision-making as far as what to include here).  This is purely a visual thing (scans of documents, photos of the aforementioned categorical items).  Each posted image will be accompanied by a brief description, of the sort you'd find on the back of a polaroid, or as wall text.  I think it'll be an interesting problem-solving challenge to incorporate "important" moments/events/relationships that were not photographically documented/ whose documentation has been lost. 

I suppose this whole thing will be a way for me to sort through some of my notions about history, identity, memory, nostalgia, etc.--how all of these things are constructed, what elements of our lives inform who we are, how much power we have to decide/ construct our own existence.  Can scans of emo journal entries and old family photos, combined with academic papers or intellectual musings really convey an accurate concept of who I am?  I don't know.  But that's the thing, isn't it?  What do we leave behind as evidence of our lives?  Can "history" ever really tell the whole story of a person, let alone an entire era?  And from what (whose) point of view was that history composed?

I think a really important element of this thing is that I am the one deciding what to include--I'm the composer, and the material is the evidence of my own life experiences.  Because I am alive, doing this in the present, the things I choose to post as evidence still have the capacity to affect the life I'm leading.  In this morbidly self-absorbed investigation, I'm going to look through all of the files on my computer, all of the embarrassing journals I've kept for years, whatever things my Mom has saved in the attic, my emails, etc.  That's a lot of very personal shit, with a lot of consequential power.  I haven't decided how to edit or if I will edit at all.  It might simply be a matter of timing--waiting until things become less potent before posting them (things that happened in elementary school don't seem as dramatic now, as I'm sure things that happened in high school won't seem so by the time I'm in my late 30s...or maybe they will...who knows?).  I guess it's a question of objectivity, if such a thing even exists.  Also, of privacy--what is private?  Do things cease to be private in the name of history?  Do I need to more actively construct some sort of narrative or mythology for this to count--like, pretend to write my own biography, but from the perspective of someone who is not me, but knew me?  I don't think I want to do that.  I want it to be more ambiguous than that.  And I'm only 23--I want there to be room for growth and development and adaptation as things change and new evidences are acquired.

Anyway, starting this project is dependent upon the new hard drive I just ordered arriving for me to back up the mess of files on my computer.  Once I've done that, I can clean everything out so that my computer will actually run Photoshop and Final Cut.  Then I can get down to business scan-wise.

This blog will continue to exist, because it serves a completely different purpose.  I'll update with recent projects after the hard drive situation is under control.

Final Crit Notes 5/7/12

Me: play video (Face Fill)

SD: Did you do this the night of the senior opening, when you showed up with your face covered in red?

Me: No, I did this 4 times.  This is footage of the first attempt--the night of the opening was the 4th

SD: It's interesting, because this really makes you think of getting ready to go out, and you actually did.

JG: Like a teaser--switching around the chain of events; implying there's more information to be revealed/ building interest

JW: Was each recording different?

Me: The color and light and path of the movement changed each time, because it was spontaneous, and I wanted to try it with different shades.  This one worked the best

TF: Are we seeing what you see? How did you set this up/

Me: Using the camera as a mirror

CA: You filmed this on your own?

Me: Yes

SD: Compared to the other videos--simple and basic.  Action appeals to painting--space to fill.  Sensory thing not in the other work

CA: Simplicity of action. More echos and meanings than prior video--more provocative in simplicity. Why stop at face?

Me: I didn't actually, but the face part worked best.  Filming my body was difficult and choppy and I didn't get what I wanted

MS: Places in video where you could stop--image of eye, nose--think of reversing it

SW: conceptual idea with face? Seems more deliberate

Me: Thinking about contour drawing directly on face

SD: Like deliberateness of how you're filling in--precision around eyes and nose is very satisfying.  When I saw you at the opening, I compared it to Wild At Heart, thinking of a more manic action, but this is really purposeful and paced instead

TF: Like the idea of exploring--sense of joy when you go outside the lines of your lips.  Ending dilemma.  Mistrel shows, baggage of painting face.  Compelling energy.  Conveying sense of 'what if I did this?'

