I prepared for today’s group critique, is taking place much earlier than last semester.
Wednesday, January 26th, 2017
The entire first and second years are divided into two groups: Let’s call them the “A” and “B” groups. Each section is split into a grouping of 6 or 7 first and second years. The “A” group meets for the first three weeks of the semester, and then the “B” group meets from weeks four through six. The groups then alternate in this pattern until the end of the semester. Last semester, I was placed in the “B” group, which meant that I had at least three weeks to prepare work for critique, and then I had an extra week or two, because each student only gets critiqued once in the three-week period.
So, this semester I was in the “A” group and my critique was scheduled in only the second week of school. I really didn’t care to show last semester’s videos. As I’m very proud of them, I’m ready to move on from them, although I have to be prepared to continue to talk about them in relation to potential showings, etc.
So for today, I rushed a set of cards for what I call my “Prospective Objects” series. I created a two-page dossier on my goals, inspirations and challenges with the project. I’ll probably simply re-create that document, here. Plus, it will give me something to add for today’s entry.
In sum, the session was excellent. My peers were amenable to the critique being more of a “brainstorming” session, and they seemed quite open to offering ideas. I am in no way comfortable with presenting work that is not at least 95% finished. I like to convey my full vision, so the suggestions and critique can’t go too far afield, and I can make sensible decisions about what advice I will heed and what advice I will discard.
The faculty class leader was really into the ideas of the project and excited about it. That pleased me, greatly, and things seem to be off to an auspicious start. I pray that things will go well with the project and that I’ll get some traction.
Below is the sheet I passed out in the critique:
My new set of work is an attempt to create in the tradition of those artists who worked outside of the studio and sometimes in a public setting:
- David Wojnarowicz organized exhibitions in the abandoned piers off of the West side of Manhattan
- Jenny Holzer’s whose early work consisted of “Truisms” which were wheat-pasted around the Soho district
- Chris Burden placed television ads during programs in the Los Angeles area
- Jean Michel Basquiat spread his SAMO graffiti all over Soho
- Keith Haring’s “Subway Drawings” were done over unused ad spaces
- Christo and Jeanne Claude’s work involve intense public planning and conception before a public construction
- There’s not much “public space” in which to work (legally)
- I don’t want the legal hassles of “Street Art”
- The Internet is an important venue, but also “noisy”
- The “Art World” is much more de-centralized and diffuse than in the past
Prospective Objects is a series in which I make “digital” artworks which will later be made into “actual” artworks in more traditional media.
- I’ve been a “project-based” artist, but am interested in the “flow” of the painter — without the painting (at first)
- Turn the idea of reproduction on its head:
- The “original” is made after the “reproductions.”
- A new approach to “overproduction”:
- I can make many digital works.
- Not every piece will be fully realized, but they can be catalogued.
- The piece would have to be activated in some way by another person
- Utilizing new technologies:
- Digital creation: Take advantage of fact that I can pre-visualize artworks
- Small-scale printing: Card production
- Web site: prospectiveobjects.com will catalog all pieces
- Social Media: Pieces instantly prepared for posting
- Could the “original” somehow be more unique because I haven’t yet made it?
- What could serve as impetus or “exchange” to activate an artwork?
- How could the piece be activated by another person?
- What should be included on the back of each Prospective Object?