My recent Tutor Feedback can be viewed here.
Cari has identified lots of positives from my response to Part 2, I was particularly pleased that she felt the work was ‘investigative and questioning’ and could see that I generated ‘some more really interesting ideas’.
She has acknowledged my efforts to include more drawing and reduce the number of diary-like entries in my sketchbook. This now forces my attention to my blog, which:
‘At times, the learning log can be diary-like, focussing more on what you did rather than why or whether it was successful’
I really struggle with the blog, I find it the hardest part of the course. I need to change the way that I use it and find a way to make it work for me. At the moment, I still view it as a loathsome necessity, merely a hoop to jump through. I often leave the entries until the practical work is completed, this contributes to the ‘diary-like’ feel because I am recounting what I did, instead of puzzling what I should do next.
Having concentrated on improving my sketchbook in Part 2, I intend to now turn my attention to my blog. I want to fully incorporate it in my practise so that it becomes a useful tool, that works for me.
It seems some of my samples were well met, particularly the more experimental, less well refined ones. I predicted that ‘Washing Machine Spoon’ would be deemed successful, having taken less that five minutes to create. My ‘patchwork and quilting’ samples that took far longer were not so well received ‘a little too easy, perhaps too practised or comfortable’.
I am coming to terms with this. It is difficult, it feels like it is challenging me at my core. I need to lose my ‘neat’. ‘Push yourself to keep exploring imperfection and irregularity’ –suggests I am beginning to do this. I want to do it but I feel a resistance- like I am going to lose who I am, in a bid to be what tutors/assessors want.
One of Cari’s pointers for the next assignment is: ‘Emphasise experimentation over refinement’. I may have to make this my mantra!
I completely agree with Cari about the relevance (or rather irrelevance) of the Contemporary practitioners I used in my study. Looking back, my response to Ptolemy Mann was hugely inappropriate to the brief. My focus shifted from Joining to Colour and Pattern. I think there is probably quite a fine line between a lateral personal response and going off at a tangent!
‘Critically consider how your research informs the work in a relevant way. Focus on artists who use appropriate materials and processes to help inform your investigation’.
…really hit home. I began working on Part 3, pending this feedback and I can now see I have made exactly the same mistake again!
I set off with really good intentions of allowing the materials to guide me. Yet in my sketchbook I can already see my attention wandering: focussing on Rachel Dein’s use of composition rather than the material qualities of plaster and clay.
Just before I received the feedback I caught myself planning an intricate Paolozzi style cast of objects. I’m really glad the hot weather intervened and broke the clay tile because I was about to pursue a considered outcome with a material I knew very little about (latex).
‘Avoid considering outcomes/products, focus on generating a wide range of samples which exploit the creative potential of both process and materials’.
I need to go back and look at the Envisions Group again. I found their approach of exhibiting ‘everything but the end product’ helped me to understand this way of working.
Right now, I am at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed. I almost want to destroy what I have done so far and start again (not the OCA way). At least my mistakes should serve to demonstrate that I am willing to take on board tutor advice and to learn from it.