CF: Love the travel of it--going from mouth to cheek to nose, etc.  Trying to figure out what's going on/ what comes next.  Associations fluctuate from clown to war paint--think I have a sense of what it is, but then it isn't--keeps changing

SD: You've been dealing with these cultural norms of beauty (50s icon).  This video is far more interesting than that imagery because it speaks more abstractly about decorating the body--goes beyond social norms

SL: See it as a mask?  Was it like wearing a mask at the opening

Me: That was more of a spontaneous decision as a result of poor time management...But yes, the mask aspect of it is important

TF: Going to the opening, it's like you wanted to continue to contextualize the experience

Me: I was thinking about it as applying to get ready and go out, and thought to try recording the removal as though I'd actually gone somewhere, in later attempts.  Thought it would be more authentic if I actually wore it out somewhere--opportunity to test it.  Also wanted to play with the ending/ prolong the looking at the end

CA: Address that next time.  Ritual paint--there is a point where we wait for gaps to fill in (forehead)--you could edit more; add other sequences in (like Matthew Barney), push more absurd.  Get someone to shoot for you.  Edit to underscore important moves--what would happen if you continue onto body--foot, floor, whole room, whole building?

SD: Can be a trap to push singular action.  This could be the beginning of something else entirely--this video doesn't have to be the main focus.  The next thing might look nothing like this.

TF: Kusama--polka dot environments--how she generates.  Your process is a part of that flow

CA: Keep thinking of that sequence in Cremaster 4 with the tap dancing---absurdity is reinforced with other activity--on screen for less time/ folding in other things actually ends up extending/ prolonging duration.  Take advantage of medium of video.  Love it.

GC: Rooted in high degree of realism--beauty of seeing eye, spots on tongue.  Covering with color makes realist manifest, more powerful--closeness to camera very blunt, where the power is.  Distance from the camera is powerful.

JW: Seems really important for camera to follow where your eyes see, for the narrative.  Elements where the color (flesh/red) or something doesn't work--formal elements?  Narrative is resolved, so crisp.  I feel like we shouldn't be waiting for the resolution we're expecting--we know how it's going to end.  Would like to see a resolution that isn't just the completion of the narrative.

MS: Finding where to suspend what we are waiting for--increase that tension

JG: Messing with chronology (by going to the opening) is really interesting--another level to realism.  Traveling through immediate narrative, but also larger narrative--social cues, class (choosing Revlon versus Chanel; your nose ring--signs that this is a certain person using a certain brand.  How would you apply Chanel? More precious because of price? Different narrative)

SW: Another moment could be capitalized on--concentrate on the gesture.  Moment where time is suspended/ where narrative is frustrated--ending should be longer, slower, elongating time with action

RR: Really rich setup.  Site specific drawing.  So many things--too complex, but you need to figure out.  Sense of descent, abstraction, self-loathing, desire not to be--the color could go to the edges more--when face is not in space but is space--poetic: pace, timing.  Notion of makeup being employed in a way that makeup is not supposed to be employed--should be explored.  Essay on makeup--one on men and one on women.  Masking, purpose of masking seems important.  Eye, mouth as oracle--present, but not given a voice.

GC: Very poetic--very tender in gesture; sensual--strikes me differently than clown or morbid overtones.  Can see you admire yourself; the application is so delicate--caressing, like a lover's finger.  Beautiful moments--on eyelid.  Narrative of topography/ journey of head/ structure of head dictates movement.  Adornment.

SD: Realist--useful way to not just cycle through the literal choices.  Next time maybe not lipstick or makeup.  Surrealist elements could be pushed (most surrealist artists used hyper-realistic imagery)

GC: good journey--start with drawings--keep going!

