Mini rant. Also, I’m kind of wanna give Tumblr up for Lent this year (also because I need to concentrate on stuff) so I won’t be around much except to check my messages and occasionally reblog my commission page. I might take this down too after I sort stuff out, so yeah here goes.
I have just been told that my work is too much like “illustration” and that I obviously don’t understand this course because my series is not “observational enough.” Apparently researching my subjects thoroughly, saving tons of reference photos, making lots of thumbnails and doing digital value and color tests before painting and even obtaining models for more reference doesn’t count for this course, which last time I checked is called AP Studio Art Drawing and not AP Still Lives, Landscapes, and Portraits on School Campus. Not that there is anything wrong with still lives, landscapes, and portraits–there are some really awesome ones being made here–but the Course doesn’t restrict it to simply those things.
Also, Gen. Winter*, I would like to point out that a still picture is not “animation.” Just because I am drawing a picture of an art-deco plaza that happens to not be directly in front of me does not make it “animation.” Just because I have a drawing of a humanoid figure who also happens to not be directly front of me does not make it “anime.”
I am presently reading the AP Studio Art Scoring Guidelines and the section on the Concentration relays the following:
The work shows evidence of thoughtful decision making and intention.
5.C The work generally demonstrates imaginative ideas and effective manipulation of the
elements and principles of design.
5.D The work may show successful engagement with experimentation and RISK TAKING, or both
in some pieces.
5.E Most works exhibit expressive and evocative qualities that engage the viewer and suggest
5.F The technical competence of the work is strong; materials and media are used well to
5.G Any apparent appropriation of published or photographic sources or the work of other
artists shows a strong sense of the student’s “voice” and individual transformation of the
5.H There may be varying levels of accomplishment among the five works, but overall the work
demonstrates strong quality.
These are the ideals I am trying to go for in my pieces: Demonstrating imaginative ideas, being evocative and engaging, having my voice be apparent, and striving to use my technical skills to convey my ideals as best as possible. I appreciate the technical advice I’ve received with my composition and placement of details, since that has been the most helpful to me.
I know that having a structure in class is good and keeps people on track, but I know that there are others who would appreciate poking around outside of the Still life/Portrait/Landscape trifecta that dominates this department. It’s not like we’re all going to turn into ultra!modern!artists! right away and completely throw away every skill we’ve learned at school here. Maybe my works are a bit more illustrative, but if if my scenes are “illustration,” then so is De Chirico and Edward Hopper and all those other artists who made scenes of people interacting with their spaces. This curriculum is not as narrow as students think, and I am simply trying to follow their guidelines.
I personally think there must be something wrong with the premise of a class if students are all trying to hide in the back of the room. Maybe I can make an illustration based on this for my AP Concentration of “Fairy Tale Dystopia.”
*Pseydonym in case you couldn’t tell