Personal Review 2/10/2017

It seems a long time since my last review in eary April.  Since then I have used humpty mould to make the holey piece for the May assessment, researched glazes and done some initial testing with stains.

cropped-img_20170518_121128-2.jpg

IMG_20170704_174752

However, I came to a dead end with the Kesseler inspired holey pods.  I made the double bowl and pods purely to gain skills, and to this end they were very successful.  But I wasn’t particularly interested in Kesseler’s pods – all a bit samey, form-wise. And the holes were little more than decoration, and also all a bit samey. Another issue is that they are large scale forms, difficult to make smaller scale.  These forms, however, were a necessary step on the way to……..where?

The summer was interesting.  I considered deferring this semester to explore form.  Instead, I withdrew from uni and did my 30 Day Challenge explore form in the safety of my own home:

30 Day Challenge 1

30 Day Challenge 2

30 Day Challenge 3

I’d hoped to make forms based on the double bowl, which would mean I had the skills and method to make them.

However, I’d created a couple of forms with holes, and became interested in pierced forms Free Research: the Hole in Sculpture .  Pierced forms create the problem of construction.  On the plus side, I’ve discovered the work of Poalo Scheggi, which I love.  In the 1960s, he introduced space and form to painting and made the canvas into an object in its own right:

In the start-of-term-tutorial , without my having mentioned ‘The Hole’, Dave suggested I need to break through the form.  In some ways it wasn’t what I wanted to hear, but in others it was. I did as Dave suggested, and cut through one of the maquettes.  His was a good suggestion.  I’d already made a rough design for a new maquette, but wasn’t too sure how it would work and was putting off making it.  Breaking through an exisiting maquette was easy, and very satisfying.  Moreover, it gave me confidence to try the new maquette:

 

Two new issues arise:

  • what basic forms should the Scheggi inspired holes be set into?
  • what method do I employ to make these forms?

Dave thinks the first question is more important, and thinks I should shift my attention to the basic form.  I’ve only given the basic form cursory consideration up to now. I’ve researched the context of Scheggi’s work – Fontana, Spacialism, Dadamaino, Antonia Campi (which reminds me I must finish the page on this). I’ve considered the egg form, which was important in Italy at this period, and indeed, informs Scheggi’s work. I’ve looked at a few other artists briefly – Barbara Hepworth, Antoine Poncet, Mari-Ruth Oda. Dave picked out one of my Scheggi inspired egg shapes, and suggested this could be the basic form – suggesting how it could be upright, supine, elongated etc. Maybe the egg, then?

To be honest, I’m more concerned with how I’m going to make the forms. I’ve identified possible methods of handbuilding the forms, and have already eliminated one method.

Moving Forward

I’m most interested in testing Methods 2 and 4.  I’m hoping to use a mould I made earlier for Method 4 (if it’s still there), so I will work on that at Uni. I can work on Method 2 at home. I may need an armature for Method 2 – have to see.

Once I can make at least some forms, I’ll turn my full attention to the basic form.  More research.  Trip to the Hepworth. Drawing and making maquettes.  Can the current methods be used to make the resultant forms?  If they can’t, more method testing will be required. If they can, then I’ll move on to considering surface finish, and start glaze and colour testing again.

At some point I need to write a Learning Agreement – I don’t feel the time is right just at the moment. My temporary one will have to suffice.

Timescale

I aim to have made some small/medium scale complete and bisque fired forms, and have had the early results of glaze testing by mid November. Hopefully, there will be a glaze or two worth applying to the bisque forms for test-firing, and subsequent evaluation in late November.

Future Exploration

Areas to consider include the relationship between exit and entrance holes, and the movement of light through the holes. Surface finish and movement of light around and through. Surface finish and tactility. Scale.  Multiple Scheggi forms. The relationship between basic form and holes.

 

Advertisements