Up to this point using the resources available to me and from my sketchbooks I looked over my original rough sketches and thought long and hard about the skills that I had learnt and materials I had used in the first year. From this I decided I was going to make a candle/tea light holder that would be displayed on a table in a restaurant or an individuals home environment.
To do this I took my original sketches and annotated them to show how I would create this in uni and at home with the resources and what would hinder me in creating the piece without the resources of the university.
Looking at the idea for the lamp I discovered that to do this to a high quality I wood need a woodturning machine and to get the best finish and to maintain this finish for the long run period i would need the advice of the technician Nigel. Plus making a circular Marquette would be difficult and the quality would be noticeably weak. So the best option would be the tea light/candle holder idea
(lamp rough sketch)
From annotation I discovered that to get the best look would require a lot of manipulation and a more simpler shape as a template to begin the process of.
as a rough design i sketched up what i would like the piece to look like, at this point it would take several attempts to get a size that wasn’t to big and wasn’t to small.
(original tealight idea)
Looking online I collected a few images that took my eye and analysed them for both lamp based architecture and candle/tea holder architecture pieces. These are a few of my favourites :-
This was the most basic of imagery I could find on architecture lamps. As a template I liked the idea of making a piece for the resubmission that was based on light but more in the sense of a piece that a light could be displayed in/placed in. looking through I found two more images based on architecture
These lamps by architecture artist Lauren Daley from San Francisco caught my eye due to the shape and it wasn’t until I looked further in that I realised the shapes were actually houses and showed how architecture evolved from one to another. With my outcome being based on Power and technology this would be perfect and the fact that these pieces were individually cut on a laser cutter and put together by hand linked even more and is a process I haven’t really used yet but would like to in the 2nd and 3rd year of my degree.
Another artist I came across by the name of Marc Williams who lives in the United States that also makes 3D architecture lamps caught my eye for the same reasons as Lauren, and the use of shape made me think more of my images in my sketchbook and previous posts and how I could combine together to make a architecture based piece.
Next I researched into architecture holders and found quite a few that interested me and the range of materials was more broader than before which was helpful when thinking of ideas for the look of the piece.
Tis aspect of placing images onto surfaces seemed more realistic and successful than what I could have achieved before, and using lazertran and practice will be achievable for this resubmission
Finally these candleholders I took a keen interest in from picture sharing website Pintrest due to the shape and look of the pieces and how they fit the part and can visually be seen as candleholders in restaurants and homes inside and out.
Looking back I wish I had made my outcome in this material using a laser cutter, but when you are learning so many things most of which are completely new to me you feel overwhelmed but now I know I can only get better.
To build a connection I made notes on all my work in the separate aspects of the field modules and came to the conclusion that as a maker making 3D outcomes is what is expected of me so the link of architecture and shape came across in two different ways from both projects individual project with imagery and carving and manipulating to shape and collaborative of linking shape with the body and the process of that organ in the body, so the basis of architecture and shape was evident throughout and was discussed in both modules in depth.
In order to gain a better insight into the possibilities of what I could make I had to think of several things. These being
- How could I relate the image and look of architecture and shape to a 3D outcome effectively to make the viewer see aspects of the city they may not have seen before.
- Where would I imagine this piece being placed in the city/ why does it belong there/ what is its purpose.
- How will I trial and error this piece
- How will I make this piece and what materials will it be made from.
- How will I show what I need to do to make this piece professionally and why am I unable to do certain things.
By the end of this project before the August 14th deadline I will be aiming to answer these questions and any more that come up ready for assessment.
Taking a couple of days of in this time I looked over all my existing work from both the individual field project and the collaborative field project. From this I grew concerned that one of two things or possibly both thing could happen. these being :-
no possible links being evident between the collaborative discussions
not explaining myself in a way that is easily visualised when the piece is marked.
But never the less fingers crossed it would work out as long as the work is shown to have improved and demonstrate what I am being asked to do.
Talking to Jon after collecting my results he explained that I would be able to resubmit my field project to get the minimum mark of 40% which I would need to progress into year two. So he recommended I take some time over the holidays to sort things out and clear my head and have a few ideas on what I was going to do for an outcome and making sure this outcome was meeting the requirements of the resub brief. After reading the brief I studied the two options one of which I must choose to resubmit for marking. These being :-
A piece of individual work that responds to the three options one of which you selected in the individual module and shows linking to the collaborative discussions, alongside this a 250 word description on how the collaborative discussions influenced the piece.
a 2000 word essay on the general area of collaborative working thus far.
with my essay feedback stating that there were a few glitches here and there I obviously went for the first option.
My original outcome for field individual was to create a piece that reflected the shape of the cityscape but also the form of the person. Basically taking a series of shapes and forms of the city that when seeking the technician in photography’s assistance when lighted would produce a silhouette outline the form of the head and Ingrid my head tutor of the course in general recommended layering images onto solid blocks of plaster and arranging them in such a way that the lighting would show the look of the human head from a side angle. To do this Ingrid recommended I look into the work of Sue Webster and Tim Noble and whilst doing this I came across the work of James McNabb.
(Sue Webster and Tim Nobles work)
This is what I intended to replicate to the best of my ability with the resources available but I panicked and left the idea and project to late to create a good enough outcome.
And tis is how I intended it to look to the viewer but as explained panicking and worrying ruined it.
For my collaboration project as a group we went for an idea that I was trying to bring across in my individual outcome to a certain extent which was finding ways to bring aspects of the body and the city together. Difference being
the individual project was focused on images and shaping to create the form of a person
the collaborative piece was a selection of the bodily organs from the waist up individually in 2D format that would on publisher combined together into one piece as accurately as they can actually be to their location in the body. So the idea I wanted to show was looking at things from a different perspective and I hoped to show that collaboratively and individually
In the back of my mind I still wanted to go with the idea of architecture and shape but the outcome would have to change so I took some time to look back through my sketchbooks and see what could be done and where my strengths were coming from. So I decided to create my own images based on the piece done for collaboration and apply these to surfaces such as a vase for example. Unfortunately the material I need to do this known as Lazertran would have to be ordered and would not be delivered in time so I kept the images flat which led to the project failing. So now I have to wait and see what my feedback said and take it from there.
At the end of my first year on maker i unfortunately didn’t do as well i had hoped in comparison to my friends of the course. My feedback showed my subject work had just scrapped a 40% meaning a 3rd and my field project individual got an overall 30% meaning a fail but this was mainly down to not asking for advice as much as I clearly needed to and sticking with my original idea rather than changing it every few weeks. I am confident I can improve and that this resubmission piece will get the 40% mark to allow me to move into the second year.