maandag 11 april 2011

Variations on a theme

Based on what I've discussed with my mentors I've come to the conclusion that I want to cut down the amount of elements in my work into the bare essentials. I still want to work with the 'contrast/division' concept, though, but I want the work to somehow interact with the environment it's in. In the spirit of documenting one's progress I decided to include above a quick sketch I made today. I'm quite certain it will not be the final design, in fact, I suddenly seem to have in my mind more than just one way of achieving my goal.

The two pictures have been taken from the opposite sides of the canal. Basically, the large banners in the sketch both have the words wij (we) and zij (them, in this context) printed on them, but looking from just one side of the canal you'll always be on the we side and the other people will always be them. The idea is, similar to my previous post, to create a mental bridge between people's thoughts, which are very similar. I feel both sides are at some level intimidated by the opposite side (whatever the reason may be); they share a mutual feeling. What they need to do, though, is visit the opposide side to realize that.

I wonder what the interpretation would be if I were to reverse the sides on both banners?

EDIT 2011-04-12: What a difference a choice of words makes ..! If my purpose is to somehow provoke thoughts, make people broaden their horizons, and not to strenghten their existing ideas and the reality of the division, maybe I really should invert these roles that I've assigned for these banners. Currently, the banner on one's own side - in the light of my research on people's opinions on each other - tells nothing new; "we (wij) are us and we quite like it that way." What, however, is more difficult to hear, is to belong into the group of "the others". So, in hopes of provoking more thoughts, maybe I really should flip the concept upside-down and make the banner on one's own side say zij and the banner on the far side say wij. Or change the wording completely: "the others" & "us".

Now, if there just was a simple way of including the people in making this...

EDIT 2011-04-17: The following is an answer to an assigment that we were given, whose meaning was to analyse one's own writing style:

I try to write in a general, concise and descriptive way so that anyone can understand it. I try to build up my narrative by starting with basic concepts, adding information to them and, when a rough idea of the physical appearance of the sculpture is established, describe where in the Piushaven area the work is to be placed. The purpose of my writing style is to reduce the amount of misunderstandings to a minimum and to provide a logical way to build up one's mental image of my work - to provide as accurate image as possible. I try to start with the basic concepts by writing as understandably as possible and providing a conceptual frame of reference (if the work is a painting, if it's an abstract or figurative etc..), and then, when I think this phase is described well, I start adding more concrete things to it (if the painting is big or small, what shape it is etc.). I think this writing style would be best described as something between business-like and the way - I think - a good teacher would explain difficult concepts to their pupils.

1 opmerking:

  1. Your text is understandable, it's particularly about your writing style. You thought well about what you want to say, and how you want to say it. It's also good that you think about writing in a way, for someone who has not seen your work.

    Further it remains analyzing. You don't answer the rest of the questions in your assignment; about what you want people to remember about your work, literally a text about your work (and then a short analysis), strategy and the sort of text and target group.
    See the assignment on the blog under KG/BV. You can add these answers on your blog, if you want to.


Opmerking: Alleen leden van deze blog kunnen een reactie posten.