What artwork/proposals did you present?
I presented a wide range of work, including my long exposure seascapes, the gender investigation pieces, the interactive electric bike and the social/political satire work.
Specific pieces were-
I'd Hit That
Play With It Video
Where the River Meets the Sea
Electro-bike
Grid Piece
What topics did you discuss? What was the nature of this discussion?
Mr. Bilal discussed the push/pull of Provoke/Evoke, and the idea of creating "Dynamic" work, where all possible end states are unknown.
More over, he suggested keeping my audience in mind- "What do I want from my audience?" and "How do i engage my audience?" To this end, he stressed the importance of tuning into what society is going through, and placing myself at the center of it.
He also suggested that my work is less "interactive" than it is "reactive". I'm not too sure what he means by this, even though I asked him to explain the point some more. What I can gather, specifically, the electro-bike has a fixed set of outcomes- getting shocked, and thus the user reacts to it, as opposed to interacting with it.
Mr. Bilal stressed the way to keep work dynamic and interactive is to transfer the pain of the work to the audience/viewer, not in oder to hurt them, but to create sympathy in them, with the art.
What were the critical reactions/ suggestions to your ideas/artwork?
Mr. Bilal seemed attracted to the "I'd Hit That" piece the most because - It represents me, it involves humor, it is provacotive, and it takes on an overwhelming issue. He hoped that i'd develop the idea further, including reshooting the piece with a few minor changes- push the "americana" by having a white picket fence, and change the "tower" costume to be more recognizable.
What was a suggested plan of action?
Mr. Bilal suggested pushing myself to be more provocative. He told me a story of another artist- Charlie Lum, who apparently contracted the HIV virus during oral sex. He was told by doctors that contrary to popular belief, it IS possible to contract HIV through oral sex. Now Charlie goes to "hook up" parks and give/takes oral sex with strangers, calling attention to the disclosure laws surrounding HIV and common misconceptions about HIV in general. Charlie then plans on notifying all of his partners, letting them know that he has HIV and that they themselves could have it now too.
This story seemed pretty messed up, and not at all the type of "art" i'm interested in making. Mr. Balil seemed to speak of it highly though, as if it were on the cutting edge of "provocative". I don't think that that aligns itself with Mr. Bilal's own suggestion of transfering the pain to the audience, not to hurt them, but to create sympathy. It seems that possibly killing someone for "art", might classify as "hurting them".
What insights / new questions / ideas did you take from the meeting?
I am interested in continuing to investigate why I am interested in regressive/humorous/satirical pieces. As far as actually realizing them... I'm not so sure. If an idea that was really strong presented itself, i'd do it.
How did this meeting affect how you will proceed with your project / proposal?
After great thought, i really feel that i'd like to abandon the provocative direction... I think that there's enough work trying to be cutting and provocative, and it seems that there's a lot of negativity. I'd like to investigate peace, love, respect... perhaps more of a zen-like approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment