Sunday, 5 July 2015
Friday, 26 June 2015
Crit Notes
General:
- acknowledgement that an abstract painting probably does not somehow explicitly reference specific historical background/inspiration
- working from intuition vs. research
My work:
- "are they made with a machine?" - I'd like to think this means I achieved my aim of establishing a mechanical, repetitive routine
- people got that the work was meant to speak about futility
- gendered?
- nihilistic or passionate? (I find it interesting that someone else identified that it could go either way)
- include everything (since I aim to show process) or be selective?
- art that references art
- where does it go from here? (I think it continues in the same vein, indefinitely)
- arrangement as if it is accidental - I was told that it probably wasn't disingenuous
- "are the boxes filled with other work?" - I'd have liked to say yes
- other embroidery/tapestry artists can be researched - some communicate passion rather than detachment, but would be good resources for work that is not about gender
- acknowledgement that an abstract painting probably does not somehow explicitly reference specific historical background/inspiration
- working from intuition vs. research
My work:
- "are they made with a machine?" - I'd like to think this means I achieved my aim of establishing a mechanical, repetitive routine
- people got that the work was meant to speak about futility
- gendered?
- nihilistic or passionate? (I find it interesting that someone else identified that it could go either way)
- include everything (since I aim to show process) or be selective?
- art that references art
- where does it go from here? (I think it continues in the same vein, indefinitely)
- arrangement as if it is accidental - I was told that it probably wasn't disingenuous
- "are the boxes filled with other work?" - I'd have liked to say yes
- other embroidery/tapestry artists can be researched - some communicate passion rather than detachment, but would be good resources for work that is not about gender
Friday, 19 June 2015
To Do
I was looking for my first and second year work last night, and I realised that back then I was using this blog as a notebook, and failing to add pictures. So I'll be doing that soon, because I feel like those ideas are still important to me.
I also added a contact email address: blanketsasmakeshifthugs @ gmail.com (without the spaces).
I also added a contact email address: blanketsasmakeshifthugs @ gmail.com (without the spaces).
Sunday, 14 June 2015
Last Tests
Last tests for the installation.
The steps suggest progression, but I wanted it to be more subtle/accidental than just having them arranged exactly like stairs.
I've now gone over the floor and wall paint several times and filled in the numerous holes in the wall. The painting students who had been using the studio before hadn't made things easy for us. Luckily everyone showing in the space was more than happy to do their part and help others, and share floor/wall painting/repair tips, as well as supplies. People have been very kind.
I decided that it would be best not to over-think the arrangement of my pieces; it's supposed to feel natural, like the pieces of fabric have just been gathering there over time. They're the side-effects of a process, and it shouldn't look like I've agonised over how they should be displayed.
"Artist's Statement"
(The final version, in case I get to the studio on the deadline day and realise I printed the wrong version.)
I aim to explore futility, and productivity for the sake of productivity: the perceived importance of “doing things.” The line between “productivity” and neurotic ritual can appear to blur when productivity starts to become something that happens primarily for the purposes of preventing a feeling of futility. Some of my work acknowledges this in an intentionally literal way.
I have created other pieces using dice rolls to make decisions regarding visual aspects. Sometimes the aim of my work is to mirror the compulsive, automatic nature of the “productive” actions that are carried out to ward off feelings of futility. People often aim to fill time “effectively,” but the emphasis is on filling the time, rather than creating an outcome. Sometimes a feeling of being productive is based more on the ratio of time spent “working” to time spent “not working,” and is not related to the amount of time a task could or should take when carried out with efficiency.
I am interested in how inefficiency with time becomes a “positive.” Time invested into an object’s creation adds to its perceived value. Sometimes an object’s worth comes from the time invested, as opposed to aesthetics or function. I explore this idea using cross-stitch, as it is relatively time-consuming.
For someone whose intention is to make art, the perceived importance of “doing things” can go hand in hand with feeling the need to have a point to make. I aim to acknowledge having nothing to say.
I intend to create work that describes a process and the motivation, or lack of motivation, behind it. My installation shows the outcome of time invested, and attempts to question whether it is actually time invested or merely time filled.
I aim to explore futility, and productivity for the sake of productivity: the perceived importance of “doing things.” The line between “productivity” and neurotic ritual can appear to blur when productivity starts to become something that happens primarily for the purposes of preventing a feeling of futility. Some of my work acknowledges this in an intentionally literal way.
