24/4/2015.
Following a detailed critique for the summative presentation of my work with the core tutors of the MFA course, it was discussed that perhaps the drawing in itself and or the documentation footage does not work as viewers might find the physical connection between the exoskeleton, remnants and a continued event unclear. On reflection, perhaps as the field of performance is a developing aspect of my practice, my performance aspect may instead of giving a true and honest account of myself as an artist, is in fact too revealing, inadvertently displaying who I am; which can be viewed as ‘unconvincing and self-conscious’. However in contrast to this view in my review in Buzz magazine it was stated that ‘an experimental drawing-performance and gave the impression of being introverted, with strict focus. When the audience were invited to approach as she drew, there was a feeling of spying in on a private ceremony.’ SINNEAD ALI
If the performances were theatrical and choreographed in their approach then it would not have been a true interpretation of the experimental nature of the work; which is a basic interaction with a new parameter or body attachment which I am unfamiliar with.
In addition, when the documentation footage was exhibited, it was commented that the footage was found to ‘cluttered’. When exhibiting a particular field of research a system emerges that becomes familiar and although certain aspects of the work were redefined and condensed, the work should be pushed to the outer limits of its capability. In conclusion it was important to experiment exhibiting in this way as through analysing the findings of these conflicting reports it will allow the work to progress. The work needs to allow a forced direction of the viewer to fall away, to reveal the exoskeleton tool and in its self. This has left me with a paradoxical view of my position.