9.2.21 MF7004 Assessment feedback
See written feedback below. I have underlined certain parts which I feel that I particularly need to address. I also had some verbal feedback with Andrea, which was really helpful. Here are some reflections on our brief conversation and the written feedback.
1. Editing my work.
I know that what I have done so far has had too broad a base. I now need to narrow my research and go into it in more depth. I will find this hard though, as I feel that there is so much to discover, especially as I want to make the most of the fabrication workshops once we get back into them and while I still have access to them. I told Andrea that I felt as if I were 'just' scratching the surface in so many areas. She said, choose one surface (or maybe more) and scratch them, concentrate on them. Scratch deeper, excavate, maybe? Choose one dialogue for now, until September, then I can pursue all the other strands.
2. Balancing multiple strands?
Dexter told me a while ago to drop the socially engaged aspect of my practice and concentrate on sculpture. I told Andrea this and she agreed. Maybe my idea of an interdisciplinary spectacle would work, with video/ large scale photos, my body in the space plus sculptural objects?
3. Have I peaked?
I recognise that there was something about my submission for MF7003 that was very successful.... but I sometimes fear that I have peaked. I have felt this in the past but I know that each time I have managed to draw out of myself something that has been even more 'successful' (in terms of the synthesis of material, making, thought, installation, ideas etc etc.) I need to be confident that I can do more, better. I need to be ambitious and step outside my comfort zone. Andrea said 'push forward what you do well'
4. What do I do well?
In terms of skills, I think my work with knitting and stitch is most interesting, but I recognise that working with metal and mould making has added a great deal to my repertoire. Andrea said that my Parts of me could possibly be a template for this next module, in terms of content/meaning. I think that's a really good idea, especially as, personally, I think there are a number of things that worked well to bring that assemblage together:
She also seemed to suggest that I shouldn't necessarily reject previous ways of working, but revisit them as well.... That's an exciting prospect too.
5. Sloppy craft.
I feel as if I will never be able to acquire the skills in metal work and mould making that I have in knitting and stitch, but I must feel confident that it shouldn't matter. I've reflected elsewhere about 17.1.20 Sloppy craft in terms of knitting and Sloppy craft and metal work too. I see it as gestural, emotive, conceptual. Maybe this is a good place to begin?
6. Opportunities
We also briefly discussed some opportunities that have come up during this next module and Andrea has told me to go for it. They might not have any relation to my MA, but will influence it indirectly. I must not stretch myself too thinly though.
I do feel much more motivated after this conversation, so that's a relief. It feels like a long time till Sept. for someone who is inclined to over do, over make, over think etc. Andrea said that it's fine to explore till maybe June, so that's exciting too.
1. Editing my work.
I know that what I have done so far has had too broad a base. I now need to narrow my research and go into it in more depth. I will find this hard though, as I feel that there is so much to discover, especially as I want to make the most of the fabrication workshops once we get back into them and while I still have access to them. I told Andrea that I felt as if I were 'just' scratching the surface in so many areas. She said, choose one surface (or maybe more) and scratch them, concentrate on them. Scratch deeper, excavate, maybe? Choose one dialogue for now, until September, then I can pursue all the other strands.
2. Balancing multiple strands?
Dexter told me a while ago to drop the socially engaged aspect of my practice and concentrate on sculpture. I told Andrea this and she agreed. Maybe my idea of an interdisciplinary spectacle would work, with video/ large scale photos, my body in the space plus sculptural objects?
3. Have I peaked?
I recognise that there was something about my submission for MF7003 that was very successful.... but I sometimes fear that I have peaked. I have felt this in the past but I know that each time I have managed to draw out of myself something that has been even more 'successful' (in terms of the synthesis of material, making, thought, installation, ideas etc etc.) I need to be confident that I can do more, better. I need to be ambitious and step outside my comfort zone. Andrea said 'push forward what you do well'
4. What do I do well?
In terms of skills, I think my work with knitting and stitch is most interesting, but I recognise that working with metal and mould making has added a great deal to my repertoire. Andrea said that my Parts of me could possibly be a template for this next module, in terms of content/meaning. I think that's a really good idea, especially as, personally, I think there are a number of things that worked well to bring that assemblage together:
- Synthesis
- Working with different materials
- Installation - precarity, parts, balance
- Embodiment
She also seemed to suggest that I shouldn't necessarily reject previous ways of working, but revisit them as well.... That's an exciting prospect too.
5. Sloppy craft.
I feel as if I will never be able to acquire the skills in metal work and mould making that I have in knitting and stitch, but I must feel confident that it shouldn't matter. I've reflected elsewhere about 17.1.20 Sloppy craft in terms of knitting and Sloppy craft and metal work too. I see it as gestural, emotive, conceptual. Maybe this is a good place to begin?
6. Opportunities
We also briefly discussed some opportunities that have come up during this next module and Andrea has told me to go for it. They might not have any relation to my MA, but will influence it indirectly. I must not stretch myself too thinly though.
I do feel much more motivated after this conversation, so that's a relief. It feels like a long time till Sept. for someone who is inclined to over do, over make, over think etc. Andrea said that it's fine to explore till maybe June, so that's exciting too.
Assessment Report Form
Bath School of Art
Part 1: To be completed by the student and submitted with each piece of assessed work.
Module Code: MF7004-30SH
Student Name: LOUISE BAKER Student Number:
Course/Marking Tutor: AMJ/BP Date of Submission: January 2021
In submitting this assignment, I am confirming that I have read and understood the regulations for assessment,
and I am aware of the seriousness with which the University regards unfair practice.
Part 2: To be completed by the marking tutor(s).
