One To One Tutorial With Andrea

This tutorial was useful; from the point of view that it gave me some relief that even though I don’t know exactly what I am doing, what work I have, is on the right track. I spoke about some relatively new ideas of the mop with the original handle, and my intention to cast a pair of jeans. And how I was looking into ‘the everyday’ and its limitations of becoming something else when noticed as such. It was suggested to perhaps combine my casts once I have enough? this idea I am unsure about at the moment as I think I need to carry out my experiments (however long they appear to be taking) with the idea of me finding objects that I see as totally mundane and reconstructing them to replace the original. This process of reproduced and replaced was referred to as “evolution” of objects which I found fascinating, and is something I feel I will begin to expand upon. 

Studio Practice

Following my questions from the previous post I wanted to build new work on the idea of encompassing an aspect/part of the original with my reproduced piece. I feel conflicted by my reading into this mop, I think because of my own personal relationship through constructing the piece that the piece can’t project anything onto me in terms of its ‘everyday’ context that I am not forcing myself to see. I think I will only gain knowledge of the reading of the work when in my next work in progress meeting. I think this is something I will defiantly continue exploring in other ways though. It seems to help by returning to Perecs piece of text on the everyday being everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

 

Work in progress group

Following my work in progress group meeting, it was discussed that perhaps the research was there by the way I am using it to create work is not consistent. In particular it was questioned as to why I was planning on manipulating my work (talking about the handle to the mop). I am beginning to doubt my desire to make my reproductions obviously distorted and playful. I want to continue making monuments  but want to alter my own perception of what I think that is. So far I have considered that to be a stand alone object, but I am beginning to look at that much more in my objects original context. It could be interesting to create my reproductions in materials which take on a character and then plan that piece in the objects original context. So I am taking on Perecs concept of the everyday being overlooked and unnoticed, that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time.  It was suggested being more subtle in my work, but for me I feel my work needs to be grand. I would like there to be a way where I could be subtle but still get my fix of being grand. The suggestion to use part of the original in my reproduction (for example the mop handle) is something I will explore because it fits into Perecs statement. The question of what my work is there to do or say I found difficult to respond to. I don’t any more than the reason to uncover our own experience and to show us how to look more critically, and to see and explore what remains hidden in our day to day lives. 

Ideas and questions that have emerged from the session are: 

Does the object remain hidden when replicated in a separate material (such as bronze) and placed back in its original place/context?

Creating work that encompasses both the original and the reproduced 

Making  casts several times in different materials to see how those materials effect that object

preparation for work in progress session

What do you make? 

I make playfully distorted objects in the form of monuments that explore our everyday.

What motivates your making? 

The reason I look at the everyday is to see what remains hidden in our lives, that would only be realized when altered. And to show us how to look more critically, to train attention to our own experience. Its only when altered that we utilize the full potential of that object and identify its place without our own ‘everyday’

George Perec talks about the everyday being the realm of the unnoticed and the overlooked that is everywhere and at the same time nowhere, It exists until it is realized. the everyday is overlooked because our frequent encounter to it.

My intention is to change the objects place within that everyday context, and giving it character to be noticed, giving the object a realization. Although my work is looking at ‘the everyday’ my work is not of the everyday as through my distortion and my own hand it becomes something separate, that is in immediate relation and reference to the everyday, because once the everyday is realized as the everyday it becomes separate, and more of an artifact of the everyday.

How do you decide on the materials/means/objects for that making? 

I decide on my subject object normally by chance. What I find happens is that I will stumble across a object I consider to be completely mundane, and unflattering. The rules I usually accidentally set myself is the object has to have a level of detail, that will ultimately make the reproduction/manipulating more skillful. I think this is important in relation to my concept of the realization of that object. Materials I like to use are solid, solid because it gives my work a sense of stability in its manipulation, In particular I feel like bronze is most appropriate because it carries a obvious reproductive value, also a historical context relating to ornament and monument.

Where/how do you plan to exhibit?

In terms of exhibiting the work I feel that once fully constructed the work will be most forfilled if it is exhibited in a public plan that is potentially of the everyday? I am in debate with myself over exhibited in the context of a white space with a white floor plinth (where the form and process/skill will be most noticeable) or in the context of the everyday, that will keep a consistency to my concept but perhaps at the risk of loosing some of the labour. I also am not sure yet if my mop piece will stand vertically on its twisted handle, or if it will lay horizontally.

Problems I feel the work is having?

I am concerned with the time I am investing to creating just one of these works. The processes involved in creating these pieces of work I feel are essential, but I feel like I am not producing enough work in terms of the unit.

“Mathew Crawf…

“Mathew Crawford argues that manual work is more intellectually engaging and rewarding than so-called “knowledge work.”

This view is much like my own, I could simply collect items and titled them as Monuments through my intellectual knowledge that this could be. But through manually making them myself I am putting more evident thought into it, giving it a more prominent image. 

 

Spruing up my mop; Using back flow technique

because of the delicacy of wax as a material my outcome from my mould was slightly shabby on the intricate detail, in particular all detail and form was lost at the screw end. This is a hindrance as my initial intention was to use the screw fitting to attach the manipulated pole (once constructed). Now I am planning on welding the pole onto the mop head once in bronze, giving myself security that i won’t damage fragile detail. To sprue I used a back flow technique rather than a straight feed, this is because of the awkward shaping of the piece and also to assure the bronze will capture the detail. As rather than pour into the shell the bronze will now slowly fill, having more time to get into intricate areas. On areas of the puddling in my piece I have not sprued, this is because I hope for some flashing in the bronze giving the piece a more rustic monument look, which doesn’t sacrifice any real detail.