DF: From my angle, sometimes half the screen would be obscured.  Keep thinking about painting/ covering up part of the screen--become more interesting when things are obscured/ partially revealed

Street Harassment: It Angers Me

Open Letter to Every Dude Who Harasses Me on the Street:

Fuck

You

Fuck You for compromising my right to walk down the street in public!  I do not exist for you!  I did not leave my house today so that your sleazy ass would stare at me lasciviously on the street corner and impose some creepy compliment on me, or honk at me from your car, or whistle at me, or call me baby, mami, honey, sweatheart, sweetie, girl, etc.  I am not any of those things to you.  You don’t know me!  What makes you think it’s OK to talk to me at all?  What makes you think this is an appropriate way to interact with anyone?  

What the fuck is the matter with you?  

Have you nothing better to do? 

Fuck You for making me afraid to walk home at night!  Fuck you for following me down a darker-than-is-comfortable sidewalk and whispering, “hey” in my ear.  Do you think that’s sexy?  Am I supposed to be enticed?  I'm Not.  I feel threatened and afraid.  Is that your goal, you sick fuck?  How  dare you make me feel uncomfortable in my own skin!   How dare you taint my experience of the world at a time that has otherwise been peaceful, quiet, beautiful for me to experience?  How dare you infuse that peace and solitude with fear! 

Fuck You for phrasing your harassment as a compliment!  How is it that I’m a “bitch” if I don’t smile and thank you for your creepy invasion of my personal space?  

FUCK YOU, MOTHERFUCKER, I HATE YOU!  

DON’T FUCKING TALK TO ME!!  

I am wearing headphones on the bus!  Does it look like I’m in the mood to engage your creepy ass?? 

NO, IT DOES NOT!  

YOU ARE JUST A FUCKING IDIOT/ SUBHUMAN WHO DOESN’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SOCIAL CUES OR DECENCY OR ME OR ANY WOMAN BECAUSE YOU ARE A SAD, LONELY, PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING!  

You happen to have noticed my tits or my ass or how my skirt swishes, or how helpless I look in the rain, or how good a dancer I am, and, because you are an imbecile who lacks a filter or decorum, you just can't help but announce it to the world.  You know why I look good dancing/ walking/ riding the bus/ doing whatever the fuck it is you’ve caught me doing that you saw fit to interrupt?  It’s because I’m not thinking about you!  I’m enjoying myself.  I’m content in my purposeful mission of obtaining milk, or strolling to the studio, or visiting a friend, or going out to eat.  I like the colors I chose to wear today, and I’m enjoying the feeling of the sun on my shoulder.  Your expression of “approval”, because it’s not rooted in any real desire to make me feel good about myself, is not something I wanted or needed to hear.  I want NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU!

But that's just it--this isn't really about me, is it?  It’s about You.  You, deflecting your own insecurity in the presence of a strong, confident woman whom you know would never look at/ speak to/ touch you.  You, trying to make yourself feel powerful by making me uncomfortable.  You, trying to get a thrill out of frightening me.  You, being so arrogant and misguided as to actually think I must want your attention.  Because all women must want your attention.  It's what we're here for:  to be looked at and approved by the likes of you.  Well, I hate to burst that delusional bubble of yours, but 

I Don't Want Your Attention.  

It Is Not Flattering.  

Which is why you have to force it on me. 

I don't need your opinion, which is why I didn't ask for it. 

Nothing about you or your unwelcome attention makes me feel good.  

I feel good about myself because I don't care about people like you.  You're looking in at me, making your sorry effort at getting my attention because we both know you are not worthy of it.  Because you are a coward, you resort to intimidation, thinking it will force me to acquiesce.  And I do acknowledge you in that moment--I quicken my pace and ignore you, or I muster up the courage to shout at you, or I roll my eyes and seethe with rage.  But I will never want to interact with someone like you--I will never actively seek you out; I will never choose to spend time with you.  If this is what you wanted, you wouldn’t shout at me from your car or make animal sounds at me from your stoop.  You would use other, more appealing, respectful methods of approaching me—you’d give me the courtesy of allowing me to make your acquaintance, rather than forcing me into an objectified, subjugated role right off the bat.  I doubt you have any interest whatsoever in being a decent human being though, which is really unfortunate for you.  

