Deborah Thuman on sat 10 mar 07
I'm not sure what I expected with this critique. Because of my work
schedule, I keep taking the same clay class over and over. I just do
different things each semester and stretch myself. My teacher is fine
with this. While I don't have to attend the class critiques, I do
because I think it helps me.
For the last year, I've been doing some emotional art. Looking back, I
started out pretty tame and I've been moving towards subjects deeper in
my psyche. The emotional work is definitely NOT sofa art. No one in
her/his right mind would want any of these pieces decorating the living
room.
The latest work is precipitated by events at work the last few weeks.
The latest clay work is a series of sculptures featuring penises. The
pieces are about sex-role stereotypes, work place politics, and power
perceptions. I discussed one of the pieces with my teacher last week. I
needed technical advice (I'm working with two different high fire clays
because I want to exploit the differences between the clay bodies). I
said that if she didn't want me showing it during critique, I would not
show it. She suggested I do something more abstract but did say it was
okay to show the piece during critique.
I spent the morning in the library looking at art books. I went through
books with works by Kandinsky, Klee, O'Keefe, Kahlo, and Magrette. I've
decided that I don't want to do the kind of abstract work that
Kandinsky and Klee did and that I do want to do the kind of realism
that Magrette did. For that alone, the piece has value. Had I not made
that piece, I would not have done the exploring in the library and I
would not have been able to define my focus as well.
I wasn't expecting to have the class all jumping up and down telling me
they loved the pieces, but I wasn't expecting what happened either. I
had to insist that my teacher not leave the room when I talked about
one particular piece. Rather than criticizing technique, content got
criticized. A comment from another student leaves me with the distinct
impression that when one is doing work that touches on difficult
subjects, the academic response (at least at this university) is to
criticize the content and to ignore the piece.
Life isn't always pretty. Life doesn't always look hanging over the
sofa. I think that all of life can (and probably should) be depicted in
art. The message of a piece isn't always nice and it need not be
enigmatic. Certainly Frida Kahlo's work wasn't enigmatic.
Anyone else had similar experiences?
Deb
http://debthumansblog.blogspot.com/
mel jacobson on sun 11 mar 07
ok
At 10:37 PM 3/10/2007, you wrote:
>I'm not sure what I expected with this critique. Because of my work
>schedule, I keep taking the same clay class over and over. I just do
>different things each semester and stretch myself. My teacher is fine
>with this. While I don't have to attend the class critiques, I do
>because I think it helps me.
>
>For the last year, I've been doing some emotional art. Looking back, I
>started out pretty tame and I've been moving towards subjects deeper in
>my psyche. The emotional work is definitely NOT sofa art. No one in
>her/his right mind would want any of these pieces decorating the living
>room.
>
>The latest work is precipitated by events at work the last few weeks.
>The latest clay work is a series of sculptures featuring penises. The
>pieces are about sex-role stereotypes, work place politics, and power
>perceptions. I discussed one of the pieces with my teacher last week. I
>needed technical advice (I'm working with two different high fire clays
>because I want to exploit the differences between the clay bodies). I
>said that if she didn't want me showing it during critique, I would not
>show it. She suggested I do something more abstract but did say it was
>okay to show the piece during critique.
>
>I spent the morning in the library looking at art books. I went through
>books with works by Kandinsky, Klee, O'Keefe, Kahlo, and Magrette. I've
>decided that I don't want to do the kind of abstract work that
>Kandinsky and Klee did and that I do want to do the kind of realism
>that Magrette did. For that alone, the piece has value. Had I not made
>that piece, I would not have done the exploring in the library and I
>would not have been able to define my focus as well.
>
>I wasn't expecting to have the class all jumping up and down telling me
>they loved the pieces, but I wasn't expecting what happened either. I
>had to insist that my teacher not leave the room when I talked about
>one particular piece. Rather than criticizing technique, content got
>criticized. A comment from another student leaves me with the distinct
>impression that when one is doing work that touches on difficult
>subjects, the academic response (at least at this university) is to
>criticize the content and to ignore the piece.
>
>Life isn't always pretty. Life doesn't always look hanging over the
>sofa. I think that all of life can (and probably should) be depicted in
>art. The message of a piece isn't always nice and it need not be
>enigmatic. Certainly Frida Kahlo's work wasn't enigmatic.
