I went to Uni on Friday to drop off some spare materials into the communal recycling box. While there I spent time talking to a couple of the Masters students, with whom I started my degree. They studied full time and have now started their Masters, whereas I am part time. I found their views very thought provoking. We discussed some student results from this year and I was saying that while I had no sympathy for the lazy, idle people who had failed, I had a lot of sympathy for one student who had tried very hard and failed. They said it was the right result and had no sympathy, because this person had no talent for art and just did not make the grade. I thought the result harsh because I differentiate between someone who has constantly sought feedback and not been given the truth (and not been deservedly failed at an earlier stage) and people who don't listen, don't care and completely lack self awareness. In truth though, I think it was the right result, though the treatment of the individual saddens me. This is what happens when the recruitment policy of the course is " gets bums on seats".
However the important part of the conversation was when they said "yes, the course is tough. But you have to get on with it, do the research, go to exhibitions, go to talks (even when you think it is over your head and you don 't understand), do all the contextual investigation, and compile a comprehensive file of your findings". This was like a lightbulb moment. I have felt a bit of a plodder recently. I have been to talks and found them a disappointment, am working solo and generally find myself alone in my specific interests. But I do find the research interesting. So galvanised into action, I booked a ticket for the following day to go to the Tate and look at Patrick Caulfield and Gary Hume.
I found both a bit of a disappointment. I liked Patrick Caulfield's early work where it was flat planes of colour of buildings and portraiture but as he developed into depicting 1970s interiors of busy pattern and flat colour, I found it quite oppressive. It represented its time very well but I suspect I have personal associations with the time that I dislike. Gary Hume's work about beauty was a very interesting concept, but the work itself left me cold. He works in gloss paint on aluminium panels. I think he has a team of studio assistants who do the work for him, which also does not sit right with me. There was one circular panel, painted peach. When you looked closely, you could see an undercoat layer of a line drawing of Kate Moss's face, with a brown nose shape painted on top. This was to represent Michael Jackson's nose. The artwork challenged notions of beauty- so which person is deemed beautiful, and which is more obvious? For all that I found the works of both artists uninspiring, they were thought provoking and helped me identify that I like a concept behind the work, and that I have strong personal associations with design styles of certain eras.
Having spent less time than expected at the Tate, on impulse I found a matinee theatre performance to watch. I went to see The Ladykillers at the Vaudeville Theatre. It is an adaptation of an Ealing comedy- very light, humorous, and just what I needed to make me laugh and feel light hearted. A good end to the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment