Tag Archives: art critique

The Joy of Critique

2016-05-06-21-53-18

One of my favorite aspects of being in an MFA program was the intense, expansive, intellectual dialogue I had with my peers–the sense of being refined and targeted, while yet embracing a try-anything, consider-everything philosophy. Nothing was ridiculous. We vetted wrong-way turns, but followed wild-eyed leads–referencing French philosophers alongside MTV, McDonald’s, art theorists, commercials, physics and cat videos. The rich, colorful field of human cultural existence was ripe for analysis and re-context.

Upon graduation, it stopped.

Or, rather, the requirement to attend a specific critique space on a given day, stopped.

We moved into new phases. Intellectual discussion no longer fell easily into the moment, ready to tumble into a circle of metal folding chairs, or float above-head in a coffee house or bar. The critique space became elusive, as desirous a soul mate (possibly just as mythical). The critique itself, the stuff of legends, gradually fading, as all memories do, into a milieu of crystallized details and airbrushed embellishments…

So I went on the hunt.

2016-05-06-21-53-19

Because many of us lived far from our program, we inevitably (and logically) returned to our pre-MFA spaces. Separated. Getting minds together locally has been more of a challenge, though not impossible, and my approach to the critique has turned into a process unto itself. I’ve been dogged about pursuing it–a great hunter of fruitful moments. Pursuer of intelligent feedback.

It’s become a process of hunting, gathering in itself… a system of savoring each precious exchange, of finding and reaping the right connections.

hefoundnothing_sm

“He Found Nothing,” 2016. Ren Adams. Experimental photography (manual and digital glitch). 9-piece installation.

Thus, I rounded up selected peers and colleagues. It was a lot of work to arrange, but the payoff was ultimately worth it. And I’ll keep pursuing these exchanges in the future.

Here are few highlights from their analysis of Whitespace-Bluespace – Televisual Memory and the Implied Catastrophe:

  • The videos are powerful without sound, as they leave the viewer mired in uncertainty; they leave more to analysis and inference than the Cascade videos did. They work effectively with the ambiguous content present in the stills.
  • There is a tension between specificity and anonymity, detail and abstraction, that suspends the viewer in an indeterminate space, like the territory of memory (itself transient, unstable) and the self-changing landscape of trauma; the place between action and inaction.
  • Different viewers were able to connect dots differently, some making good use of their storytelling minds to construct a system of events that seemed plausible. Some felt they simply *must* make sense of the vignettes they encountered–an ultimately pleasurable, if obsessive, endeavor.
  • Most viewers found themselves hunting (enjoyably) for the resolution to the implied events. Others enjoyed being mired in the confusion, knowing something had happened and was going to happen soon–but finding themselves looked into a certain interpretive pause within the frame.
  • Several viewers felt the desire to rearrange the image-cells both physically and digitally. What happens when the viewer is allowed to participate in the suggestion of before and after? How does it change the viewer’s engagement to the characters, their moments, the potentials? Can the images be mounted on physical surfaces that allow user participation?
  • The multimedia environment allowed viewers to access the content from various angles, gaining insight into the total sequence of implied catastrophes by combining clues like puzzle pieces.
  • Individual image-moments are powerful, fully present, often disturbing. The images are engaging and speak to both to television and art history.
  • Some individuals preferred the heavier abstraction, others found the newly formed characters more compelling. Most indicated they found the interaction (and tension) between specificity and abstraction to be a fertile, fascinating and important space.
  • Good use of digital glitch proved very effective for the viewer (as in The Extended Agony of Finding Out…). Glitch becomes a tool capable of obfuscation as easily as it emphasizes that which is already painfully clear.
  • The grids are very effective. They allow both linear and sampled viewing–viewers can choose to read them cell-by-cell, or bounce from one moment to the next, dancing within the grid shape. The grids themselves suggest television screens.
  • The silent videos pick up the “soundtrack” of ambient noise around them. During the exhibition opening, my colleague Nancy Meyer suggested the melancholy music performed by Megan meshed perfectly with the videos.
  • There is a sense of voyeurism that’s unsettling, perfectly in step with the obsessive excavation. We enter a space, especially in the installed version, where we’ve run across material we’re not sure we are allowed to see. We view, consume and analyze moments that seem private, sneaky, perverse in a sense. Not unlike the voyeuristic consumption of television itself.
  • Primacy and an odd lack of privacy abound.
  • The images are soft, painterly. Pixels are allowed to be themselves.
  • View-Masters allow for a contained, suggestive cycle that denies resolution.
  • “The Extended Agony of Finding Out,” is a strong cornerstone piece–a good introduction to the body of work.
  • “When I Looked Through You,” suggested Hiroshi Sugimoto’s Theaters–the form and photographing of screens especially.
  • The blog essays nicely supplement the body of work
  • Perhaps monitors can make the distinction between different models of making. Perhaps blurring the line more could be interesting?
  • Matte art paper good choice
  • Do they need to be printed on paper at all (can they exist as just View-Masters?) vs. printed on paper is the best choice; especially matte, as it freezes the frames and gives raw edges.
  • Framing might not be problematic, even though I thought it would kill the pieces. Consider clean plexi and wall, with L-hooks.
  • What if I sandwiched small pieces under one large sheet of plexi, like multiple windows on a monitor?
  • A brilliant observation by Kiera Reese: “White is easy to see as memory. Blue-artifact of process, digital/analogue maybe? Artificial as pigment, natural as sky -the personal aspects of this project feel more evident in the writing and perhaps the printmaking. -cell phone captures.”
  • Atemporality, a juxtaposition of past and present.
  • Love the “almost” aspect of the images. Suspended moments. From Kiera: “I like to think of that as an anti-decisive moment in my own work for photo history purposes, but it feels different in your work I think because of the film aspect. The photo-taking seems more like a means to an end than an actual interest in photography, which makes perfect sense in this body of work.”
  • Images with double image/drag affect provide the sensation of something slipping from grasp.
  • Ones with text feel a little out of place with the rest.
  • What happens if I separate the colors in the physical presentation, like printed on separate transparent layers or two separate projectors.
  • It would be fascinating/compelling to somehow experience immersion in all 23,000+ images.

