Assignment 4

I am beginning to understand this part of the work, this assignment section, which is to help signpost this work for assessment and feedback.

It doesn’t mean I am growing to like it any more or find it any easier.(Further to Tutor feedback on Assignment 4 I have amended and modified the preamble to this self-assessment).

To use the assessment criteria:

Demonstration of technical and visual skills:

I came to this part with very little experience of printing except some evening classes in dry-point etching and the usual hideous experiments in school with rock solid lino and blunt tools (that still successfully impale the carver). However, knowing this module was coming up I applied to a local printing company (INTRA) for a free course in gelli-plate printing. I had to fill in various forms to explain what I would be doing with the learning and why I deserved a place, and how I would use it. I was successful. I was therefore itching to immerse myself immediately in process-research rather than reading research. I explored different inks on the plate, different surfaces to print on and different ways of composing the monoprints.  I did experiment with collatype and this is not a process that I wish to revisit. It does not work for me. I assert Right 2. As I progressed with the exercises it became apparent to me that one surface and one mode of printing was not enough for one composition. The explorations with acetate and brusho opened the door to the most exciting demonstration of printing on my terms.

Again, as in Part 3 when I started combining techniques and actually composing forms then meaning began to be emerge and a sense of communication developed (Right 4).

As a design process for me printing is a fragment of a whole, not something that fulfils in and of itself, except for the blind back-drawing monoprints that have an importance that I sense is currently in its infancy. Again, as Part 3 I feel that with Project 1 of Part 4 in particular I have been able to move from showing visual and technical skills to communicating ideas.

Quality of Outcome:

Sharing the ‘green heart’ sample on the forum enabled me to understand that the work I was beginning to produce had a high quality due to the ambiguity of the image – evidenced by the varied and complex responses my audience shared. Pushing for greater depth on the back of this at first produced many technically refined prints that showed the ‘quality of outcome’ in process but lacked any ambiguity, or multi-facted layering in concept. In this part I have pushed my work through from ‘looking good and technical sure’ to having real voice – poignant, uncomfortable, personal and universal.

 Demonstration of Creativity:

(edited post feedback)

I wasn’t happy with printing relegating me to a 2d surface so I explored 3d forms, printing on plaster, printing on transparencies, layering, using 3 printing in combination with the gelliplate. The work became visceral and started asking its own questions. It created in and of itself separate from me.

Context:

I continue to relish the research and lines of enquiry that my works open for me. This is tantamount to my sense of learning and sense of progress. I have researched from a wide variety of platforms (Right 8)– media, on-line, paper-based, exhibits, galleries and podcasts as well as researching the work of other artists (Cas Holmes, Xtina  Lamb – INTRA) by attending their workshops and learning what printing means to them in practice and principle – learning in parallel and series. I now see where my work is beginning to find its family in the art world. I’m still determined to slice my own trail, but I can now see who inhabits the surrounding landscape.

(edited post feedback 27.10.16)