I'm angry because you affect me, even though you are a pitiful, repulsive, cowardly nothing.  I want to ignore you, but you’re everywhere!  You’re on my walk to the grocery store; you’re behind the register at the grocery store; you’re on my walk home, in cars, on the sidewalk; you’re at the bus stop; you’re driving the bus; you’re on the bus; you’re lurking in an alley on my walk home, terrifying me into changing my route so as to avoid this situation in the future.  I am inundated by you and your invasive crudity.  And I hate you for it.  Your insecurities are not my problem, yet you pull me into them every time you open your stupid mouth.  It isn't fair.  You don't deserve that power.  

You affect not only me, but the entire structure of our society when you propagate such an outdated, offensive, warped perspective of what masculinity is onto random strangers, in public.  By extension, you further polarize gender performance by enforcing the subjugation of women to your crass posturing.  You're a cog in a system you don't even understand.  It's infuriating!  

I hate you, but more than anything, I pity you.  Fuck you, but mostly, fuck the social structures that sanction your behavior and allow it to happen constantly.  Fuck this world that moves too slowly and clings to stupid and offensive ways because they're familiar.  Fuck those who facilitate the maintenance of such a world.  

Recent Work: Red Lipstick Project

I've recently embarked on an investigation of red lipstick. It began when I decided to start wearing red lipstick every day to see how it would affect my daily mood/experiences, and snowballed into a video project, which I'm still in the middle of compiling. I started out with the idea of recording myself performing everyday actions while wearing the lipstick, in order to document the aesthetic transition that occurs once red lipstick has been applied (if/how connotations shift, if/how behavior is adjusted, etc.), and then decided that it would be richer to ask many people to experience this with me--I asked people I know to record themselves 1. applying red lipstick in a mirror, and 2. performing some mundane activity involving their mouth, and then to send me the footage. I've received 10 contributions so far, and am still open to accepting more. I've been keeping track of my personal thoughts/feelings about the experience in a document I'm calling Red Lipstick Reflections, and a few of the current participants have contributed their thoughts as well. It has been and continues to be a really fascinating experiment.

Here's a draft of the video (hope this works...):

And some stills:

Chris Sucking Lollipop
Me Drinking Beer
Rick Shaving
Danielle Peeing

3/12/12 Critique

Me: The audio in the installation is coming from a dream archive I've been keeping since 2007--I've started using it as a way to access myself through personal material. Imagery in the photos is from a 1938 dating guide for single women--I kissed them, scanned them, and blew them up. For the video, I asked people to film themselves applying red lipstick and performing an action--it's a rough copy.

JW: What about the paper form in the installation?

Me: My original idea was to write out the dreams and incorporate them physically into the structure. I built the structure to be this interior space inside another interior space--sort of a parallel to my internal dream space, and once I had it, I decided a sonic environment would be better than directive text.

SPW: Is this the way you imagine the video being installed?

Me: No. Ideally, each vignette would have its own screen

SPW: Organized how--cube, circle, stands?

Me: Something like the Isaac Julian piece at the ICA--surrounded by screens, sometime the images sync up, with choices of where to look. It's been frustrating to have to put it together this way--one sequence

AL: Are you editing them more to focus on the lips?

Me: I haven't cropped or edited them--part of the interest for me was seeing how the people I asked would frame it for themselves--they're not directed

SD: In your previous work, you're creating an aesthetic. What is it like to now be pulling together found images/ other people--a given aesthetic.

Me: Initiating something and then responding to what I get. Embracing my impulse to archive, record, organize--different approach. Only way I could think to make work.

SD: What's your relationship to "archive"

Me: Impulse to record what might matter, organization. The dream archive was never intended for anyone else/ to be shared, but I wanted to make something personal, and it's the most personal thing I've got

SD: Most artists have an archive of some form--hoard images to have an archive that nourishes the work/ feeds us. It's different when that archive actually becomes the work

Me: Investigation of that impulse/ what it's about--initiating and gathering community

SD: Why this action (applying lipstick)?

