Unit 1 Assessment
Formulate, describe and implement a challenging and self-directed programme of study, relating to your Project Proposal
When I started my ‘Fine Art Digital MA Visual Arts’ project, I was doubting which route to follow next within my art practice. My first project proposal reflected this in a way by the three practice-based research options that I wanted to pursue. During Unit-1 I explored the related questions and how these paths could work together while choosing for interactivity as overarching interest.
In the past year I have read extensively about a vast number of associated subjects. In doing so I gained a lot from relevant arts, art history, psychology and philosophy and acquired many connecting insights in the context of my interdisciplinary field.
I learned from fascinating lectures, artists, internet sources, books and papers, which made me realise better and better what my artistry is about and what I am searching for to express. My reflections on the continuous development brought me a sound understanding of my, formerly intuitive, art making process.
Inessential tasks (about the artist statement)
Along the way, I came up with proposal for professional feedback system by artist residencies, which I believe would improve the transparency and fairness in the art field. Although I have sent this proposal already to some stakeholders, I decided that this ‘venture’ must wait till the moment I have more time to seriously address this matter and really be able to follow through.
Advanced learning (proposal for professional feedback system)
Reflecting on impact (analysis and reflection of submitted proposals for open calls)
The feedback sessions with the tutors have been important milestones for my development: as they question and challenge, as they assist, inspire and confirm, as they make me accountable for what I did and will do next.
Critically engage with practice-based research and contribute actively to debate and discussion
I kept a specific rule in mind with regard to all my experiments and the new works I made during this year. Being essential to my reflexive practice, I challenged myself each time to add at least one new element. This could be a new kind of technological implementation (hardware and/or software), testing a new conceptual thinking (like real and virtual domains, or layered experiences) or introducing a new skill or approach to my practice. This lead accordingly to novel insights and a firm body of works.
Analysis and reflections on my making process:
Experiments done and reflected upon:
Works made and exhibited:
Collaborative and active participation:
Who is… We ? (action and field research with other artists)
MPR-critique (feedback for peers)
Furthermore I may add that I actively engaged in the low-residency in February as well that I joined almost all Skype group sessions, where I interacted in an active ‘two ears, 1 mouth’ mode with hopefully relevant remarks and questions. For all MA-exhibitions I made specifically new work and I was happily to exhibit and be present at the MA Interim Show this summer as well.
Critically reflect upon your practice and articulate a clear understanding of methodology and context of your creative practice
Being at this stage of the MA, I got a more methodological way of working. Firstly, this is due to an expanded knowledge of the artistic context I am working within. Secondly, due to the critical attention on my reflective practice, I notice that my intentions as well as my personal approach in art making became more comprehensive to me. As a result I adjusted certain habits and continued with the productive ones. My enriched methodology shines also through in three respective stages of the pathway:
Due to my research for this paper I got in much appreciated contact with Bert Bongers who is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney and with Professor Gerrit van der Veer of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Exchanges with such esteemed interaction experts have been really informative and are a great incentive to carry on to integrate theory and art practice.
Reflections on my artistic being and my practice sprouted from intellectual endeavours, inspiring art visits, artist interviews and lectures I attended. This brought also up a number of artists I studied in depth. The ‘how and why’ made me focus on similarities and differences in their art practices with respect to my own doing. A learning curve certainly evolved from this approach as well.
Lectures, events and miscellanous:
Artists studied along the way:
Bill Viola, Fiona Tan, Tony Oursler, Tacita Dean, David Claerbout, Peter Greenaway, Cindy Sherman, Golan Levin, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, Gabriel Lester, Laurent Mareschal, Akinori Goto, Elcke van Gorkum, Erik van Lieshout, Berdnaut Smilde, Femke Schaap, Tomás Saraceno, Inge Mahn, Allan Kaprow, Marcel Duchamp, Gary Hill, Hans op de Beeck, Laure Prouvost, Floris Kaayk, Antony Gormley, Roy Ascott, Paul Sharits, Nam June Paik, Simon Penny, to name the most influential in this period to me.
Last but not least, I have to underline the satisfying function of the reflective blog. It really helps me to publicly express myself, it is about making much in short time and making the visual part of the blogpost became some sort of sport too, as I really like to create a featured image of the post that expresses its content visually. Underneath you see the resulting visual summary.
So, the value of the reflective blog can not easily be overestimated. Not only because the writing process – although sometimes quite strenuous and time consuming – can be so rewarding (for me) when a post is published, but also because it resembles in many ways my art making process. Both are a kind of conceptual play within self-imposed limitations that are in need of some problem solving because the production wants to communicate something essential.
I trust this assessment page does a similar thing. Thanks for your attention!