27/02/19 VL Dana Munro

I did not like this lecture, I didn’t think it was insightful or relatable. It didn’t inspire me. It reinforced the need to speak to Claire about expressing what I write.

I was late for the lecture but after talking to others I realised that wasn’t the reason I didn’t understand what was being presented.

I found the whole experience to be listening to an essay of poetry. A beautiful thing about concepts, methodologies, and inspirations. Everything was included, every minor thought or texture was woven into a gorgeously written piece that would read even better. In the lecture environment, I found it rambly and detracted from her visuals.

I didn’t get enough information about her work. I need some kind of down to earth, nitty-gritty, useful information. A sentence about sublime subjects will not do.

I was late though, and I may have missed some introduction regarding the order of service.

She mostly reminded me of Jasmir Creeds presentation. I don’t know if they are similar, but I was comparing them in my head while she was talking.

Jasmir talked too much also, not enough work. She did however actually talk about her process AS WELL as all the research ideas surrounding each piece of work. During the tutorial, I managed to get information regarding design process too.

This is the first Q and A I won’t go to, because I find this artist’s way of explaining her work painful. I had to leave the lecture before the end, which I would consider extremely rude. But I have a low attention span and I was struggling fairly badly at this point. I know she’s more intelligent than me, I know it’s not her with the problem- it’s me.

I really struggle with artists who over intellectualise work. It drives me mad. Perhaps my threshold for what constitutes ‘art’ is low. I value the artistic hand and expression; however it comes. It doesn’t need to be so ridiculously explained. It can become a comedy sketch pretty quickly in my opinion.

I’d love to see a spoof lecture, stage one maybe. See if anyone notices a difference. See if anyone comes to may fake Q and A.

I like things that are clever, but I also like someone who has the guts to say, ‘because I wanted to’. No justification. It seems radical to say that. Perhaps this is why I’m enjoying working with paint at the moment. It’s pretty instinctive.

Jasmir also left her desk, as did all my favourite lecturers (apart from Louise Giovanelli). I value this act of engagement. It feels like the artists care about a connection.

I’ll ask people about the Q and A. I thought about meeting for a tutorial, as per my new initiative but I feel the only way she relates to me is that we both like writing. I am concerned with the way my words can seem pretentious even though they lack intellect. I am concerned that saying them will sound even more silly. This is something Tom Railton told me to ask Claire about, so I’ve sent her an email.

My concerns and worries are exactly what XXX did. She didn’t come across in a relatable way. Simeon Barclay told me to look at people who observe normal life like Alan Bennett. This is the way I am leaning. I want normal life AND the surreal, introverted, magical world created by language (like the sweet in a suit pocket by Morten Norbye Halvorson) I like the beauty in normalcy. I spoke to Mark Lecky after his film of a house party recently and we talked about the over intellectualisation of art and how it can make people feel they don’t belong to art. This contradicts my kind of half-formed but passionate socialist arty views. I think before talking to Mark I’d be coming away from the lecture feeling dejected and stupid. Jasmir Creed was intelligent but at the end of the day, her work involves her being with people. I went to the Victoria recently and read that she sees herself as a ‘flaneuse’. This I suppose on reflection, might seem condescending. Taking a holiday with ‘the public’, not seeing yourself as one of them. Viewing ‘them’ as a faceless mass and using them as a subject to paint to represent something. I don’t think this is her intention however.

Anyway... I felt forcing a tutorial with Dana would be inappropriate as our common ground is, ‘how do you explain stuffy, flowery things in a non-stuffy, flowery way?

I left the lecture and realised I would learn more about her work online.

I spoke with someone who had been to the Q and A and they said she came across better in that, so I regret not going. The thoughts were that she did valuable work but was unable to communicate well. The artist reacts to existing artwork but she could not explain why and how, when asked directly.

I guess it is important to keep talking to people about my work and attend crits so that I can practice communicating my ideas with others.

I read her artist statement and it is too pretentious.

I did enjoy how big she projected her films. She zoomed in at times during the films, heads and eyes seemed very big. Looked even better on a huge projection. I thought this was kind of invasive and layered- that is mirrored in her chopping up and collaging films.