our first tutorial at grays saw the class sitting around a table together for the first time. a new experience for some perhaps, but for me it seemed as though i was covering old ground - but it is this ground which forms the foundations of all good work and a refresher course is always worth it when you are covering such important topics.
first up were the obligatory mentions of mind mapping sketchbooks - these are as i have mentioned the most widely used techniques throughout the creative industries and although i find them at times rather clunky, they can offer insight into your work from both a perspective of introspection and from that the outsider (or examiner). because of this last point it is no surprise that within the environment of an art school we are being told about these things first and foremost.
up next was the reflective journal. i am a huge fan of this method of documentation - perhaps because I simply love the thought of publishing my work, which at the end of the day is usually an ambition of most artists/designers. the advent of blogs and the online support of these free, and instantly global channels of distribution has allowed people like me, who are up and coming in the artistic industries, to have a voice. the single biggest challenge facing newcomers to the field is getting you're work shown, this method allows you to do that in a controlled environment. Add to this the fact that if you are indeed using a weblog as a method of deliberately framing you're practice and ideology then you will have a ready made artistic statement - giving people a greater insight into why you are doing what you are doing. since starting the masters program however i have come to realise that this is not always a desirable situation, or at least not to some of my peers - who seem to value the mystique created by the ambiguity created by a lack of commentary by the artist. As a research method, into my own practice - i find it highly valuable.
Coming from a design background, many of the research methods were familiar - in fact i have used all of them to various degrees of success. The importance here is that although they are the essentially the same techniques, they are viewed slightly differently in the art world than in the design world where quantifiable results are seen as the proof needed to prove assumptions made by the designer or to illustrate the market's needs. in the art world it seems as though the very same techniques are used to a different effect - for instance, artists seem to view the information gathered in a far more emotional way, rather than in an informational way. from this it would seem that artists are more concerned with eliciting an emotional response in their work rather say solving a problem of sorts. this is not to say that a well designed product does not create an emotional experience - in reality it is actually what product designers are actually doing - but they are doing it in a far more packaged and accessible way. In contrast, the artist creates something which - for better, or for worse - is less accessible but which is also elicits a similar emotional response. This inaccessibility is what creates the aura or cloud of elitism around the artistic world - where in almost every case, people need to reach a higher level of thought to pierce.
something new which i got from this seminar was a far better understanding of curating. in the past i had never given it much thought, after this seminar however i realise the huge potential that exists within this practice, the way in which you're work is shown has always been important but when you can add to your work through the way in which it is shown - by placing it within a specific context or place for example - you are giving your work a better chance of being understood and being more effective.
Posts
