I’m pleased to have our first silent crit behind us. It’s a very vulnerable space to be in, to have to show the group a picture and not be able to explain anything about that piece. Having said that, it was interesting to see how our pieces would ‘hold up’ in a gallery environment where the audience won’t necessarily take time to read the accompanying blurb. Aside from a few comments here and there, I have not found cohort crit sessions very useful, but rather something harrowing to be endured.
Having said that, it can be useful in terms of potential adjustments that might need to be made; for instance, one commenter said the work was “disorienting,” “disconcerting,” and that they “didn’t know where to look.” Whereas I had felt that my composition was quite balanced… clearly it was not! So I’d need to re-look how I am tying my compositions together because I certainly don’t want audiences to feel disorientated or disconcerted – that was not what I was intending at all.
Instructor recommendation: Look up artist Inka Essenhigh because she also paints/creates worlds:https://www.instagram.com/inkaessenhigh/?hl=en
https://www.milesmcenery.com/artists/inka-essenhigh
Some useful comments that did make me feel that I was hitting the mark:
- making worlds with spacial objects
- they appear connected by colour and composition
- but at the same time there is a non-connectedness, some tension and complexity
- is the scale purposefully confusing? There are huge scale shifts – parts that appear huge and others that appear tiny, some elements appear to be in the foreground, but then relative to other pieces in the composition those same elements appear to be in the background.
- really enjoy the non-linear perspective – the play with perspective adds interesting tension
- interested to know why you chose to place gold leaf where you did
- some elements are recognisable: the fish and the sperm(?)
- contemporary surrealism
- optical illusion moving between 2D and 3D creates a lot of movement.
Debbie New 