Surabhi has a different artistic approach compare to mine because her research on pattern does not have a specific direction to me. During her presentation, I always think that she did not really specifically elaborate how she can relate the pattern to culture, women's hair or some of the symbols. She centre point of the research is about pattern only but not linking with any specific topic that she would like to further investigate.
Maybe because she is a professor in Concordia, I was a bit disappointed that the way she explained her works are too lecturer like instead of an artist.
I was thinking why I was expecting artist talk like an artist talk? Does artist talk has a specific criteria? Why did I deny her way to present her way?
I did enjoy her works so much, but I could not see the linkage of her mindset and attitude of her practice.
Surabhi's research is so difficult that I really appreciate some artists could do a reseach about something highly abstract. The challenging part of her research is that she would like to put a certain narration inside and trying to conceptualize the pattern. However, if she could further explain the way she link pattern with other things she mentioned, I would be easily assessed to her mindset and understand her way of making art.
No comments:
Post a Comment