Residency I Summary

Before my first residency at AIB, I envisioned using the experience to guide myself in the following ways:
● I wanted feedback on which of my chosen media were most effective
● I wanted help developing my graphic vocabulary
● I wanted help in my use of pictorial metaphor.

These issues were definitely addressed during the residency, but in different ways by different faculty and students. Also and perhaps more importantly, certain questions about the work which had not occurred to me prior to the residency arose during critiques and in discussions with other students.
These questions only added to my list of possible thesis topics which already included:
● The lack of outrage at the continued diminishing level of quality in products, services, and the
arts
● Tribal behavior in contemporary society and the importance attached to visual emblems of these tribes, especially among sports fanatics
● The repercussions of leaving a tribe
● People's enthusiasm with attaching micro-technological devices to their bodies and whether
people are actually repelled by or attracted to the idea of becoming more machine-like
● The use of the camera by the realist painter working in the photographic age and whether this is resulting in a loss of draftsmanship ability and appreciation for draftsmanship among realist
painters

What follows is a short list of newer potential ideas for my thesis which resulted from my exposure to faculty and students:
● Neglect of factions of society, specifically the poor, mentally ill, and elderly
● An examination of the impetus behind the use of realistic representation in painting today
● An examination of the opinion that good art must “create a dialogue”
● An examination of the idea of the contemporary artist as a “re-skilled” and “de-skilled”
individual
● A look at contemporary society through the lens of a 19th century artist, specifically to comment on societal acceptance of prominent women, gays, and non-whites in many important roles once dominated by white males.

My first group critique was lead my John Kramer and Hannah Barrett, who each challenged my approach to painting and drawing, along with one or two fellow students, as being anachronistic and dated, too evocative of the late 19th century. Peter Zierlein encouraged me to update my style altogether, but John encouraged me to find a way to make my style relevant by somehow deliberately evoking a 19th century voice reacting to a contemporary world. He suggested I familiarize myself with narratives from that specific period.

I took issue with comments that my work evoked a bygone era with its subject matter and technique, stating that I was not trying to evoke any era other than the present and that my imagery was completely contemporary. Although some people would not agree with me, I see myself as an artist with a fondness for the art of the past who is able to be relevant as a contemporary artist using those traditional ways of image making. Further, I personally feel that if a practice exists in the present day, it is a reflection of the present day, and therefore totally timely. This was the thrust of my argument during this first critique.

John's suggestion for a possible direction in which to take my art was, nevertheless, well taken.
Hannah recommended looking at the work of painter John Koch, active during the 1940's and 1950's, and at Elizabeth Peyton, painting figuratively today. In a subsequent discussion with John, he recommended I look at the work of Charlotte Salomon.

Sunanda Sanyal praised my skill and encouraged me to continue experiments along lines with which I am already comfortable working, and to avoid change for change's sake. He focussed on my pen and ink work, suggesting it had the most potential for artistic exploration. We discussed the easily reproducible quality of pen and ink and its relevance in a culture which mass reproduces images. Sunanda mentioned Roy Lichtenstein as an example of an artist who experimented with elevating to high art the mark used in the printed image(lines and Ben-day dots) and the painted image (the brush stroke). Sunanda suggested I make similar experiments with my pen and ink marks. We also discussed the very act of representing objects in paintings and drawing, and addressed representations of stereotypes versus stereotypes of representation. Further, he asked if I understood the difference between simulations versus emulations, and encouraged me to read Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation.

Two graduating students lead critiques with my group, David Poole and Patrick Loehr. David's critique settled mainly on the point that I ought to experiment more with photo-manipulation of my work, playing with cropping of pre-existing images and using certain effects in Adobe Photoshop, specifically the “liquify” tool. Patrick Loehr also encouraged me to read Baudrillard and to continue working with what was familiar to me.
I signed up for private critiques with Melissa Kulig and Jeffrey Ellis because I wanted feedback from other representational artists. I wanted to hear from these two how their work had evolved during their two years in the program, and also the extent to which they rely on photography for their work. Jeff encouraged me to keep working representationally, and not to have hang-ups about using photography. He mentioned using it freely, although his pieces in the graduating students' exhibition were done from life. Jeff Ellis recommended reading “What Painting Is” by James Elkins. He also recommended I use Paul Rahilly as a mentor. My critique with Melissa was less memorable, although I remember she also uses photography and thought there was nothing wrong with artists using it.

My final critique was with Tony Apesos. In some ways I felt this was my most important critique as he is the one traditional painter among the faculty. On the other hand, I was concerned that his point of view might be too similar to my own, and that he might not encourage me to stretch my boundaries as others, like John Kramer and Sunanda Sanyal, would.
Tony challenged me not to change for the sake of changing as he said he had seen other students do. He said he was worried when I told him of my plans to experiment with abstract painting for the semester. He said he thought I was afraid to paint realistically for the program, and suggested I try painting a large scene with multiple figures. My respnse was that although I am anxious to do this kind of work I felt I owed it to myself to stretch my boundaries to try to arrive at a more artistic way of painting. He acknowledged that perhaps this would be a good thing to do.

Tony also recommended a number of books for me for the semester:
● “Other Criteria” by Leo Steinberg
● “The End of Art” by Donald Kuspit
● “On Kitsch” by Odd Nerdrum
● and “Joy of Sports” by Michael Novak, specifically useful for my thesis if it should take the
route of examining sports fanaticism from a sociological point of view.