Assessment Criteria for this module:
Part a)
the clarity of the presentation and presenter's articulateness.
the quality of the record of work - for example slides or video recordings.
the extent of relevant contextual knowledge including appropriateness of support material.
Part b)
the extent to which you have made a clear and feasible plan for the following double module, based upon your learning in previous modules and the evidence of continues, in depth research, undertaken to support your artistic position and direction.
Assessment of Achievement/Performance.
Part a)
Strong presentation that demonstrates a real passion for making and hands on experimentation. The references, conceptual and theoretical underpinning are appropriate and add space for further exploration. In particular, the idea of ritual and performance. When we come to work, there is almost too much going on, inviting consideration of editing, but also self-criticality to question what works and what doesn’t, motivations etc. It all still feels quite exploratory, and Lou hasn’t yet decided which aspects of her practice should warrant her attention. There is a rich history of maximalist art of assemblages of forms, materials and practices into environments. In a sense, there is also hints of the environments of Jim Dine and Kaprow, that spill over into happenings and audience participation. The diverse elements seem unresolved as yet. It would be good to see how those practices then engage the human non-human shamanic worlds of Coates, Cave and the hybrid video poetico-political performance intervention works of Steven Cohen.
The proposal is well thought out, has the right balance of theory-practice and leans towards a compelling finale. It’s all great up to the last line which sounds good on paper but is yet to convince in practice. What is required here is not discipline as a maker, for which Lou can only be described as prolific and fearless, rather to be disciplined in a consideration of aesthetics, materials – the combination of these which are often too formal in their attempts to ‘look like’ sculpture. There needs to be more editing with a critical and discernable eye, rather than at the moment where all work sits as if a final piece in the gallery rather than a series of experiments with form, materials etc.
Part b)
There is just far too much going on here and it would be advisable to consider some decisions in terms of a refinement of elements, as well as clearer understanding of embodiment in the work, not just in the process of making – all doing and knowledge is embodied in that sense – which aspects of embodiment? Performative making – metal is less successful… what does it mean to explore through different mediums… how do these forms relate to each other. What is going to be in this ‘synthesis’ of forms, relations, materials… Why and for whom?
Advice on How to Improve
The prolific making and thinking are also creating a surplus of ideas and processes that are weakening the overall position. As suggested, a more targeted approach on how separate methods and forms of practice fit under one roof and combine to position Lou’s stance and idiom.
A deeper rather than broader enquiry is needed at this point and in preparation for the final module, allowing Lou to concentrate her efforts on a specific outcome, and to individualize her role as an artist which can successfully combine multiple channels and layers of production towards one coherent context.
Tutor’s Signatures: AMJ BP
Bath School of Art
Part 1: To be completed by the student and submitted with each piece of assessed work.
Module Code: MF7004-30SH
Student Name: LOUISE BAKER Student Number:
Course/Marking Tutor: AMJ/BP Date of Submission: January 2021
In submitting this assignment, I am confirming that I have read and understood the regulations for assessment,
and I am aware of the seriousness with which the University regards unfair practice.
Part 2: To be completed by the marking tutor(s).
Assessment Criteria for this module:
Part a)
the clarity of the presentation and presenter's articulateness.
the quality of the record of work - for example slides or video recordings.
the extent of relevant contextual knowledge including appropriateness of support material.
Part b)
the extent to which you have made a clear and feasible plan for the following double module, based upon your learning in previous modules and the evidence of continues, in depth research, undertaken to support your artistic position and direction.
Assessment of Achievement/Performance.
Part a)
Strong presentation that demonstrates a real passion for making and hands on experimentation. The references, conceptual and theoretical underpinning are appropriate and add space for further exploration. In particular, the idea of ritual and performance. When we come to work, there is almost too much going on, inviting consideration of editing, but also self-criticality to question what works and what doesn’t, motivations etc. It all still feels quite exploratory, and Lou hasn’t yet decided which aspects of her practice should warrant her attention. There is a rich history of maximalist art of assemblages of forms, materials and practices into environments. In a sense, there is also hints of the environments of Jim Dine and Kaprow, that spill over into happenings and audience participation. The diverse elements seem unresolved as yet. It would be good to see how those practices then engage the human non-human shamanic worlds of Coates, Cave and the hybrid video poetico-political performance intervention works of Steven Cohen.
The proposal is well thought out, has the right balance of theory-practice and leans towards a compelling finale. It’s all great up to the last line which sounds good on paper but is yet to convince in practice. What is required here is not discipline as a maker, for which Lou can only be described as prolific and fearless, rather to be disciplined in a consideration of aesthetics, materials – the combination of these which are often too formal in their attempts to ‘look like’ sculpture. There needs to be more editing with a critical and discernable eye, rather than at the moment where all work sits as if a final piece in the gallery rather than a series of experiments with form, materials etc.
Part b)
There is just far too much going on here and it would be advisable to consider some decisions in terms of a refinement of elements, as well as clearer understanding of embodiment in the work, not just in the process of making – all doing and knowledge is embodied in that sense – which aspects of embodiment? Performative making – metal is less successful… what does it mean to explore through different mediums… how do these forms relate to each other. What is going to be in this ‘synthesis’ of forms, relations, materials… Why and for whom?
Advice on How to Improve
The prolific making and thinking are also creating a surplus of ideas and processes that are weakening the overall position. As suggested, a more targeted approach on how separate methods and forms of practice fit under one roof and combine to position Lou’s stance and idiom.
A deeper rather than broader enquiry is needed at this point and in preparation for the final module, allowing Lou to concentrate her efforts on a specific outcome, and to individualize her role as an artist which can successfully combine multiple channels and layers of production towards one coherent context.
Tutor’s Signatures: AMJ BP