Art Talks Review

We all did our art talks during community hour (1pm-2pm) and then came back to discuss them and our tentative topics for our collection project in Dana 101—or course, with doughnuts! We were also joined by a prospective student, so we doubled back often to explain what we were explaining.
“What did you get out of this entire research process?”
Yehimi noted that looking at a specific work helped her recognize how your eye moves around her work, which is important to her and helps with studio work. She is using Kathy Kollwitz for her collection project.
Adia appreciated how the smallness of seeing three words at a time fed into the larger message from Sarah Holtzer’s piece.
Katie gained a whole different appreciation for art, because she is a design major. She got to see how art and art history are interdisciplinary (they inform each other), seeing and conceptual thinking.
Erica learned truly and deeply about process, from writing and compiling information to editing and writing the paper itself, reducing 8 pages of observations and research from 17 journals and 3 books into a maximum two page paper!
As for me, I learned a combination of everything already mentioned. The process informed me even more about collaborative effort and benefits of teamwork and peer exchange. I honed existing skills in extemporaneous speaking and gained a chance to develop more confidence. Nell called my process “peer peering,” or peers examining something together; our abstract ways of looking at the artwork itself was very similar, so we could communicate to and assist each other. My collection project shall explore feminism, womanism, and spirituality, taking one’s power back as a woman of color; I’m looking at Kara Walker, Renee Stout, Betye Saar, Carrie Mae Weems, Adrienne Piper and Lorna Simpson.
Ashely learned the hard way, though Katherine did warn us, that you cannot depend on an artist’s own perspective of his or her work, but view it from several different angles. She made several discoveries about Morimora and of herself, especially how to distinguish her own voice. Most importantly, she learned how to harness her excitability about artwork to develop a broader vision of a smaller piece.
Katherine and Nell pointed out that this is the key to scholarship. The purpose of Methods is to get us to take charge of our own scholarship, become more engaged with our education and think critically.
“Scholarship is people making it up—with evidence. People like you, i.e. students.”


Run Through #2: Public Presentation (Benton)

Run-Throughs #2
Perhaps I was more nervous today; perhaps I am merely sleep-derived, but I did not do as well on our run-throughs today. In attempting to integrate so much information from Benton’s childhood, his personal life and his style, into my visual analysis, I wound up rambling a full minute too long!
Katherine and our CWS helpers strongly advised me to condense! Combine the narrative of his life with the piece a lot smoother—or flip the order of your discussion, telling biographical information before the description of the piece. Keep some of the political stuff for context, like his childhood, but reorganize; content is just fine, except when you turn your back to your audience, forget your work, and veer off to the left. Yehimi reminded me to give details about the linear and tonal qualities in the work itself; I did not expound enough this time around. I shall review my description from my actual paper and try to summarize his life.