Critique Response 1 – November 6 2014
Originally, when establishing this group (Critique Group B),
there had been a little concern from the group leader in regards to my practice
being movement and performance based, while all the others in the group are
painters who are not really incorporating any performance element into their
work.
However, after receiving my first critique session, I can
happily state that I found all the comments to be extremely sensitive,
insightful and pertinent to my project.
(Although I’m not sure if the same could be said for my
attempts at critiquing theirs!)
An unexpected comment that arose from some of my peers was
in regards to the statement (in my project proposal) that - if I have to give
an underlying theme for my work, it is that of Transformation, Metamorphosis
& Transcendence.
They were asking me to consider these ideas more thoroughly
in their separate (yet related) nuances of meaning – rather than lumping them
altogether as meaning the same thing. They were also noting that, although they
agreed they could see those influences in the work, I was not really addressing
it directly.
I think it was unexpected to me to hear this because this
definition has been included into my statement as a later addition, after emphatic
prompting from Jean Marie Casbarian that I must define what my work is about! I
was quite resistant to this at first, as I like to think of my work as a
neutral platform that is able to embrace and present any subject matter.
However, I took her wise advice and, with the help of Mary Sherman during a
crit session in Berlin, defined this common thread that, once stated, I
certainly resonated with.
However – it is still rather an after-thought that has not
been woven into conscious recognition within my project – so it was extremely
astute of my crit-group peers to dig this out!
Other questions that arose from most people were to do with
the pedagogical structure of the project. There were questions concerning the
final curriculum that will be created, its form and versatility.
I realize that I have laid out a curriculum plan that
contains four distinct catagories and have numbered them 1 2 3 4 – but not yet
given any indication towards my intentions for how this will come into
play. For example – Will we go systematically
through each category or will we draw an exercise from each category in each
lesson? Or perhaps focus more on one or two categories in one lesson, then on
another category in the next lesson? Etc.
Also – what is necessary to establish first in order to
build? Or is it even necessary to have the traditional “consecutive building”
approach? Can information, exercises, play and assignments be more randomly
“thrown into the mix”? Can information and exercises from each of the four
categories be unified by a common subject matter for a lesson or workshop plan?
It was suggested that I research recent papers written on
pedagogical structures and theories of learning. I’m sure it will be incredibly
informative for me to do this as a formal research exercise that has no direct
relationship to performance or art in order to understand more about the shape
a curriculum can take.
Also in question was: “Who” is this curriculum designed for?
Ideally, my aim is to create a pedagogy that is extremely
fluid and versatile in it’s accessibility – yet maintaining a distinct
methodology.
I have been reading Gomez-Pena’s “Exercises For Rebel
Artists” and am excited to note how his approach resonates so completely with
my own.
Other comments that I very much appreciated were in regards
to my “creating a language”. I do feel I am formulating a language of the body
itself and a language that addresses a way of thinking about the body and the
psyche of being present in the body. The Self as medium.
Link to Critique Group B request and comments:
No comments:
Post a Comment