I have created other pieces using dice rolls to make decisions regarding visual aspects. Sometimes the aim of my work is to mirror the compulsive, automatic nature of the “productive” actions that are carried out to ward off feelings of futility. People often aim to fill time “effectively,” but the emphasis is on filling the time, rather than creating an outcome. Sometimes a feeling of being productive is based more on the ratio of time spent “working” to time spent “not working,” and is not related to the amount of time a task could or should take when carried out with efficiency.
I am interested in how inefficiency with time becomes a “positive.” Time invested into an object’s creation adds to its perceived value. Sometimes an object’s worth comes from the time invested, as opposed to aesthetics or function. I explore this idea using cross-stitch, as it is relatively time-consuming.
For someone whose intention is to make art, the perceived importance of “doing things” can go hand in hand with feeling the need to have a point to make. I aim to acknowledge having nothing to say.
I intend to create work that describes a process and the motivation, or lack of motivation, behind it. My installation shows the outcome of time invested, and attempts to question whether it is actually time invested or merely time filled.
Themes In My Work
(I decided to put this here because I completely rewrote most of it for my final version. In this version, I completely miss the point of an artist's statement, but it works as a useful write-up of some of my research/analysis.)
I aim to explore futility, and productivity for the sake of productivity: the perceived importance of “doing things.” The line between “productivity” and neurotic ritual can appear to blur when productivity starts to become something that happens primarily for the purposes of preventing a feeling of futility.
The perceived importance of “doing things,” from the point of view of someone who makes art, can go hand in hand with the pressure to have something to say. Some of my work deals with the idea of having nothing to say.
I am also interested in how inefficiency with time becomes a “positive.” Time invested into an object’s creation adds to its perceived value. An object that is created using a method or medium that requires less time is often seen as inferior, even if it is superior in quantifiable ways (such as factors to do with practicality, or efficiency with other resources). This idea of “inferiority” can be conveniently attributed to aesthetics, as they are subjective.
Changing tastes can make it less appropriate to use aesthetics as an explanation for the value of an object (or craft). For example, attributing the worth of a decorative object created in an out-dated style to aesthetics becomes less convincing. It becomes clearer that perceived value is often based on time invested; inefficiency has become a source of value.
Various industries are seeing examples of services or goods whose value stems from time invested, and not practicality or aesthetics. Older methods of creating images, still or moving, can be highly valued, even if they no longer match up with people’s tastes and are less practical. Value is placed on goods that are hand-made as opposed to mass-produced. Each example can be explained with various excuses such as nostalgia and sentimentality, but what they have in common is that they use up more time. We are valuing inefficiency.
Reasons I changed my mind about some of this:
- If I use examples to justify some of these opinions, it becomes very easy to find flaws and inconsistencies.
- Sometimes an out-dated, decorative object whose creation took a relatively large amount of time is actually not valued (i.e. it is sent to a thrift shop or thrown away). Or sometimes objects like this are valued because some people genuinely do like the aesthetic, and while this occurs less frequently, there are fewer of the objects left. This means that the object's value is due to simple supply and demand.
- I was going to mention inefficiency with resources/money, for example when rarer materials are used for objects while there is no quantifiable benefit - but this is also simply supply and demand. It is not that inefficiency with materials has added to its inherent value.
- Minimalist objects (furniture etc.) can take less time to create but are still valued for their design.
- Sometimes mass-produced objects actually are worse quality, or at least this belief is prevalent enough.
- In conclusion, the relationship between inefficiency and perceived value is not strong enough to make sweeping judgements. So I guess my point is just that sometimes we value inefficiency, such as when we praise Yayoi Kusama for, in her words, suffering for her art, and when demand that everything is painstakingly hand-created, and not made by machines or outsourced (Damien Hirst etc.).
I aim to explore futility, and productivity for the sake of productivity: the perceived importance of “doing things.” The line between “productivity” and neurotic ritual can appear to blur when productivity starts to become something that happens primarily for the purposes of preventing a feeling of futility.
The perceived importance of “doing things,” from the point of view of someone who makes art, can go hand in hand with the pressure to have something to say. Some of my work deals with the idea of having nothing to say.
I am also interested in how inefficiency with time becomes a “positive.” Time invested into an object’s creation adds to its perceived value. An object that is created using a method or medium that requires less time is often seen as inferior, even if it is superior in quantifiable ways (such as factors to do with practicality, or efficiency with other resources). This idea of “inferiority” can be conveniently attributed to aesthetics, as they are subjective.
