So its group crit time, Kimberley had prepped me in the tutorial to be open to negative feedback but it doesn't really prepare you for it. Its been a tough ol'week in life in general so perhaps my armour was not as strong as I and hoped.
The prep from the tutorial was to 'define the experience that you are currently having – process methodology – material encounter, an entanglement of material, define it and flip it, frame it, deliver something – use different language – share at the group crit: don’t let it demoralise if they are negative – I’m testing it,
'don’t let it demoralise if they are negative – I’m testing it,'
In discussing my work with colleagues at work today key words were highlighted, the minimalism of the pieces - the maximalism of the multiples, distance of the bound work - the intimacy of the poetry,
In trying to discuss the work, which is difficult, I formed words prior to the crit:
muting of voice - restriction of other (touch, sight etc) - question of consent - the artist gives consent to the viewer by displaying the work to consume it - is it possible to withdraw one's consent? - the knowledge of the work exists but it can't be consumed.
Changing the language used: mechanism, operations, systems, agency of ...
I've been open about the confusion I have about my own work but my peers seemed even more perplexed than I had expected.
It was highlighted that the prior knowledge of the surface of the tiles provided the expectation to view the beautiful tiles - the frustration of their restriction is informed by that knowledge. If the bound work is displayed without the knowledge of the content the anticipation and expectation is very different and may not exist at all.
It is 'mean' to restrict the surface of the work within the stacks, IF you know that the surface exists. If you do not know what the surface looks like there may be no feeling towards it.
See it without seeing it - prior knowledges changes perception
is it about control? my response was 'always'
so to consider the feedback: the work is not being read in a clear way. I have had positive feedback on the aesthetics of the tiles from both the cohort crit and peers and mentors outside the programme. I, too, think they are extremely aesthetically pleasing but they lack control which does not sit comfortably. Stacking adds control but hides the surface. Can they be stacked with space? or placed in formation to show some of the surface? does the whole surface need to be shown or covered?
I need to really dig in for the contextual research study.