I have been trying to decide what to propose for discussion and feedback during my upcoming Skype crit. As I could not come to a decision on any specific area of focus, I thought I’d just turn it all over to you all to decide what you think needs to be addressed…[links to new postings]...Just browse through and whatever pops out as something you would like to talk about we can talk about Sunday. [via email to group March 24, 2015]
The discussion began with the ‘Writing a Self Portrait’ blog-essay [KJ] where I declared my frame of reference as that of a painter. I clarified, by using a term which most people have a clear definition of in relation to work viewers might not see as fitting that definition I attempt to challenge the viewers’ concept of what something is and what else it could be. We discussed how we all have our ‘home base’[Claire] by which we define who we are and what we do and it might not always fit the standard definition of that medium. Self identification via a particular medium: “What is your tribe?” [Mark]. Use of the definition and identification as a painter as a historical context in which to place the work [Gabriel], particularly in the recent photos [Lindey].
Importance of the clarity in language was emphasized specific to the first year project title and the word Epilepsy, which contradicts the actual emphasis on the project as a ‘self portrait’; suggested clearly labeling “this is not an illustration of Epilepsy, but an exploration of my experience via the process”. Consider the approach of Anselm Kiefer to gaining understanding through the process of working out the subject for himself. [Gabriel] This is something I have been considering recently in relation to my second year project proposal and how Epilepsy is referenced/used in relation to the project; how distracting is it to the actual idea of the self portrait?
“What do you consider a self portrait?” [O’Neill] led to discussion of self portrait versus self investigation [Gabriel and Mark]. Twinings was mentioned as a body of work which supersedes the self portrait to become a self investigation [Lindey, Mark, Gabriel]. The disjunction in the intention between the public self portrait as a gift to community [Mark]] as opposed to the personal exploration of the self investigation [Gabriel] was discussed. I wonder, how much this is part reflects my process exploring the hidden and revealed parts of our identities?
Current climate of art/gallery worlds encouraging a certain degree of self identification to serve a system of classification and quotas was mentioned [Claire]. I stated this can either open doors or pigeonhole an artist, specific to not only Epilepsy. Expansiveness rather than limitations seems to be a more fitting aim [KJ]. Bringing the viewer into the work via the performative aspects I incorporate into the work [Claire], is a point I hope helps underscore the desire for expansiveness and serve as an impetus to the viewer to expand his or her own definitions of not just painting, but of what constitutes the self. This tied into the formal suggestions of where the mirror-framed paintings could go [Gabriel], the distancing of the paintings as painted surfaces minimized through a sheet of glass [Gabriel], or via the Self Reflective photos [Lindey], the layering aspects-MRI brain scan qualities of breaking down further and further to achieve a more complete self portrait [Claire], or use of the macro lens in the photos for similar purposes [Gabriel], and more overt references to the iPhone and Selfie Culture [O’Neill].