Week 4

Tuesday was a good day to come in because the Upper School were critiquing their work. I was able to see how Ponz and Gary approach critiquing students. It was similar to that of Under/Grad crits, but seemed more constructive than destructive (occasional in under/grad). The students began reading their artist statement and explaining their work. This is a good approach considering they are finding themselves and their artistic outlet as opposed to under/grad where they should have an art focus and without stating their meaning, the viewer must interpret it. To elaborate, this is a more constructive approach critiquing a budding artist, than focusing on figuring out the concept and destructing the work.

After the student gave their speech on the work, the rest of the students, teachers, and I made suggestions or pointed out and encouraged the good points. The students spoke first and then the teachers (me included) afterword.

One student, a painter, has finally found his niche, but needs to devote more time to working instead of piddling around. They have a deadline at the end of the semester for 12 good pieces. This was his first in a series about overcoming life's mental obstacles, but expressed them visually in a physical metaphor on the canvas. (e.g. walking a tightrope)

Another painter went next. Her previous work centered around Japanese internment camps of the 40's during the war, while her new paintings focused on the influence of American pop culture on the Japanese and now the influence of Japanese pop culture on American youth. The newer work was more developed and refined because of her actual interest and personal connection to the Japanese pop influence. The work is more meaningful to her because of that personal connection. She was encouraged to work on the new series.

The following student was a ceramicist that is influenced by the design of Japanese ceramics. She had strong formal pieces that shined well, but there were others that were heavy and mismatched looking compared to the others. The crit encouraged her to work in that style that worked the best and to male them into pairs since the Japanese consider these items with family and conversation.

Critiques at this level work well when understanding what the student is trying to accomplish first and then suggest the best routes to accomplish that. I have found, as many would agree, that constructive criticisms work the best. Open the conversation first with the good points and what works, then go in to suggestions for "making this even better". No one during a crit should say that something is "wrong" or "not working", instead "it would work better this way" or "you created this great, so continue that". Always be positive.

Thursday I went with Gary and his art club into the gallery where Mr Wallace's carvings were along with baskets and other artworks from Andros. Gary spoke with the students about the history of Andros and the people who live there. It was great because there were photographs of the locals by UF students who attended the program. Gary asked the students to describe one a work that was comprised of Florida shapes out of concrete with a bronze chain draped around the mirrored state. At the end of the chain was a bronze heart. The students took a little while to figure out that the artist lived in Florida, but his heart belonged on Andros. The students were very interested in the work because they were able to pick them up and investigate them closer. I mentioned to Gary that investigating a sculpture with touch is a lot more meaningful than viewing a 3D object in a typical gallery setting. It's more of an experience than staring at it formally. I think students benefit more personally to art that CAN be touched and explored.