Changing tastes can make it less appropriate to use aesthetics as an explanation for the value of an object (or craft). For example, attributing the worth of a decorative object created in an out-dated style to aesthetics becomes less convincing. It becomes clearer that perceived value is often based on time invested; inefficiency has become a source of value.
Various industries are seeing examples of services or goods whose value stems from time invested, and not practicality or aesthetics. Older methods of creating images, still or moving, can be highly valued, even if they no longer match up with people’s tastes and are less practical. Value is placed on goods that are hand-made as opposed to mass-produced. Each example can be explained with various excuses such as nostalgia and sentimentality, but what they have in common is that they use up more time. We are valuing inefficiency.
Reasons I changed my mind about some of this:
- If I use examples to justify some of these opinions, it becomes very easy to find flaws and inconsistencies.
- Sometimes an out-dated, decorative object whose creation took a relatively large amount of time is actually not valued (i.e. it is sent to a thrift shop or thrown away). Or sometimes objects like this are valued because some people genuinely do like the aesthetic, and while this occurs less frequently, there are fewer of the objects left. This means that the object's value is due to simple supply and demand.
- I was going to mention inefficiency with resources/money, for example when rarer materials are used for objects while there is no quantifiable benefit - but this is also simply supply and demand. It is not that inefficiency with materials has added to its inherent value.
- Minimalist objects (furniture etc.) can take less time to create but are still valued for their design.
- Sometimes mass-produced objects actually are worse quality, or at least this belief is prevalent enough.
- In conclusion, the relationship between inefficiency and perceived value is not strong enough to make sweeping judgements. So I guess my point is just that sometimes we value inefficiency, such as when we praise Yayoi Kusama for, in her words, suffering for her art, and when demand that everything is painstakingly hand-created, and not made by machines or outsourced (Damien Hirst etc.).
Friday, 12 June 2015
Boxes 2
Set 1 seems neat and clean apart from the text on the side, which I wouldn't have a problem with if it were something like dimensions of the box, or something else non-distracting. However, it loudly advertises a stationery chain in text much larger than any text in the embroidery.
Set 2 would be fine if the dimensions didn't result in a large expanse of cardboard.
Set 3 seemed like the most obvious choice before putting the boxes together, but the flaps won't really close flat. I can tie the boxes up tightly, but there'll still be some bulging that prevents them from stacking together nicely. Tape does the same thing. In the end, I closed the flaps the way you'd usually keep a cardboard box shut by itself - I was initially hesitant to do this as the boxes were double-walled, so it would have to be done with extra force and visible creasing. The boxes don't look bad individually, and actually the flaps create a pattern. However, the ratio of visible, protruding flap to neat, straight cardboard is too high because of the boxes' size. They also don't fit together that closely, so the boxes are as messy as the arrangement of work: there's no contrast. Also, the dimensions of the box faces are too close to the dimensions of some of the pieces.
Set 3 looks a lot worse in person than in the photographs, so I think I'll cover up the text in set 1 and use those. I'll experiment with mixing set 1 and 3, since they are similar colours.
People haven't finished installing work in the space around me, but I know the work includes a laptop on a small table, which I've seen, and something which I haven't seen, but that I think will resemble a shelf. There is also a large painting. If I use boxes to display my work, as opposed to the table or the shelves I tried out, we'll have limited obvious repetition, and a nice range of heights.
Set 2 would be fine if the dimensions didn't result in a large expanse of cardboard.
Set 3 seemed like the most obvious choice before putting the boxes together, but the flaps won't really close flat. I can tie the boxes up tightly, but there'll still be some bulging that prevents them from stacking together nicely. Tape does the same thing. In the end, I closed the flaps the way you'd usually keep a cardboard box shut by itself - I was initially hesitant to do this as the boxes were double-walled, so it would have to be done with extra force and visible creasing. The boxes don't look bad individually, and actually the flaps create a pattern. However, the ratio of visible, protruding flap to neat, straight cardboard is too high because of the boxes' size. They also don't fit together that closely, so the boxes are as messy as the arrangement of work: there's no contrast. Also, the dimensions of the box faces are too close to the dimensions of some of the pieces.
Set 3 looks a lot worse in person than in the photographs, so I think I'll cover up the text in set 1 and use those. I'll experiment with mixing set 1 and 3, since they are similar colours.
People haven't finished installing work in the space around me, but I know the work includes a laptop on a small table, which I've seen, and something which I haven't seen, but that I think will resemble a shelf. There is also a large painting. If I use boxes to display my work, as opposed to the table or the shelves I tried out, we'll have limited obvious repetition, and a nice range of heights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)