>
>Anyone else had similar experiences?
>
>Deb
>http://debthumansblog.blogspot.com/
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
Snail Scott on sun 11 mar 07
At 08:37 PM 3/10/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>...Rather than criticizing technique, content got
>criticized. A comment from another student leaves me with the distinct
>impression that when one is doing work that touches on difficult
>subjects, the academic response (at least at this university) is to
>criticize the content and to ignore the piece...
Certainly the art-aspects of the work
shouldn't be ignored in a critique, but
when work with a provocative or loaded
content is presented, of course the
content will be discussed. How could it
not? It's an important part of the work.
When that work goes out into the public
sphere, the content will be considered.
To fail to do so in an academic critique
would be absurd. To criticize it purely
in terms of aesthetics or technical merit
would be to evade or deny the essence of
the piece.
It sounds like (and I'm about to engage
in speculation here) you aren't quite
comfortable with debating the nature of
the views you are expressing in your art.
That's common - many of us use art as a
way to say the things we can't express
(or wouldn't express) verbally. Art is
also a way to state a position without
the need to defend it in real time, or
to debate it with nonbelievers. Even at
gallery receptions, people seldom engage
in any real debate about evident content
or meaning. Art school critiques are one
of the rare exceptions to this. I know
it's uncomfortable, but do it! Your
clasmates are demonstrating attitudes
that will still be there in the 'real
world', except you'll never hear about
them from people out there; you'll just
be left wondering why your work isn't
connecting the way you hoped it would.
School is supposed to be supportive, but
it's also supposed to make you confront
your assumptions, and defend your hard-
won truths, if truth they are indeed. If
you can understand the roots of why
some people disagree with your stance,
you will be able to make stronger, more
compelling work which is more likely to
change their minds. If you aren't really
interested in changing minds, but only
in venting your own outrage at the
status quo, that's OK too, but try
engaging in the debate anyway. Make it
clear, though, if this is the case, that
you aren't interested in debating the
rightness of your stance, but in hearing
the degree to which you've effectively
communicated it.
If you feel shortchanged on technical
or aesthetic critique, then ask for it
specifically. And ask again if you don't
get it. But, I'd feel fortunate that your
classmates are interested enough to talk
about your content! Too many places put a
damper on debate and try not to risk hurt
feelings, or simply sidestep any awkward
discussion. Technical critique is the easy
way out, and especially in ceramics, too
many critiques get tied up in technical
issues which are secondary to the success
of the piece and never get to the meat
of the work, if that meat happens to be
content.
It's not fun, to be on the receiving
end of someone questioning the merit of
your most deeply held beliefs, but if you
can do it in school, you will be stronger
for it, and make better art later on.
-Snail
Craig Clark on sun 11 mar 07
Deb, this is a topic of interest to me. I have been, and continue to
be fascinated by the reaction that a phallic form can get. Regardless of
the intent, once the form has been engaged, so to speak, there is every
thing from open hostility, to sniggers, with everything in between. You
are by no means alone in the reaction. I have a half torso of myself
hanging off the front of my shop. It is normally displayed with several
other forms, all which happen to be female torso castings. I have had
several close friends come up to me and ask me how I can display "that
piece" when I have young children. It is a very mild half frontal form.
There is nothing salacious or provocative. It just seems that a number
of folks have difficulty dealing with the male form in particular.
Don't feel like you have been selected for special criticism. Once
you delve into the world of "the nude" or, worse yet, any form of
depiction of demonstrably hostile or less than flattering renditions of
the human form get ready to roll. I'm not sure what you did with your
piece, but if you really want to watch folks trip off line, try
watching folks react to anything that has to do with homoeroticism or
just a general questioning of sexuality period. The fur will fly.
Regardless, the most important thing is to continue to create your
images as you see fit. If someone can't handle a form, and all they have
to contribute to a formal critique session in a university setting is to
attack the content, F em...................Keep on doing the tough
stuff. There is a whole bunch of easy to deal with soft and fluffy Art
out there for the folks that want it. Hell, I make nice pretty pots.
Send them on over to my blog if they want to see something they don't
need to deal with. My yellow crackle quite pleasant.
