top of page
Search
Writer's pictureGitanjali Bhatt

September Seminar Reflection

Updated: Oct 11, 2021

September Seminar Reflection


Reflection, questions and takeaways from my crits:


This crit session was one of the most helpful/positive ones I've had this year, i think because i had a much more developed piece of work and installation method, even though it was in my bedroom and over lockdown. I felt that this discussion of my work was helpful, as it made me think about how the audience received the work, and whether my intentions of the project were coming through. I showed the Bike construction alongside the video, and a digital booklet was also presented as an additional component of the work.


Ideas of the bike as a functional object came up through the crits; how the objects altered the bike into a clustered format, reflecting ideas of an interconnected form and idea.


  • The question of what is the artwork vs what is the documentation is lessening - whats leading? the lessening is a virtue here.

  • Tension between the bike and the book

  • significance of location

  • Book adds an attention to detail and a new seriousness to the work - books like a list

  • Video made viewers nauseous - (later we discusses with Ngahuia as this being a successful thing)

  • Paul Cullen

  • Bike-ideas of dystopian, homelessness, mad scientist vibes, different colours and arrangements, find humour in bike

  • Book is a shift of register

  • Do all these elements always need to be together? sufficient energy sufficient energy in each element so maybe drop one or other

  • I have taken on the main points from midyear. focus on installation in the space. Good work ethic given impact of covid/lockdowns. -- Ideas of hierarchy/what to document/ what is artwork

  • Successful experimentation- thinking through making. Architectural influence - futuristic-like approach?

  • Objects are what they are - not trying to turn them into anything other.

  • Absurdist subjectivity that distances me from any notions of a bigger, bombastic reach


The feedback/response on the book was around how the book re-examines these objects that i have used via a separated strand, something that can sit more independent of the 'install.' I have yet to push these ideas of where exactly the book sits or how it operates with my install. Whether the book remains an online publication, or whether is is a physical object in the space. These ideas i will push further in my making towards end of year. As the response from the crits noted, the book and objects within it are a compelling way to integrate my idea of the importance of the objects, however still, it works better as a separate line if exploration that directly integrated into the install.


Work, install, the book,

possible presentation methods, ideas eg

In relation to the feedback from midyear.


Debrief with Ngahuia and Balamohan


Book gives a new dynamic to the work - like an inventory. Working at different registers, different ways of reconciling the materials.


Installation can be just two things, doesn't have to be three elements in the space. I am often inclined to produce three- part installs, and i think this is due to the idea that if there are three elements in the space there is some sort of equality amongst the elements, whereas two elements can induce a ranking of the works/or a space where the works fight against each other.


Ngahuia commented that the the video being described as 'giving a feeling of nauseousness' was a good thing as it affirms the type of response i was going for and what i want audience to discuss over my work. I am trying to create a view of absurdity and non-conformity so thus the 'nauseous' reception of the video is my way of thinking through how we usually landscape and the offhand approach my video can offer instead.


It would have been good if the crits were more directed towards installation, but perhaps it is more difficult to do this over zoom and with a 'virtual' installation.


..............................

My notes:


From crits the main problem/issue to be looked into is what the audience's feedback was on editing and presenting my work. There were suggestions of taking some elements out, as the each element itself was a dynamic thing in the space. I was given a similar feedback at midyear as well, and the way I think I responded to that was thinking through it and testing things through my own arguments, more so than because of the audiences response. Of course the response and suggestions were very helpful and constructive, but I just needed to understand what I was doing and how my work operates in a space. Through the timespan from midyear to this seminar, I tried to work through these things and understand my process further. So from this point, I have rough plans for end of year install, but will continue to work through these issues and find more reflexive connections of my thinking to my making and surrounding research.



- bike and video as dynamic objects, the book as a more static object.


Towards end of year it seems I will have to adapt quite a bit due to the covid lockdown. I may not even be able to go into an outdoor space away from my house to film the landscape via the constructed filming support. Through such restriction i am looking forward to exploring further into how i can prospect land and provisional making through what is available to me. Using the internet to make work might become more heavy in my project. I have some sites i need to look at regarding maps, how land is surveyed through such websites and how the lockdown affects the land itself. Can i take my project online, or possibly add an online alternative/platform for my project to live in.


Only my journeys into the sites are affected. I can still conduct interventions via other methods. To be explored.



7 views0 comments

Comments


MFA blog
research, making, reflecting, testing
bottom of page