I wanted my piece to be a little more abstract this week. Instead of depicting a place that was actually "unseen," or a place that I hadn't seen before, I instead implied it with an element of something new I had experienced. That way, it wasn't like, "this is a place," but more, "I'm taking you to a place you haven't seen either, and a place you can't very well distinguish.
I guess I was going more for implying memory. The layering and the complexity was meant to hint at the sort of vagueness with which I'd look back on my experience. The mind's tendency to latch to specific details and to let go of more obvious details. Like I said in class, I was pretty happy with this piece, and I think it was a lot better than my spray painted piece.
I'm still struggling with how to let myself into my artwork more. I tend to put a lot of pressure on myself when it comes to making my pieces look finessed and very formally executed. I think that flaws are bad. But at the same time, the flaws are what make the pieces mine, aren't they? How do I find a happy medium? How do I connect to that very flawed and human part of myself while still catering to my neuroses?
Your comments--that is, your questions to yourself--are always quite interesting--and the piece looks good the way you have it here on the blog. It's an odd connection, but maybe look at the way someone like Bruce Nauman's work evolved--he always starts with an "idea"--but also the (personal) requirement that the idea be made physical. There may be more recent people who'd fit better with your sensibility--but Nauman came to mind...
ReplyDelete