« donovan, david c | Main | Jazzman »

donovan, david c

.......Just looked at the site and noticed I forgot to comment on some of the things asked.
I structured my critique with initial responses for my peers followed with me describing my process of the creation and ended with discussion. I chose this mode of critique because it allows me to see how others interpret my work. I am able to see if it has the ultimate effect that I am looking for. Then explaining my process I am able to get feedback in ways to improve. The critique went as i thought it would for the most part. Based of the initial responses and discussion I feel as though I am at the right place in my research and developing in the right direction. One thing that surprised me is there wasn’t much of any hard line critiquing. no "negative" feedback. One thing I would like to add is how Juanita showed a time line of development. I think that having the background helps the viewers understand the scope of the artists work.

Comments

I have found that the way David constructed his critique is a great way to hear feedback, seeing work the way one would if they walked into a gallery.

I think David allowed the space for the dialog to happen, I am curious about the notion that there was not a 'hardline' during the crit, only because sometimes I wonder about that as well.

perhaps having more time to talk, I cant remember if he gave us a title but that seems like that would be helpful info that we would have in a gallery.