Me: Thinking about red lipstick as a social signifier--personal experiment: wearing it to see if it changed my mood/day. It did, so I wanted to open it up to more people to explore the relationship of the gesture/material--if the context/associations changed when it wasn't just me

SD: But you're still aestheticizing them--you're not asking them to wear it all day and write about their feelings/experience.

Me: I didn't want to impose it on them...

SPW: What does it signify socially?

Me: Glamour, beauty, power, sex--that's how it's sold

SPW: Interesting to choose video as medium because cinema is used in the same way. History of application of red lipstick

MS: Interesting to see people choose to apply lipstick in the bathroom--very private space

SD: If you're really investigating, you should be skeptical of your own responses to social norms/ tropes--really break things down/ let it expand, rather than stay within agreed-upon response/tropes. The color red is a powerful color in general (if you're walking in the woods and you see something red, you stop to look at it--danger, poison, etc.)--maybe that's why it's come to be used as cultural signifier

Me: Yeah. I want to talk about those tropes and why they're agreed-upon/ expected

SD: That's a trope too, of art language--re-examining the historicized perspectives of eras like the 50s with our "updated" viewpoint. Why not use current source material?

Me: I want to talk about them because they're not in the past, actually. I guess I just like the aesthetic of these better than Cosmo. When I printed them off the Internet, I pinned them up on my wall and just had them there for weeks, not knowing how to approach them, but knowing that there was something worth talking about. Binary thinking still exists--absurd, but serious (funny and bad)

AL: Others experimenting with red lipstick seem not to go to what you're talking about--it seems more like they're approaching it on the level of a daily routine thing.

Me: That's why I wanted to open it up, so it wouldn't just be me obsessing/ my biases.

SL: Want to see more--more imagery incorporated (billboards, etc.). Keep thinking of the form of the lips--Man Ray. Loaded icon. Don't feel the irony in the kiss photos

Me: I didn't feel ironic doing it

SPW: There's more sincerity

Me: Yeah, it's also just beautiful as well, so it's confusing/complicated for me

SD: Important to not just have the work reinforce original conceptual phase. All you say is trope--binary thinking. History of feminism--second generation using against itself. Could it also just be beauty of form?

GC: You need to be the one photographing them

Me: I didn't want it to be just me directing

GC: But this ends up being a collage of what you think looks good together anyway

Sean: Have you made any discoveries?

Me: It's hard to say--I think a lot of people were mostly anxious about filming themselves.

JW: Can see attraction in this. Your clip is totally different--you know what you want. The rest is just pulling together of the group. Yours is most effective. Go after it more clearly. Look at Marylin Minter's video--painting from combined materials--slipping, sliding, visceral attraction/ simultaneous repulsion--all comes from orchestrated video. Installation: house-like, room-like. I went in in the middle of a dream, and stayed through the end of the narrative--that minute and a half was very evocative--I could tell that it was something personal. Relation to you but not to others. Driving at something more forceful. Clearly pushing toward something. Drive at that much more. You going after what you want to say. Strength and conviction.

GC: Color choice. Look there at the image of those 2 lipsticks. Your choice to wear the yellow with the red and the white background--you are conscious about color in a way that those you've asked to participate might not be thinking about those compositional elements. Care less for the bottle image--we've all seen that. But the movement in the eyes in the mirror, or the other sequence when the hair cuts the image straight through...

DF: Disagree about the bottle--yes it's phallic, but when do you ever look at someone like that, just drinking

TF: Long term project, but will be worth it

SPW: Agree with JW and GC--you doing this thing. Sympathetic gesture. The connection of all of these pieces is you as a performer. Cinematic, subjected, appropriated. Not ironic/ agree with SL. Performing to it. Sexualized symbol. Reading dreams and giving people a space to retreat. collecting and performing--desire to re-situate/ document performance

MS: Might not hurt to think about how others arrange their moments (Internet)

GC: See this as bigger impulse. Very Eastern

AL: Confusion coming from involving more people. Think Cindy Sherman--self as perpetuation. What if you were embodying these things. More interested in self--more investigation of self

SPW: Always fail to embody the other as self

TF: Like lipstick as common denominator. Getting someone else to read your dreams could be just as effective (people hearing it wouldn't know). The acoustics of that room are so particular--what if you moved it to a different space. Keep exercising that. Think about focusing the video vs. open call

SD: You're using an aesthetic/ visual approach--own it. It comes through more in the choices you're making with the stills. Aggressive aesthetic action vs. inclusive editing system.

