Review of Artist Lecture

This past Saturday, I attended an artist lecture put on by the University. Three artists who also work as university professors were scheduled to speak briefly on how they produce their work and about the particular body of work that they had on show in the museum, as well as give demonstrations regarding their methods. All three artists worked with different mediums and I was looking forward to hearing them talk about how they create their work. It was nice to go to a museum where, for once, you can see the work, but also learn a little about how it was made.


The first artist to speak was my Digital Photography professor and therefore her lecture and demonstration felt like an extension of class. It was really inspiring to see examples of her own work and all of the different components that go into making one photograph. After the lectures, I decided to focus solely on her demonstration, because I wanted to see how she constructed her pictures in Photoshop. Her presentation, for me, was the most interesting of the three because it was geared towards my own interests in photography and helped to provide further insight into how much editing work is often done to create stunning photographs. I also enjoyed how she discussed the difficulties that can come with photographing people and how the artist may have a vision that the subject may not want to be a part of. I think it was wise to that she photographed other artists for her portraits because they are going to have a better ability of remaining open-minded and willing to participate. It would have been more difficult, I believe, to photograph people who are not artists because they are going to be more focused on how they look or are portrayed in the photo rather than the importance of the artists vision and aesthetic. That is why I always struggle with photographing people—because I don’t want to offend anyone with my work. I think seeing the photographer use digital manipulation in the portraits has inspired me to start to push myself a little further and attempt to work more on portraiture.


The second artist was a professor who specialized in printmaking/engraving/etching. His work was much more traditional, with the subjects often being flowers or pastoral landscapes. I enjoyed hearing him discuss the various techniques he uses. He had a display of work spanning from engraving to etching and even woodcarving-based prints. The juxtaposition of the different techniques within one gallery helped to highlight the different final looks he was able to achieve by utilizing different styles of print making. In a world where everything is becoming digital, it was impressive to see such old styles of print making still in practice. I was most impressed by his large woodcutting prints. He had two prints that were 2' x 3' in size and rather than work with a small medium and then enlarge during printing, he actually worked with a slab of wood that size. One wrong move of cutting too much into the wood had the potential to ruin his vision of the final print. It makes me feel very fortunate, in digital photography, to be able to conduct non-destructive editing of my work. That way, I never have to feel as if one mistake will forever alter my photographs. What I also appreciated about the second lecturer was that he talked about his processes in a way that people who were unfamiliar with that style of art could easily understand. I didn’t feel lost trying to follow his lecture, even though I have absolutely no experience with carving wood to use a print templates.


The final lecture was one that I had a harder time following and enjoying. This professor’s specialty was woodworking and her talents ranged from furniture-making to conceptual art made from wood and what she had on display in the gallery was the latter form of her work. The piece of her work that I was most drawn to was an intricate display of pieces of a circle that were all ornately carved. It immediately reminded me of a grandfather clock and made me think of the concept of time and how it does not always need to be viewed as linear and concrete. I enjoyed being able to work through my own observations of the piece and was looking forward to hearing the lecturer discuss the process in which she made that piece and the others. I was anticipating her lecture to be more process oriented because that was the way in which the other two lectures had been conducted. Instead, she decided to talk about the meaning behind each piece. She referenced history, old maps, mathematics and various other things until I no longer saw the pieces of her work because I was too busy trying to figure out why she overwhelming her audience. I found it interesting to note that at the end of her lecture, she had the fewest audience questions and I believe it was because her talk was not engaging enough to the audience. I would have much rather learned how she manipulated the wood to create such intricate structures as opposed to just being told what they should mean to me. I also found it funny when an audience member commented on his interpretation of a piece (which I was able to see more readily than the artists own interpretation) and the artist seemed disinclined to see her piece that way (even though numerous audience members nodded along with the gentleman’s point of view). To her credit, she did discuss how she was most likely still too close to the piece (it was a fairly recent sculpture) and that she therefore was unable to look at the piece and it’s conveyance of its meaning too critically.


Overall, I enjoyed the lectures and the photography demonstration. Sometimes, when viewing art at a gallery, it is difficult to not feel intimidated and that the work comes simply and naturally to the artist. The lectures helped to eradicate that intimidation by showing the amount of work that goes into a piece and that, even for an experienced artist, there is always more to learn and more to improve upon.