studio mentor feedback

yapped with glen hirsch for an hour this eve about the images i have posted & which direction to take for the next few weeks. as always i learn more about what i have created from the feedback of others. they see things i don't & flush out the blindspots for me. think it is partially because i have looked at them so much during creation that i can not be that objective about them >yet.

like writing, i do well to sit stuff aside for abit & come back to it after a time. then the errors & strengths pop (if i am lucky) or >>>> to the garbage or break out the gesso.

professor hirsch was very helpful through his observations/insights as well as the questions posed. i gained clarity in my direction for the next few weeks!!!

he had me make a column for paint/analog & digital. then brought up different aspects to art to apply to each. this exercise did give me clarity & ideas where the two can work. the reason for all this is that i struggle with digital & paint>>> sort of a "worlds colliding" issue for me. while i feel i need to pull it into one thing, it feels like oil & water during the process. not so much paint into digital>>> but very much so with digital into paint.

as professor hirsch stated, combining paint with digital is basically the same long standing issues/dialog that came about with photography. why am i going there? for now>>>because that is the semester proposal i wrote. later? who knows. i have used digital work as departure ideas for paintings & will continue this practice. the question to ask is: will i continue to pursue this direction in future semesters?

one reason for this is that i take my digital to to point of completion so that paint has nothing to contribute. in contemplating this i think one solution maybe to take images i have done & then trash them a bit>>> for example, channel mixing in photoshop (possibly in grayscale mode) to eliminate information/simplify to open it up to new interpretation with paint. that alone could create a series as underpaintings.

what i'm a gonna do:

for the upcoming weeks i will work with the 2 seaweed digital images (post on the links pg) & take them in dif directions.

known directions to start with:
1) print output >play with scale (reasonable or really big/giant)

2)print output > paint on (maybe an psudo-encaustic effect/vibe with acrylic?)

3)look into print on transparency or backlight material to display on some sort of light fixture (wall mount & square). size/cost/shipping could be an issue

4) stay digital >>> screen saver
or
projection for installation ($$$)

5) don't know >>> something cool might come up while doing one of the above
---
after: have even more profound clarity to create more of "it" so that i have a well fleshed out series to present in boston in jan08

professor hirsch suggested that:

1) rather than the 5-7 2x2ft images that i go for more.
2) stay with the uniform square & maybe go bigger
3) try the directions above to see where it goes & then commit to one. then, start making more.

at this moment i feel that i have a sound grip on the work i will be doing for the rest of the semester.

paper update:

have started to pull info together that i plan to use & have sort of a lattice/structure for clarity & to make sure i do not veer from my thesis. if i do start with a plan/formula for the paper i usually have to edit more & cull out writing that i am attached to. defining each paragraph up front & locating my quotes/references for each helps me.

talked with aib group comrade tonight & she said that she had already finished her first reflective & was working on her second. she said she used very little of her reading in it since it did not apply to her thesis. her paper was more of a narrative that explored the ideas/feelings with her work. her academic adviser liked her paper. so, am i making a bigger deal out of this than need be? do need to re-read the student handbook as my buddy said she thought this paper was cr/no cr & not a letter grade. does not really matter>>> just a bit surprised.