KM: Thinking about your paper pieces last year--flimsy/ fragile. Now this paper piece with igloo-like shape. Audio hard to understand

Me: Echoes/ muffled somewhat through the speaker

Joe: Like the mystery in that

Reflections on Feminist Art of the 70s, Binary Thinking, and Empowerment

Lately, I've been confronting my personal relationship to second wave feminist artists of the 70s. I have a lot of issues with second wave feminism, mostly for the reductive execution of most of the work of that period/ the inherent reinforcement of binary notions of gender. I understand the desire to construct a vaginal iconography to combat phallic iconography. I get that these women were rebelling against society's (and, particularly, the hyper-masculine art world's) notion of what a woman's role/perspective should be. By taking control of how they themselves (and by extension, women in general) are being objectified in their art, and by asserting specifically "female" perspectives/aesthetics/processes/ materials, they were attempting to take power back from the patriarchal system that determines what constitutes art/ determines the role and representation of women.

Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party (1979) was an effort by the artist to metaphorically bring women to the table of history. In order to do this, she crafted porcelain place-setting portraits of famous female historical figure's vaginas, and organized them on a triangular table with 13 such settings on each side (a reference to covens).

My problem is the fact that responding to essentialism with essentialism/ to objectification with objectification/ to oppression with reactionary efforts at counter-oppression, while a valid expression of frustration at the time, did little to disrupt the fundamental polarization of "men" versus "women". Much of the feminist art of the 70s actually underscores and affirms gender division in service of a kind of "getting even" notion of empowerment/ equality. Celebrating uniquely female experiences was and is important and I understand the appeal of a notion of womanhood/femininity defined by women, but the fact remains that any definition of femininity versus masculinity reduces and limits every single human being to an identity rooted in expectations related to their biological sex. As long as this kind of thinking is perpetuated, no one will escape the sort of oppression that the core of feminist ideology seeks to deconstruct/ overcome.

We live in a socially constructed world, populated by insecure, wayward people who just want to be accepted and understood. It's easy to allow a label to do the work of determining our social standing/ capacities for us--the day we are born, the world begins defining us, indoctrinating us into our presumed roles (penis gets a blue blanket, vagina gets pink; penis gets toys rooted in action and violence, vagina gets toys rooted in passivity and domesticity). But it's up to us to decide which expectations we are willing to accept, and it's important to pay attention to how complacency or rebellion have the capacity to shape society at large. Second wave feminism, all faults considered, got people talking about gender roles, and vastly expanded the narrow definition of what a woman could be/do/think/feel. The fact that we still correlate behavioral expectations with someone's genitals (or skin color, or any other characteristic we use to other one another) proves, however, that there is still vast room for improvement.

I've been thinking about John Lennon's and Yoko Ono's War Is Over! If You Want It (1969). It resonates for me because of the implication of the power we have to shape our own society/ of the fact that our society is inherently shaped by us. Things are the way they are because we agree to it. The "rules" we follow come from us, from other human beings just as flawed and imperfect and misguided in their attempts to understand and be understood. No one ultimately knows what the fuck they're doing or talking about, so why do we tell ourselves lies like "this is just the way things are" or "it's out of my hands"? Why are we so content to fall back on fate or god or faceless authority figures and ideologues everywhere to determine our lives? Deciding not to take it anymore is the only way for things to change. Our power lies in our capacity to refuse what we're given. Binary thinking is over if we want it! It only continues to exist because we allow it.

Final Crit Notes circa 12/16/11

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.