Hope this helps
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 St
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
http://mudman00.blogspot.com/
mel jacobson wrote:
> ok
>
> At 10:37 PM 3/10/2007, you wrote:
>> I'm not sure what I expected with this critique. Because of my work
>> schedule, I keep taking the same clay class over and over. I just do
>> different things each semester and stretch myself. My teacher is fine
>> with this. While I don't have to attend the class critiques, I do
>> because I think it helps me.
>>
>> For the last year, I've been doing some emotional art. Looking back, I
>> started out pretty tame and I've been moving towards subjects deeper in
>> my psyche. The emotional work is definitely NOT sofa art. No one in
>> her/his right mind would want any of these pieces decorating the living
>> room.
>>
>> The latest work is precipitated by events at work the last few weeks.
>> The latest clay work is a series of sculptures featuring penises. The
>> pieces are about sex-role stereotypes, work place politics, and power
>> perceptions. I discussed one of the pieces with my teacher last week. I
>> needed technical advice (I'm working with two different high fire clays
>> because I want to exploit the differences between the clay bodies). I
>> said that if she didn't want me showing it during critique, I would not
>> show it. She suggested I do something more abstract but did say it was
>> okay to show the piece during critique.
>>
>> I spent the morning in the library looking at art books. I went through
>> books with works by Kandinsky, Klee, O'Keefe, Kahlo, and Magrette. I've
>> decided that I don't want to do the kind of abstract work that
>> Kandinsky and Klee did and that I do want to do the kind of realism
>> that Magrette did. For that alone, the piece has value. Had I not made
>> that piece, I would not have done the exploring in the library and I
>> would not have been able to define my focus as well.
>>
>> I wasn't expecting to have the class all jumping up and down telling me
>> they loved the pieces, but I wasn't expecting what happened either. I
>> had to insist that my teacher not leave the room when I talked about
>> one particular piece. Rather than criticizing technique, content got
>> criticized. A comment from another student leaves me with the distinct
>> impression that when one is doing work that touches on difficult
>> subjects, the academic response (at least at this university) is to
>> criticize the content and to ignore the piece.
>>
>> Life isn't always pretty. Life doesn't always look hanging over the
>> sofa. I think that all of life can (and probably should) be depicted in
>> art. The message of a piece isn't always nice and it need not be
>> enigmatic. Certainly Frida Kahlo's work wasn't enigmatic.
>>
>> Anyone else had similar experiences?
>>
>> Deb
>> http://debthumansblog.blogspot.com/
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>>
>> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>>
>> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>> melpots@pclink.com.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
>
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
sacredclay on sun 11 mar 07
Deb, Not quite as entertaining as yours but here's mine. It was a
crit during my time at Alfred University and we were doing a group
crit. there was this young man, who perfectly fit the image of the
name "snail"-tall, thin, with a goatee named John something. He made
a large figure of a woman in Cubism mode and she's posing like one of
those 1940's pin up models - Bettye Grable, Marlilyn Monroe, Riat
Hayworth etc.I was older than most of the kids by 6 years. The
response from the woman were vvery negative. they felt their sex was
being exploited that women aren't just sex objects. Poor John
apologized but I personally felt that the whole point was lost on the
women becauese I saw nothing but humor in his piece. He was
extroadinary talented and this piece for me, was an unexpected twist
on a familiar subject. Perhaps, if I was younger, I might've joined
in the angry mob, but I guess sometimes it's a matter of
perspective.The world isn't wlays black and white. The boys thought
it was cool. It was the subject that was criticized, not the style.
Personally, I'd love to see some pixs of your project to see what the
ruckus is all about. It's probably the subject matter that makes
people so uncomfortable, since it's really a vulnerable part of
themselves. Warmly, Kathryn in NC Beautiful out, about 70's and the
sun is warma dn shining. And my dog loves me!
Randall Moody on mon 12 mar 07
Interesting. You state "The pieces are about sex-role stereotypes, work
place politics, and power
perceptions." which is content, but then you seem to take issue with the
critic's speaking directly to the content. I don't get it. If you are making
art with content then that content is up for critique.
Just my opinion,
Randall in Atlanta
| |
|
