A week to go before four intensive days spent in the London studio. The ribbon has been ordered, printed and delivered - all 41 metres of it. Its good to have something tangible to get me started and I'm particularly pleased at the quality of finish - you never know how things will look until you're holding them. The font is perfect and the size will work well whether I incorporate it into felt, weave with it or do something I haven't thought of yet....
Have revisited the work of Mike Keeley http://www.pbs.org/art21/slideshow/popup.php?slide=834 and wonder whether this will inject some new energy into my thinking.
On another note I now have to decide what to drag to London next week. I think I will have to bring my own wool for felting just in case what they have is a bit limited. Also tempted to bring some calico with me. And a memory stick full of really good pre-scanned/ photographed images.
Next practical job is to do a bit of scanning - I want some diary pages and a good record of the spines and covers (including printed cover pattern etc) just in case I decide to do something with that.
I will spend this afternoon doing some critical reading - feel I need a bit more input in terms of the developing philosophies behind my work...I must ensure that this process facilitates some new thinking and ideas in addition to highlighting or reinterpreting what is already there.
So, on to Bourdieu and a bit of reading around Cultural Capital.
Showing posts with label art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label art. Show all posts
Monday, 8 February 2010
Monday, 18 January 2010
I am currently doing a masters module in teaching and learning that involves pedagogical research through art practice which is really exciting and very new to me. Traditionally I have painted - yes, I occasionally throw in a bit of mixed media but on the whole it's all very painty.
However my interests in contemporary art have long strayed from this medium, instead focussing on artists who collect and collate ephemera, map histories and document peoples stories and inner most thoughts... for example, Jeremy Dellers' Folk Archive show really stayed with me. I think it was the authenticity of the original work and media used - and that the work wasn't made as 'art' but that it has been reappropriated by an artist in a way that highlights its qualities - aesthetic and functional - without skewing it or taking away its original meaning.
So this is a long winded way of saying that for this module I want to explore how we can learn and develop as practitioners through our own histories - and that using that our actual history rather than a fabrication of it might be the best and most challenging way to do this. In terms of its link to my academic practice, I'm always concerned about the histories of students coming in to study art at undergraduate level - particularly their understanding of what art is/can be, the ways in which art can be made and the influences and motivations that can inform art making. I am most concerned about students inability to connect life and art in a fluid way. It seems that their formal art education has a lot to answer for in this respect; suggesting that successful art making is about themes, topics and thorough, linear development processes.
So this is what I need to untangle. The relationships between the individual, their personal history and the leap forward they need to make from teenager studying a-level art as a subject to adult undergraduate making art for arts sake. And I need to explore this using my personal history - otherwise it's all merely guess work. At the moment I think digging out my old diaries might be a very good starting point...these are where my teenage words live so it would be good to converse with them in some way.
However my interests in contemporary art have long strayed from this medium, instead focussing on artists who collect and collate ephemera, map histories and document peoples stories and inner most thoughts... for example, Jeremy Dellers' Folk Archive show really stayed with me. I think it was the authenticity of the original work and media used - and that the work wasn't made as 'art' but that it has been reappropriated by an artist in a way that highlights its qualities - aesthetic and functional - without skewing it or taking away its original meaning.
So this is a long winded way of saying that for this module I want to explore how we can learn and develop as practitioners through our own histories - and that using that our actual history rather than a fabrication of it might be the best and most challenging way to do this. In terms of its link to my academic practice, I'm always concerned about the histories of students coming in to study art at undergraduate level - particularly their understanding of what art is/can be, the ways in which art can be made and the influences and motivations that can inform art making. I am most concerned about students inability to connect life and art in a fluid way. It seems that their formal art education has a lot to answer for in this respect; suggesting that successful art making is about themes, topics and thorough, linear development processes.
So this is what I need to untangle. The relationships between the individual, their personal history and the leap forward they need to make from teenager studying a-level art as a subject to adult undergraduate making art for arts sake. And I need to explore this using my personal history - otherwise it's all merely guess work. At the moment I think digging out my old diaries might be a very good starting point...these are where my teenage words live so it would be good to converse with them in some way.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
MAKING SPACE conference, Chelsea 7/7/09
I attended the MAKING SPACE conference at the Chelsea School of Art yesterday.
Rather than put my thoughts in to a word document to gather virtual dust, I'll put them here:
Key themes of the conference explored how we inhabit, appropriate/reappropriate and 'make' things in spaces, with specific reference to art and design education.
What makes a space a place - are the art studios we have here spaces or places? Are they destinations or designations....interesting.
Notions of flexible and open plan space were described by Sunand Prasad (president of RIBA) as at risk of being designed for non-functionality...I think this is what we academics fear most. Through over-flexibility of design we risk the integral function of the space becoming ok for everything, good for nothing. This is the paradox of non-functionality as design criteria.
I was interested by the idea that 'function seeks out appropriate form' (S.Prasad) - are we allowed to let new spaces change or ease over time anymore? I always think of new spaces like new shoes - you need to give them time to take your shape, to become a little rough around the edges, in order to really be able to work in them. We discussed the way that artists often reappropriate spaces that aren't studios, asking questions around the legitimacy of space.
