Having hermited myself in my house for over a week now, flu-contagious and developing OOS symptoms from staring at laptop screen for hours on end, I thought perhaps it be best to treat myself to natural light by heading to the first of the Year Two exhibitions.
Those of you who remember, it was my year that were the first guinea pigs for this exhibition endeavour and although the work I scrambled to make for my own show last year was absolute crap, I learnt a lot about what not to do for Pilot this year, which means that the Year Two shows allow a greater learning experience for our professional practice paper which is good no??
The shows are also an easy way of acquainting myself with the practices of those in the year below us (like a taster course). And being the first to admit that I'm not familiar with most of these practices, a lot of what I saw came as a huge surprise.
This particular exhibition in Gallery Three called No Common Sense was exactly that, a showing of eleven disparate practices. But in remembering the purpose for these shows is to provide a space for the students to test out what they're doing in studio in a public space, plus the time that they are given to put the show together (a couple of weeks or so), I don't blame them for not aiming for cohesiveness. Nor do I think that it takes away from the quality of the work.
Please forgive me, this is less a review than a noting of observations as there were so many people around, sometimes I couldn't get close to specific works!
Favourites from this show
- The smaller cardboard projection screen structure (4th photo down). Interesting install technique of letting the viewer decide how much information they get through the choice of either full view (front) or partial view (back). This worked well in this small one, not so much in the larger one though.
- Crazy crystalline rock structure things covered in fabric, a surprise from a promising painting student.
- And although I think these were hung a little too high, the Mt Wellington Quarry photos (biased opinion as I used to live close to the area and am therefore very attached to it). Lainy and I were remarking on how terrifying the acidity of the colour green was. Absolutely toxic.
This show is on for one day only!! That day is tomorrow. So have a looksie if you be in the neighbourhood. Also, there are two more shows opening on Thursday, one at Gallery Three 5pm and the other at Cross Street Studios at 6pm.
Am signing off to write more theory. Brain is consistency of mush. Until the next time I feel like procrastinating? Yeah it's a date.
- Agnes
6 comments:
Thanks for your feed back Agnes...
Would have appreciated for you to ask for permission before you posted our works on the internet, as you are well aware this is not your property....
Your opinions are valid, thanks for the publicity.
For a show that manifested itself in a week's time I think we did a good job...
Look forward to your next show to get some tips on how to do things the right way!!! if there is such a thing...
Caroline Cotter
Caroline,
So sorry I should have indeed asked for your permission. Have just been so used to people being ok with it that I forget sometimes. I apologise. If it offends you I'm more than happy to take this post off.
And yes good work on the show, it was nice to see Gallery Three so filled to the brim and it's a shame that it can only be up for such a short amount of time (last year we were given three days...).
Not sure if anyone ever does things the right way...only the way that seems fitting for the time being.
What I did forget to applaud the year twos on is the ability to work in such large groups. Again, last year we only had around 5-6 people in each exhibition. It takes a lot of patience to manouveur such a large amount of people. Valuable learning experience and what not. Exciting isn't it?
- Agnes
Hi Agnes,
I also couldn't help noticing that you seem to have posted the intellectual property of other people on the net here without their prior consent. Consider yourself lucky that you were dealing with students who don't have the money for a good lawyer....
I was drawn to the comment you made about one "toxic" piece of work. I attended this exhibition, and came across this Mt. Wellington Quarry photo exhibit myself and, contrary to your rather obtuse and subjective remarks, found it rather "non-toxic".
Of course you have every right to your opinion on any work of art. That is the one beauty of art as I see it. Everyone can interpret it their own way. Rather than publicly slandering this work of art to satisfy your own personal opinion, it may have been more constructive to share these feelings directly with the artist involved
This, coupled with the already mentioned issue of you publicizing intellectual property that is not your own leads me to believe you have much to learn on your journey as a student in the arts.
Amnon Schwarz,
Yes, I admit I've made a mistake with the 'intellectual property' bizzo. Hence why I have not posted on the show that was on simultaneously as this one as to gather time to ask for permission. I still sincerely apologise and have offered to take down this post (awaiting response from those involved.)
The comment on the colour in the photograph was something that I actually discussed at the show with a few other photography students.
However, in your haste to put down my observations (and I forewarned that yes, they were just observations), you have completely misread the situation. The 'slandering' you have so viciously accused me of is non-existent! I believe that I clearly stated that these photographs were some of my favourite in the show. The toxicity of the grass was an attribute, a sugary sweetness that highlighted the falsity of the new development depicted. The only question I had was about the height at which these photographs were hung. Whether this was intentional or not would be interesting to know.
Therefore, I do not appreciate your accusations of my ill will towards the artists involved. If anything, my intentions were far from this (nor do I think I alluded to such intentions, I did not start this blog as a platform for mudslinging) and I believe that this is a mis-interpretation on your part. Such comments are not 'constructive' towards proving your argument.
But thank you for the right to my own opinion. I only ask that you clearly understand what that opinion is before you do any finger pointing.
- Agnes, 'a student in the arts'
Hey Agnes and readers
In my opinion both shows had really strong works, though, time and space constraints may have led to some disappointing compromises in display. Finicky as I may be, display is always the first thing to let a work down. However, the inventiveness in choosing sites is a complement to the ingenuity of all involved, everyone whose work I could see had done the best within the two awkward sites, both Gallery Three and Cross Street Studios are notoriously nuanced with annoying (/great) features of architecture.
As far as the intellectual property issue is concerned Agnes would have been polite to ask for permission, though, as we students getting a mention on someone’s blog is good news. Also if I am much mistaken I believe that that ‘fair use’ of intellectual property may be used for commentary without consent, so basis for any legal action from poor students would probably be unwarranted.
Please alert me to the contrary.
Also, renege or defend your comment Amnon Schwarz. If you are going to publicly slander someone’s opinion without basis perhaps you have something to learn yourself.
Post a Comment