am left with some questions to think about after stewart geddes generous lecture last monday. looking through his back catalogue of paintings I’m wondering if returning to past ways of working might be just as important as trying new ways. stewart asked us many times to recall our first impetus to make art and early art making experiences. along with other more conventional media, paint had been part of my art making up until recently before curiosity for other ways of working took over. perhaps returning to past methods would be equally challenging and beneficial as would extending my skills in new areas … could this also become part of my professional practice plan?
another question I’m left considering, especially as i ‘map the terrain’ of my practice, is about the place of a coherent rationale and logic to my art making, based on research and planning as against impulse and instinct. as stewart pointed out, over thinking can slow down the process and also limit its capacity for discovery. as i found with ‘project 180 km’ sometimes things only make sense after making rather than before … don’t let having no ‘why’ or any coherent explanation put me off making
link to stewart geddes presentation of work. thank you stewart
Leave a Reply