Response to tutor report
The overall emphasis in the tutor report for Part 3 seems to me to be the need for greater depth in my work. I feel there is no lack of depth to the thought and concentration in the work but the tutor’s comments have alerted me to the need for much greater research in order to increase my understanding. I guess it’s a question of ‘ you don’t know what you don’t know’ and I often think that when reading the tutor report. Points are highlighted which I was actually not even aware of when I was doing the work. So I have seriously taken this on board.
The emphasis that’s been given in the report to the ‘music’ element in the final assignment has shown me that new and different responses were possible. I feel that I had already suspected this myself when I sat looking at the final piece with the music playing. I began to realize how much more there was to interpret. This report has highlighted how I could have achieved this. It’s made me realize also that I need to be seeing the instructions in the course manual very simply as a basis from which I work out. Looking back at the text now…… and comparing that with what the tutor report is suggesting, I can see where I need to be going.
One of the questions in the report is, “If you had researched aspects of music in relation to art in advance, I wonder if your approach and experience would have been different.” I did make an attempt to do this but found that information was not easy to find. I looked at Kandinsky’s ‘Compositions’, Chagall’s ‘The Triumph of Music’, and Okeefe’s ‘Music, Pink and Blue No 2’. The whole area of music and art seemed to be illusive. I have now purchased ‘….’ As requested and this will provide the information I need. However I do take the point that greater research into Messiaen’s work would probably have had an effect on my interpretation but, in my defence, I was keen to allow the music itself describe my gestural marks. Yes, I agree there was a haunting sustained sound throughout – I understand that the piece was written to accompany a light installation on the Seine – but there is also music in it of a different nature. My marks were responding to the joyous, excited rather jagged movement of the sounds and so I felt that the colours I selected and the sinuous movement of the marks reflected this. Surely as in all art, there will be different interpretations. I don’t feel that my interpretation is wrong – it is probably a less obvious one. Had I had more background knowledge, there may have been differences but I do believe that this piece of work is authentic in that it is an honest, personal expression of how the music made me feel.
The tutor’s second question, “Why is the subject of this drawing pushed over to the left side of the frame?” The word ‘pushed’ sounds critical and so I am assuming that the composition of the painting is in question. I realize that the placement of the subject of the drawing on the left side of the frame feels uncomfortable but the subject of the image is not the still life – the subject of the painting is the emotional response and description of my interpretation of the music which is the subject. The exploration of the sinuous lines and upward thrust of the shapes are continued in the space on the right and so I see it as one. To this extent I feel that the image is successful. However this leads me to question the title…perhaps I needed to call it ‘Messiaen’s Fete des Belles Eaux’. What part does the title play?
This report has given me much to think about and I’m grateful for the direction into further research which it is suggesting. It seems also that the whole area of ‘space’ in drawing is one which I need to focus more on and so I will be considering this for the parallel project.