I showed Tom my work over the past few weeks, including my scan/reprints from a copyright free animal illustration book.
Tom pushed me again to explain my work. His questions forced me to think about my work from a different point of view. He asked me to explain myself as an artist as if I were talking to someone I had never met before. I responded saying I like to work with my hands to create realistic representations of animals and death. He pointed out that my work contains "residue of animals." AKA representations of animals but never the real living thing. I need to push this residue into an area that my target audience can more readily comprehend and connect. For example, a fur or pelt may be beautiful in my eyes, but repulsive, dirty, or disgusting in another person's eyes. I need to find representations that everyone can connect to in the same manner. Representations like this:
http://disney-clipart.com/bambi/jpg/Thumper.phpAudiences see Disney's Thumper and think, "What a cute rabbit!" They have similar reactions in which they assign positive anthropomorphic characteristics to a representation of an animal. By first establishing this connection and then manipulating the animal representations, my audience will better understand my work.
Tom gave me artists to look up. I am required to watch the Art:21 episodes for Kiki Smith, Arturo Herrera, Kara Walker, and Walton Ford. I love it when research is assigned for me!
Questions: What are the first five words that come to mind when you think of fur (fur as in a pelt, not a fur coat)? Honesty is a must no matter how strange your reaction might be. How about meat?
Do you think you would respond more to my images if the animal representations were more mainstream, friendly, and recognizable? Do you think I should continue to use fur or physical remnants of animals in some of my images as well as animal representations understood by the masses? Suggestions? Artists? Thoughts? Reactions?
No comments:
Post a Comment