1st November 2017
Laid out all previous practical work, like it was the unit 1 assessment
Why? To really compare and reflect by looking at the journey I have taken so far… I have a tendency to remain ‘inside of my head’ about my work, which often gives a distorted view of m6 work – often too negative, critical and self-doubting, and good ideas with potential get thrown away.
What did I find?
I still liked the Object, Language, Landscape project because:
- The colour! Visually impactful, exciting and has a digitally-rendered aesthetic which makes it uncanny.
- The objects are fun! They’re quite kitch; the skewmorphic quality of turning familiar, banal objects into blue, miss-scaled iterations is something of a hallmark of kitch-ness.
- The objects are kinda wobbly! It adds a fluidity, flexibility, malleability, ephemerality… to the object, referencing with the clay and hand-building process. Perhaps all my objects need to be hand built?
- The blob creatures! They’re fun too but they feel important to punctuate the ‘objects’. Without them the installation is about things – consumables – in a way, and not about the fluidity of an imaginary world, as referenced by the material. These personifiable forms make the collection have a narrative of sorts, or suggest a play-out of a narrative in the mind of the viewer.
- The space occupied… immediately I can imagine the installation going further, bigger, filling a larger space.
I am not that interested in my vessels project because:
- It feels like I know exactly where the outcome will lead, which is just the same thing… just better quality of finish, more consistent… and the prospect of doing that is not exciting.
- The objects straddle the realm of kitch, camp and fun objects but with a high degree of ‘do not touch’ that just doesn’t work (they’ll break if used)… aesthetically they do not do enough for the eye to warrant them just being like that.
- BUT…! I do still like some of the textural elements of the work – the raised dots and the tendrils. Is there a reason why I could use either of these with my installation idea?
I’m somewhat interested in the tactiform project:
- I know I can make them, and make them well – this shouldn’t be the reason why I continue to do the project.
- I can’t think of a way they should ‘exist’ in a wider context, apart from abstract sculptures.
- Again, I like the textural elements… could I or should apply this aesthetic to my installation, and what qualities would that bring… and what meaning?
What do I want to do next?
- Hand build a range of objects… try to heighten the quality of finish as these may be used for the final installation!
- Experiment with colour combinations, including gradients… really explore that ‘uncanny’ contrast of colour, which makes physical objects look digital or virtual.
- Think about scale… how extreme can I go with my scaling?
- Can I apply any textural elements from tactiforms/vessels project, with relevance and purpose?
- Can I increase the ‘malleable’ nature of the clay into the objects? Can I merge objects, or have them transform between clay and form?