Critique session: 12/05

Critique session with Abbie, Isabella and Dane. I approached this critique session as a way of testing a recent strand, accessing the reading versus my intentions and evaluating if this strand was an appropriate one to utilise moving forward into mid-year assessment.

I was specifically intetersted in how the objects versus the supports would be read in relation to one another.

Wider Installation shot

Installation shot

Installation shot

Accompanying statement:

(to be added )

Notes from Critique :

Objects

• Readymade, domestic rather than manufactured, adaptation

• Adapted to/for new purpose - do adaptations increase or decrease usability?

• Unknown purpose of objects but a sense of body - a relation to a body which is currently absent.

• Objects pre or post performance/use - artefact of an act? or action

• look singular

• Specificity

• individual person or wider demographic? Individual issue or generalised issue?

Supports / display devices:

• Wood

• Same treatment to object and support - specificty

• Different hooks - draws attention to it - select purpose

• Grab & go - connect - athleticism

• The display of performance based objects could help with idea with presenting my objects and keeping them active rather than artefact or relics or retail displays..... tool shed wall of tools stored, presented but easy to grab and frequently used.

• In reference to the "medical" in the statement could this be utilised in the aesthetics of the supports? - powder coated metal - colours etc.

Artist references:

• Franz Erhard Walthe

• Vladimir Arkhipov

• Marcos Chaves - readymade stools + photographic potholes

Reflection / Moving forward (towards mid-year):

• The majority of the reading and thoughts that were discussed in reference to the objects and the supports were inline with my thinking and aims for them.
  

• Raised important idea of object versus support. How can the support heighten or enhance the conceptual or methodological support the ideologies of the object?
  

• Critique has highlighted the idea of specificity is extremely important. Not necessarily individualism but rather that individual problems are addressed by specific objects.
  

• The variety of object and their variation of ambiguities important to the deciphering of the objects. An easier to decode object In turn supports the reading of next - more difficult - object.
  

• Objects that solve issues versus objects that seek to explore how an object could be solved - Perhaps this is the difference between a functioning object and a prototype?
  

• Can individualism be extended into the idea of ownership? tags / labels? does this fear into the medical retail industry? Individual ownership is often devoid of labels/tags - it is when we take these objects into the public sphere we often attach physical representations of ownership to them .... tags, names and contact details.
  

• How objects themselves can be reflective of the society or aims of a group within a society, devoid of the "spectacle" of my earlier moving image works.
  

• How digital prototypes can be utilised in speculating objects when the individual cannot create the functioning object themselves. In this way, the digital building facilitated in software means the individual doesn't need specific building, plumbing, welding, metalwork skills - which could be utilised in different medical object building. - NFT's of the built object could limit the dissemination / reproduction of these creation and place the ownership in the hands of the individual.
  

• Create more... objects
  

• Consider how these objects will evolve into an installation w/ audio and projections (stills only) ?
  

• Experiment with support / presentation devices - how could these refer to the idea of the medical field?