Is there a difference between social spaces where we learn and learning spaces where we socialise? Is one more conducive to making than the other? Someone said that spaces for art making need to have an emotional charge (though this sounds more intense than it probably is - perhaps we mean a place that energises us or allows for freedom of thought/action) surely the impact of this emotional reaction to or connection with a space would facilitate better 'making'.
And where, if anywhere, do we locate ownership? Obviously students are transient but there must be some sort of temporary ownership (custody?) of the space throughout its useful life...or is that the job of the art tutors... or would that just result in the perpetuation of our (probably very dated) ideas about how the spaces should be used.
Mies Van Der Rohe has a lot to answer for...
On a different note, we discussed architect/client relationships (particularly in terms of creative spaces - galleries/ university buildings/art spaces etc) and the Kiasma contemporary art gallery in Helsinki was mentioned http://www.kiasma.fi/index.php?id=11&L=1 alongside the Guggenheim in Manhattan http://www.guggenheim.org/ These are examples of buildings - and thus spaces - that were architect led (opposed to client led). They might be classed as contemporary artworks in and of themselves - with their function following (or perhaps even totally disconnected from) their form. Frank Lloyd Wrights Guggenheim Museum is a particularly good case study; to paraphrase Sunand Prasad rather badly, the Guggenheim is 'A Frank Lloyd Wright' in the same way you might travel to see 'A Picasso' or 'A Monet'. You travel to see his building, which happens to function as a gallery. But you cant move further than 7 feet away from each painting (unless you want to view it from over 50 feet away). So the building's designated function has been compromised by its architectural form. This becomes an experience, a day out, or a visit to a landmark - Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Guggenheim Museum. Which interestingly is exactly how I saw it when I visited it myself - the shows were somehow far less important than standing at the bottom of the ramp and looking up...
Now, there is a real danger of mentioning a certain pink shoe box in West Brom here, but I'm not going to.
left hand image - Guggenheim
right hand image - Kiasma
Rather than put my thoughts in to a word document to gather virtual dust, I'll put them here:
Key themes of the conference explored how we inhabit, appropriate/reappropriate and 'make' things in spaces, with specific reference to art and design education.
What makes a space a place - are the art studios we have here spaces or places? Are they destinations or designations....interesting.
Notions of flexible and open plan space were described by Sunand Prasad (president of RIBA) as at risk of being designed for non-functionality...I think this is what we academics fear most. Through over-flexibility of design we risk the integral function of the space becoming ok for everything, good for nothing. This is the paradox of non-functionality as design criteria.
I was interested by the idea that 'function seeks out appropriate form' (S.Prasad) - are we allowed to let new spaces change or ease over time anymore? I always think of new spaces like new shoes - you need to give them time to take your shape, to become a little rough around the edges, in order to really be able to work in them. We discussed the way that artists often reappropriate spaces that aren't studios, asking questions around the legitimacy of space.
Is there a difference between social spaces where we learn and learning spaces where we socialise? Is one more conducive to making than the other? Someone said that spaces for art making need to have an emotional charge (though this sounds more intense than it probably is - perhaps we mean a place that energises us or allows for freedom of thought/action) surely the impact of this emotional reaction to or connection with a space would facilitate better 'making'.
And where, if anywhere, do we locate ownership? Obviously students are transient but there must be some sort of temporary ownership (custody?) of the space throughout its useful life...or is that the job of the art tutors... or would that just result in the perpetuation of our (probably very dated) ideas about how the spaces should be used.
Mies Van Der Rohe has a lot to answer for...
On a different note, we discussed architect/client relationships (particularly in terms of creative spaces - galleries/ university buildings/art spaces etc) and the Kiasma contemporary art gallery in Helsinki was mentioned http://www.kiasma.fi/index.php?id=11&L=1 alongside the Guggenheim in Manhattan http://www.guggenheim.org/ These are examples of buildings - and thus spaces - that were architect led (opposed to client led). They might be classed as contemporary artworks in and of themselves - with their function following (or perhaps even totally disconnected from) their form. Frank Lloyd Wrights Guggenheim Museum is a particularly good case study; to paraphrase Sunand Prasad rather badly, the Guggenheim is 'A Frank Lloyd Wright' in the same way you might travel to see 'A Picasso' or 'A Monet'. You travel to see his building, which happens to function as a gallery. But you cant move further than 7 feet away from each painting (unless you want to view it from over 50 feet away). So the building's designated function has been compromised by its architectural form. This becomes an experience, a day out, or a visit to a landmark - Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Guggenheim Museum. Which interestingly is exactly how I saw it when I visited it myself - the shows were somehow far less important than standing at the bottom of the ramp and looking up...
Now, there is a real danger of mentioning a certain pink shoe box in West Brom here, but I'm not going to.
left hand image - Guggenheim
right hand image - Kiasma
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Han
- Lecturing in art and design is a lovely job and I dont take it for granted. I am really interested in the quality of what we do here and firmly believe that people who study art at university level have a distinct advantage over those who dont. So I suppose my job is to prove it.