After receiving the tutor report, I felt like giving up the entire OCA project because I was so disheartened. I also felt that the main critique point which I read between the lines, that of not having made something exciting out of my subject, was a consequence of how I interpreted course instructions. Rather than exploring what I found interesting and playing with ideas, I had tried to stick to “naturalistic observation” because I thought this was central to my chosen option. Not so, as I had to learn.
I wrote an e-mail to my tutor in response to her comments, to defend my drawings and the decisions I made. I’m not sure whether I will continue the degree pathway, but for now I will finalize the blog and prepare the submission for course assessment. I’m looking forward to proceed with Watercolour 1, where I seem to get along somewhat better.
Message to my tutor
Hi Diana,
thanks for sending your feedback so quickly. I must admit that I’m disappointed because I worked hard on part 5 and what I read between the lines is that my work was perceived as boring and “repetitive”. Feeling hurt by critique seems normal, so I try to take it in a professional manner. But please permit some thoughts in response.
The order of your comments suggests that you looked at the exercises backwards, which of course leads from the later, more interesting (?) drawings to the initial ones, where I was getting acquainted with the object while struggling with its details. Your report doesn’t seem to acknowledge the development that actually has taken place from accurate representation of the celery root at the beginning, over experimentation with a variety of media and different techniques, towards abstraction and a looser approach later on. I agree that it could have been taken further in the assignment, and that more experimentation would have been interesting. But with hindsight, this can probably be said of every work of art, because there is always room for all kinds of variations and taking aspects further into different directions.
Please forgive the critique, but I found your comment “repetitive” very unfortunate. It’s true that I made several attempts to get to grips with the complexity of my object. But as outlined above, this was at the beginning, and I was studying my object with perseverance… You write “each piece is of the same object” – but instructions advised to select one object!
My main problem with option 2 was that I understood a central requirement was “naturalistic observation”. I tried to incorporate this into my work and indeed felt very restricted by it – I guess this is what you perceived as “held back”. How can it be that the course instructions focus on the representational aspect, but then the work is critiqued for being too representational?
That said, I liked your suggestion how I might have enriched the subject by cutting up the celery root. I remember that the idea occurred to me, but somehow I must have lost track of it. But I’m at odds with the suggestion to include different kinds of roots. Instructions were to select a single object and explore it. Where would a composition with different roots fit into this concept, other than being an “interesting side alley”? Of course, it might have demonstrated inventiveness and creativity, but then I feel misled by the instructions in the course materials.
So basically, from my personal preferences I agree with the idea that more invention and experimentation would have been better, but then why are course instructions for option 2 put under the heading of “naturalistic observation”? This should be reworded to “beyond naturalistic observation”, if that is the direction students are expected to take.
Sorry for the lengthy rant, but while working on option 2, I felt like running against a wall, with course instructions on the one hand and clear desire to do things differently on the other hand. I opted for staying with instructions, believing that they were not there for nothing, only to realize now that I was expected to do something else. Maybe the course materials should be reviewed to make it clearer for students for what they should aim.
Regarding the course assessment, I appreciate your suggestion to send the list of works before submitting, and I’ll gladly do this. I also agree that most of my work for the drawing course needs refinement and improvement. Indeed I made a follow-up drawing of assignment 3, the view out of the window. But I’m a part time student with a full time job. I have a demanding shift shedule, including work on week-ends and until midnight. I have to be very realistic about what I can achieve within a single course.
I have now only 18 months left to complete level 1, with two assignments for watercolour 1 and the entire painting 1 course. In view of this, it is probably wiser to live with what I’ve done so far, without further refinement, and proceed with the other courses. I’ll certainly not forget the lessons I got from this course (and from your feedback), and they’ll be incorporated into future work.
[…]
I will have a few free days free next week and was planning to update the blog and review the submission list. I’ll try to incorporate your latest feedback and will really appreciate your advice on the final selection.
All the best,
Patricia