Viewing single post of blog MFA Reflective Journal

The group tutorial this week was insightful; it’s always interesting to get feedback and listen to how people observe and read your work. The discussion was about the work in general and what direction I could see the work taking over the next few months. There is a clear emphasis and exploration of form but not only the human form but it was discovered how the work has developed an animal/anthropomorphic nature and quality. I find this quality interesting due to how we have an animalistic nature and instinct as humans; we are both linked in some way. My space seems to have taken on a life of its own; it was mentioned how the work seems to have developed a life of their own, there’s growth, stretching, a flow and connection between the forms. The objects represent body elements; the limbs, pieces of flesh or meat? There tends to be juxtaposition between the organic and manmade.

Space and scale; the restraint of the familiar and unfamiliar tendency in the work. I don’t invision the work as vulnerable yet it has a tendency to question the purpose of everyday objects. What continues to creep into the making or assemblage process is the morphing of materials and objects into one another; almost a representation of an umbilical cord. There is a clear interest with structural components and the organic element. Why? What does this suggest of the nature of the work? The seminar with Andre Stitt on ‘Site: Situation’ was based on site specific art; the idea of the de-contextualisation of space is engaging and an area that I wish to explore the work further. The balance of industrial manmade objects and materials that lay against organic elements needs further exploration of space and how the work would read in the setting it’s placed. The question that was of particular interested from the seminar was when you bring work into a gallery or museum setting, what does its discourse suggest? The settings and environment will always read different for a viewer and can result in the reading of the work in a new or different context.

I currently read my work as sculptural forms within an installation context as space, scale and site is an important factor for the positioning of the work. However, how do installation artists begin their research? What are their interests to create the work? How do sites become specific to human scale? Something that I have not yet realised was how tension and relationship between materials is crucial in my work. The continuous juxtaposition between materials and objects and the unbalance of feminine and masculine qualities questions their purpose; do they even have a purpose? There’s a distortive association of play and balance.

The ‘Theory and Practice: a workshop’ with Clive Cazeaux was a discussion on whether both theory and practice cross over, connected or are they separate? I personally feel that they run parallel with one another and are progressive factors for an artist. The creation of work from somewhere, whether this is a subconscious or conscious thought. Therefore you learn theory not only through reading or discussion but through practice. ‘Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.’ (Kant’s theory) Theory and practice constantly relate and will expand and enhance ideas; it’s important to use your research as a tool for expansion.