For our internal collaboration in Field, we were exploring manifestos. This is my personal manifesto that we were asked to create to express our own attitudes or aspirations as an artist, or what we expect from ourselves or the Art school.
Final week of collaboration with other subjects, creating and presenting our proposal of manifestation of our group manifesto.
After presenting our manifestos last week, we were asked to now manifest our group manifesto into an object, intervention, zine, poster, or any way best suitable.
It needed to represent and show our ideas and directions of the manifesto to all students of CSAD, even the world.
The group went through all the activities that could show some points of our manifesto or enrich CSAD students’ lives, with proposals such as a feedback artwall, a sort of club room, a quiet space, a quiet room to work in, a new space to socialise. Everybody wanted to contribute with something, meeting multiple of needs, and we tried to include everyone.
To link it to the first group’s shared idea, my suggestion was a garden, and to represent the point of art existing in its own realm and the hardship of making art as well as ever changing nature of it, an ambitious dome enclosing a different world a tropical paradise, would show the idea to the point.
The dome garden could even house all the other ideas, making a new, shared centre for the 2 separate CSAD buildings. The empty paved space needs to be improved and be more inspiring anyway.
The new ‘Hearth Space’ would also include a new reception, cafe, gallery space as well as the first ideas.
There was plenty options to
explore and visualise, prepare for our Monday tutorial and presentation on Tuesday.
We all decided to explore and work on one aspect of the new shared community space, with me exploring further the garden which would be at the rare side of the new space.
Set with the ideas, I took number of photos of the space so I could print them, draw and create collages of the proposed dome.
This proved trickier than expected, I had difficulties with perspective and drawing the dome realistically onto the paper. Collage was a better option, but it showed more of the impression of the idea.
I tried to blow some soap bubbles to see how they would adapt to the space around. The
metal boxes represent the 2 buildings, with the smaller one in the middle the new space that would include activities and ideas of other group members. My dome garden, or bubble would be at the end of the new building.
I wanted to imagine, and show the idea more realistically, ideally even walk around and in the space, so computer software was the only option. As it was a very quick project, with many more ongoing I had no time to install and learn some new, professional software, therefore I went for the most easiest and accessible option: Minecraft.
Not the most ideal, but the best and certainly most fun option in this scenario. It was again just a draft impression rather then design with correct perception and sizes, but this time it was possible to walk around and go in, even fly over, giving at least some idea of the viewer’s interaction with the space.
As we had tutorial on Monday, I had to prepare all my ideas and visualisations for presenting to the group and tutors.
Missing my first study group session with Sarah Smith, I have received the extract that they read and notes of the arguments they went over.
“But as every chip of the chisel contributes to the emergent form of the statue, so every drop of supersaturated solution from the roof of the cave contributes to the form of the stalagmite. When subsequently, the statue is worn down by rain, the form-generating process continues, but now without further human intervention.”
“Creativity happens between things”
Ingold, Tim, (2003), Making: Anthropology, Archeology, Art and Architecture; Abingdon, Routledge.
Hylomorphism is the theory that every physical object is composed of 2 principles, a combination of a prime matter, and form.
Hylomorphic model argues that creation of an object is composed of an idea and raw materials, processed/fused (form giving process) until we end up with an artefact that is the idea.
This is a beautiful notion, that shows how our creative thought/inner world can shape the world of matter outside, manifest the ideas in object significant to a human.
This can partially explain why humans tend to surround themselves with manmade objects; or rather thoughts, feelings and ideas of others, like endless, silent conversations.
If we consider ‘agency’ and theory of Material Engagement we can see an argument suggesting that making is a process in which “the matter [is] a participant in amongst a world of active materials” (Ingold, 2003, p.21)
Malafouris, L., (2003), How Things Shape The Mind: A Theory Of Material Engagement, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
The majority of the session was receiving and reading a three pages extract individually.
We found out Arnheim’s argument that thinking without perceiving first hand is close to impossible. He strongly argues the importance of teaching arts in education, as artistic expression is a different way of reasoning.
For a homework we were asked to write a 300 words blog post on how the text can relate to our subject.
As a ceramicist I’m probably more aware of the malleable, universal and interactive properties of a clay. These qualities are potentially essential for a creative/perceptual thinking and reasoning; perhaps similar to a language.
Expressing a person’s inner thoughts, or creating a new ones.
An interaction with clay would strengthen individual’s perceptional skills, essential to healthy and productive thinking in other fields of learning.
Also teaching about clay and techniques to control it, such as throwing are close to impossible to teach by written or spoken word. Even demonstration is not enough; direct perceiving and interaction of the individual with the material and technique is essential for her/him to comprehend.
Designing object which would stimulate someones creativity and perceptual playfulness is an interesting topic to explore, and I wonder how a cup, bowl or other pottery could have these stimulating qualities.
University studies in the past required their learners to spend time extending their artistic skills too, in the field of music, painting, craft or sculpture. Perhaps they could feel more the positive impact creative development have on overall human intellect.
I would like to know about more research in that topic and around Arnheim’s arguments.
However this first session of mine has disappointed me greatly, with too much time spending reading the few pages on the one idea, that could be read at home in a more suited atmosphere.
With no more contradicting arguments, research to back it up or any other facts.
It’s like the lecturer wanted to prove the argument; with no stimulating interactions, discussions, not even perceiving new ideas through listening. Rather just reading and watching the lecturer on their phone, laptop and running off.