2016-05-06-21-53-43

Their analysis helped strengthen my understanding of what the series was doing, pointed out new potential for further development, and helped me refine areas that hadn’t been fully developed. This is the joy of critique. It is valuable. Precious. Treasure it. Seek it out. Never let it go.

I want to personally thank: Kiera Reese, Allison Conley, Sean Stewart, Nancy Meyer, Cindi Gaudette, Susan D. Hopp, Joshua Sevits, Les Ann Holland, Adria Crossen Davis, John Kramer, Carol Felley, and Kong (the awesome gallery assistant at Butte College). Your feedback and analysis are much appreciated. Check out my links page to view (most of) their portfolios.

 

Final Mentor Meeting

Foothill Incident

Foothill Incident

I had my final mentor meeting with Kevin on 12/17 and we wrapped up the semester nicely. Since we were pretty much on the same page for the course of the semester, we had already covered lots of theoretical and formal territory.

View-Master

Technical:

  • The final presentation: table (less formal) vs. pedestal (precious, untouchable).
    • How natural is the interaction? How natural does it need to be, and does it matter if it is interacted with at all? How to set up an environment?
  • Complications of informing the museum-goer of a piece’s interactivity; how to inform, interface design. We discussed Layar and an installation I had seen earlier in the semester where some viewers took the time to download the app and view the work, others saw the work as it was, without the interactive component.
  • Ways of testing the 3D imaging using 2-slide stereoscopy, creative home rigs and glasses, making my own VR screen
  • Use tracking shots, or pseudo-tracking shots, consider old school animation problems
  • Consider the background vs. foreground as suggestion of movement
  • Consider the offset, pixel-based offset
  • What about Google Street View as a tracking system?

Concept:

  • The idea of adding elements after the fact and re-dimensionalizing the “program” is compelling and relevant. Should be exciting.
  • Seems a solid addition to the installation group.

capture_071_26122014_123059

Rental (Requesting Backup)

Kevin viewed the current version (potentially final) of Rental… and felt it was nicely resolved, in line with the other video works. He appreciates the collage-to-the-point-of-abstraction approach and felt it handled issues that arose in the rough cut well. it’s now ready for peer review.

Theory and Writing

We talked at length about the nature of research, theory and writing, and how these considerations impact our artistic production. It seems natural for our attitude toward writing and research to evolve over time–at times occupying a space of great hybrid practice, at other times existing as paradoxes of work-research, research-work (which comes first? Do they co-exist (at times each half becoming dominant)?).

Kevin suggested I always consider writing a formal practice, making it useful for myself, including whatever way(s) it manifests in and through the work. A process of formal discovery, of zeroing in on things, can be similar in both the way artistic works are built and in the way writing is composed. Writing should remain flexible and helpful, as we are first and foremost studio artists. At some point we can give ourselves permission to be experts, even as we are curious, evolving, learning experts.

We also talked about the artist statement as a philosophical challenge–and how it forces us to confront our ideas about the work, and what the work is really doing. We got breached the nature of tweeting–and how boiling our body of work down to 140 characters is both mind-numbingly difficult and brilliantly revealing. With this in mind, I will try to create a micro artist statement. If I can lay out my work in a tweet-length instant, it would be beneficial to my understanding of the project and to my ability to communicate it to others.

In short, Kevin has been tremendously helpful this semester and I’ll keep him apprised of the project as it flows toward completion.

capture_111_26122014_123226