I started this before i realised we didnt have to do a rationale, so yes
AUDIENCES RATIONALE
When first starting audiences brief I was quite enthusiastic. I saw it as a good opportunity to investigate different ways of presenting my work. I have always been quite concerned when it comes to repsenting my work, as a lot of the time, I only realise the final piece a few days before having to exhibit. The outcome always being a badly presented final resolution, and all in all quite a disappointing exhibited work. I saw this brief as an opportunity to explore the work of other artists and ways in which they present their work, and how I could relate this to my own work.
At the beginning I feel I was enjoying and interested in the module. I really enjoyed visiting different art galleries, and focussing on how I was receiving the work as the audience, and why I was reading the work in certain ways. However as the module continued I found it very hard to consider how an audience viewed my own work, as for a long time, I didn’t have any work. It takes me a long time to make work. So I was falling behind in this module. I think it would have been better if we were allowed to focus on one part in particular, which is what was suggested at the beginning, e.g. Fixtures and fittings. Then it wouldn’t rely so much on the success of the practice and materialty brief to be successful.
I agree that it may have proved easier to focus on 1 particular aspect.Although would you not have got bored with fixtures after a week?!
ReplyDeleteThe fact was that anyone could focus on anything they wanted to. In fact we encouraged that right at the beginning. Si’s comment about fixtures and fittings is interesting. Some artists spend their whole lives doing work that just plays with the nuances of presentation.
ReplyDeleteAs to the blog form. See http://blog.art21.org/ and then crit it. Is this just narcissistic? Or is it a reflection of the lifestyle of a particular community? The problem with any form of communication is that you need to test it in terms of how it works in different situations. Of course for people who work in the same studio it’s false but perhaps there are some uses for it or as a means of communication it would never have been used. For instance, when the telephone was invented the first message was transmitted into the next room. They could of course have just spoken louder. There are now over 200 million blog users. As Marshall McLuhan would say “the medium is the use”. So perhaps the argument is not “do we like using it?” Perhaps we need to examine what its ‘use value’* is?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI came across your blog by a circuitous route, so I hope my commenting on what seems like a private discussion is okay - but with regard to audience (I am guessing from what I have read that you are doing an audiences module at Uni?) I believe that when the work is placed in the public space it no longer belongs to you. You have facilitated the creation of a piece of creativity/art. In the studio the work comes to you and through you and is of you. But when you offer it up to an audience I believe that you have no say, no right to impose any further on that audience; in the moment of exhibition/performance your art is a gift and in that moment you must let it go and honour the audience by allowing them to take ownership of your work. I don't mean physical ownership, as in buying your work(although that is always nice!) but an ownership of soul. In that moment your art can speak to each individual who views it; some will embrace it, many will reject it. But that is their moment of creativity, their interaction with the art. And you the artist should endeavour to step back from that because you cannot control the thoughts and history of the audience.
ReplyDeleteIn this way notions of good and bad in art are nebulous entities really, all art is subjective to the viewer.
So, don't worry about the audience at all. Produce work of personal integrity and professional rigour and then let it go...