Final Crit July

Works shown at a final crit session in Baltic 39:

(followed by some feedback from group crit session)

and then

and then:

and then:

and then:

Feedback notes to work on:

  1. Firstly, the response was really positive.  People liked the work, really interesting and focused questions emerged on all of the work in turn. This was  positively and usefully critical.
  2. The space in Baltic 39 and the big white walls with some daylight was fantastic for presenting work, this undoubtedly helped people perceive it.
  3. The metal scrolls of photos worked well and people liked the idea of them. After discussion it was felt that they were a pair and would benefit from not being separated, looked good as positive and negative on film and probably should not be an interactive piece. Sandra J spoke about the historical nature of this piece – the importance of how words could interpret the nostalgia embodied in the conceit of the idea.  She suggested looking at mediaeval words relating to the land and ownership
  4. The ‘Lacking’ vinyl box was found very intriguing – people liked the glossiness and the simplicity and the ‘wrapping’.  There was some debate about this as a stand alone piece or as part of a series.  I need to consider this carefully, both positions had merit.
  5. The large image of chopped wood with poetry text was the least of interest – although the biggest and most contrasty of the pieces – this, I think, is the final evidence that the words and image might work on the small pieces, but not at this scale.
  6. People were attracted to the Japanese style hanging scrolls pieces and appreciative of their intent, but the valid criticism was that they looked too like ‘the real thing’ – they could really be a product from IKEA.
  7. The trials for altered pieces of furniture were easily the most exciting thing for  most people.  People liked the unfinished nature of the work, how the images had been applied and the contrast of drawing to vinyl and printed chipboard.  There were positive comments linking the material with images of the place of manufacture.
  8. There were many questions around the ‘attractiveness’ of the 3d pieces, how do you use that to draw in viewers, but also disarm them with the issues.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s