Residency Summary

Part I – Residency Summary

I was eager to arrive in Boston for the third of my five residencies on my way to hopefully earning an MFA in Visual Arts from Lesley University College of Art and Design. I felt like the semesters worth of work that I was bringing was reasonably coherent, even with a few side roads that may or may not lead somewhere at a future date. Being passed the point of no return in the program, it was time to start working towards an end goal, and I felt like I was on the right path.

During this residency, the discussions relating to my work revolved around two main points. What was I really talking about, and how does the work I am presenting represent that idea. As always, there were conflicting opinions about both of these queries, but I can speak to the first with some clarity. Throughout the semester, the work that I was creating found its own path. I let the work lead the way, while I simply followed along and tried to decipher its meaning. I know that I was certainly interested in the fragmented image, and the reconstruction thereof, but the reasons eluded me for much of the last few months. Following Residency 2, I was interested in human perception, and how that perception differed from one person to another, but found that attempting to resolve that idea elusive in the manner that I wanted to pursue my work. It seemed to me that what I was really interested in pursuing was one person’s multiple and changing perception of events that may or may not have actually occurred in their own life; memory.  The discussions and critiques had during the course of Residency 3 brought this idea into clearer focus for me, and allowed me to differentiate between “memory” and “dreams” which I may have been initially using interchangeably, when in fact they are two very different things. In my first meeting with my new advisor, Stuart Steck, we were able to hammer out some of the themes that I was really working with:

·         Fictions and truth. How we perceive them and how they are shaped

·         How mass culture shapes expectations to become reality

·         What if there is no distinction between fact and fiction?

·         Is an object truth, or can the representation of an object be just as truthful (think Joseph Kosuth)

As always, the Artist Talk portion of the Residency was highly beneficial, this time, perhaps even more than the talks from the last two residencies. There wasn’t a weak presentation in the group, and I found things that I could attach to, things that seemed particularly pertinent to me and my work, in each and every one of the lectures.

The Professional Development seminar with Laurel Sparxx was highly informative and worthwhile. She imbued the class with her own experiences and a seemingly authentic desire to help us all succeed by eliminating many of the business and social pitfalls that can befall neophyte artists. The introduction to the gallery scene and the meeting with Steven Zevitas was very beneficial to everyone in attendance as well. She provided us with many beneficial resources as well.

The critique portion of the residency was as beneficial as always. I had several sessions with faculty, visiting artists, and the resident critic graduating students. I found something that I could grasp onto from all of these sessions. The success of these sessions was attributable to many factors. First, my work was much tighter and I was much more prepared to discuss the issues that needed discussing. I knew where I wanted to go, and that helped immensely. I was also much more understanding of the many ways in which useful information and opinion could be provided. Having had many interactions with most of the critics, there was much more of openness and a comfort level in the discussions.

Another valuable aspect was the makeup and curation of the crit space that I was in. There was a lot of discussion amongst the group, and they all had valuable insight to offer for all of the artists in the space. The continued curation of the individual spaces was an interesting and ongoing process.

Many gallery visits also added to the benefits of the residency. Trips to the ICA, Fogg Museum, and all of the galleries on Harrison Avenue provided valuable exposure to art. The highlight of the trip to the ICA was clearly the Arlene Shechet exhibit. While primarily a ceramicist, I was particularly enthralled by her work with cotton and pigment, creating high relief paper prints. At the Fogg Museum, the viewing of the Rothko murals was a contemplative experience, leaving me physically exhausted.

Part II – Response to Critical Theory

Critical Theory III revolved around discussions of non-Western art, and how that work was described, displayed, and interpreted by the Western art world. Many other subjects were covered, all periphery to the basic discussion. Talks of collection and archive were touched on, the function of museums, and discussions of resonance and wonder.  We discussed how items needed cultural context, and the idea that “seeing” is more cultural than biological.

One of the key components of the class was the lack of a universality of man. In contrast to Steichen’s “Family of man” exhibit, we are not all similar despite our differences, but we are all different despite our similarities. I find this argument to be a slippery slope. While the accusation that the universality of man is fraudulent because the items of similarity are cherry picked to make the argument, isn’t the same thing true of the opposition? Isn’t that how all arguments are made? Picking the points that support your case and arguing against those that do not?

Another item that I found particularly interesting was the argument that when looking at an item in a museum, you are looking at it through a colonial lens without realizing it. Adding cultural context to the item adds an additional lens through which to view it. This begs the questions as to whether anything can be truly appreciated simply for what it is, without the cultural context being provided. Without any cultural context or supporting material, an item cannot have resonance, but only wonder. What if you then viewed the same item a second time? Does then the context of the first viewing provide resonance for the second viewing? Is that resonance valid? These are interesting questions to ponder, with answers that are surely elusive.