Yesterday I have been to the OCA study day in White Chapel Gallery. The exhibition is on the work of Zarina Bhimji.
The gathering time was the same as the gallery opening time, so some students and I stood in front of the gallery and start chatting about our recent assignment. One of the student told me that she wishes that her tutor can give her more feedback on the exercise (not only the assignment), since it will help her to improve faster. I told her that I have a feeling that my tutor won't criticise how I do the exercise (or not doing them), so I want to spend more time on the assignment instead, which I will definitely get feedback on. Then I will keep nagging until I get more detail on the feedback :)
I had this conversation with another lady when we have the half time break in the cafe. We conclude that it is easy to get shots that satisfied the exercise but it won't be something visually strong. It is less easy to get something visually strong but it doesn't fit the assignment (at least it is pleasing to look at). It is very hard to have the assignment in mind while getting a visually strong image.
Anyway, back to the exhibition itself. Personally I enjoy the two short films more than the photographs. The first short films "Out of the blue" put together a sequence of images that lead my eye to focus on the final image, which lead to a strong feeling of (places, and probably people) being abandoned. Then it get back to the origin of the artist exiled from Uganda to India. It makes better sense than just watch the photographs. There are couple very good photographs that illustrate the mood, but some of which I think is too distracting.
The other short file "The yellow patch" has also take place of the abandoned location but it is not as strong as the "Out of the blue". Probably there is less zoom out screen that I cannot feel the departure element. However, the photographs are visually stronger on this part of the exhibition. The one I like the best has very strong blue corridor.
Another highlight of the day is a discussion from the lady sat next to me in the coffee table talking about her experience that the artists she encountered seem to be offended when she mentioned about money and their work. Once upon a time some biochemists said that they can do independent research on new drugs and their opinions are unbiased. Then another research shows the strong correlation between a biochemist who got funded by drug company, and the positive recommendation he would give to new drugs from this company.
Who says that money won't influence your work? Why does one has to pretend that they don't care about money and need to self-justified that they are unmotivated by cash? Does being dishonest to yourself means that you are a better artist, a better person?
Look, getting money to pay for food and rent is a fact of life. It will affects your work when you are doing it for someone, some organization that will use your work to fit theirs, but not your purpose. If you want to commission, you have to decide to give up some inspiration or motivation so that you produce something they like. There is nothing new about it. Why there is people who have courage to take money and not to face up to the fact that they do something for money?
It just reminds me the quote from Phillip Halesman that I quote last week.
"I drifted into photography like one drifts into prostitution. First I did it to please myself, then I did it to please my friends, and eventually I did it for money."
No comments:
Post a Comment