AMP Blog

We wish to thank everyone who made the first iteration of the Artery Mentorship Program possible. AMP 2014 would not have been possible without the generous support of our friends and family.

 THANK YOU!!

Leo Abaya, Catalina Africa, Johnjan Amio, Poklong Anading, Clara Balaguer, Jon Bantigue, Lui Saporsantos-Bantigue, Ben Bantigue, Wendell Capili, Joselina Cruz, Kiri Dalena, Lara de los Reyes, Tengal Drilon, Merv Espina, Arvin Flores, Azucena Flores, Alberto Flores, Patrick Flores, Ricky Francisco, Marti Juan, Russ Ligtas, Dominic Mangila, Eva McGovern, Stephanie Misa, Sandra Palomar, Gary Ross Pastrana, Sidd Perez, Ling Quisumbing, Chitz Ramirez, Javelyn Ramos, Yas Reynancia, Mark Salvatus, Therese Santiano, Mai Saporsantos, Mayenne Saporsantos, Ed Saporsantos, Rina Saporsantos, Jed Saporsantos, Mitch Shivers, Jay Ticar, Ea Torrado, Stephanie Victa, Jennifer Wofford

He explained pretty well how else I could expand my works and what they speak of, that personal issues and biographical contexts could be just starting points. He mentioned that my father’s ramblings and my recordings of them could be expanded into a work about text and language, and the transformation of language as a result of disorders such as depression or bipolar disorder. As for my use of body indentations in my thesis work, he said that I could also explore that form and see what other implications and meanings I can draw from that. Indentations and repetitions could be explored with the idea of “ornamentation”, rather than as “objects.” I also realized some of the trajectories that I could pursue in my practice.

I also realized that by coming from a very personal and diaristic approach to my practice, there’s a tendency to be too subjective or controlled. I need to be more inclusive of the viewer; I need to leave an open door for understanding. I also learned that I should be really mindful of implications not only with the making of a work, but the implications that come with its presentation. He gave me an idea, another option in presenting the Fossilized Knickers pieces, one that would give some ambiguity to the works.

I was reminded of the importance of being aware of and knowing my intentions with works, what I want to do with the work, because the choices I make with which works to include or exclude in a show will definitely have different implications depending on the decisions I make. Do I include both photographs and sculptures? Just photographs or just sculptures? It’s not that choosing both options or choosing only one of the options would be going with the better choice. I really just have to know and understand my intentions with the work.

My meeting with Yeyey let me see a wholly different perspective on my works, that of a curator. It also presented me with a lot of questions that I have to ask myself and seek answers for as an artist. She said that my ideas are interesting, but that there’s a lot more room for me to make the project’s bigger and less didactic.

One of the projects that we kept going back to was the Fossilized Knickers. One of the questions I could not get out of my head was: How will you deflect the concept of objectification without subjecting myself for objectification? But still talk about the body?

The works that she liked the most were the photographs, both the bra photographs and the ones of my dad and sister, because of my choices. She said that usually, other artists would focus on the textures and the cloth of the bra, but I chose to focus on the bones, the hardware of the object. As for my photographs of my dad and sister, she said that it provides a view on what happens during a depressive state.

Fell in love with my body while making it. I like all its curves and lack of curves in certain regions; even its flaws, its stretchmarks, its constellations of moles.

i can't reveal too much about the session but i can say that being a panelist, even at a mock deliberations, was a good learning experience because i was able to be the disinterested spectator towards someone's developing thesis project, trying to understand their concerns and figuring out ways they may be able to find the answers (or the right questions)

in a way it was an exercise of assessing and reassessing our own continuously developing projects and a reminder of the great importance of research

I really enjoyed the whole process of working on this lace bra piece.

Dissecting the bra, prying its flesh open and taking out its rusty bones.

I relished slicing up this object and opening it up, and I admit that there's an aspect of morbidity and violence in the act. But I felt relief afterwards, I felt like I was able to release some of the anger that came with being reminded of loss and pain, and being reminded that I was objectified.

It also seemed a bit scary to see all the rust inside this object that I had been wearing for a long time in the past. But I was still attracted to the image. To me it seemed symbolic of rotting and being dirty on the inside. When you pry it open, it also looked like rusty lady parts.

And as I looked at the skeleton of my lace bra, I decided to keep the metallic bones to create another work, laid them out on an empty canvas and took photos of them.

Then I proceeded to cover my bra in slip. Even this aspect of the process revealed a lot to me through my senses.

Kat also mentioned that what I was doing was interesting, because I was deconstructing the image of the female body. It was great to get another point of view on what I was doing.

Before we started with the mock delibs, Leo briefed us on what we should be asking his students. He mentioned that a lot of them are very concentrated on the output, instead of focusing on their processes.

They think that the creation and meaning of a work is inherent, but it's not. You should be asking, what can you offer the work, or what is the work asking of you?

They should be focused on the process, because through the process and continuous production, that is how you find yourself. Diba?

There has to be an awareness about the work, an awareness about why you are doing the work that you are doing, and what you intend to do with it.

Even with just the brief, I already got something out of it, a lot of what he said resonated with me. Even if I already graduated, I still need to remind myself of what I should be aware of and how I will be able to find myself as an artist.

___________________________________________________________

We each had a little over 15 minutes to present our portfolios and talk to Gary prior to the crit.

Rather than handing me comments on my body of work, he asked me questions about my works and if I feel exposed and vulnerable when dealing with deeply personal issues like what I did with my thesis. In a way, his questions lead me to inquiring and understanding more why I do what I do. And I'm quite thankful for that.

As for the crit, I learned that I should be taking a step back from being immersed in the very personal and subjective aspect of the work I intend to do for the exhibit. Concerns were raised over the viewer not knowing my background, or the whole story behind the work, and whether it was important that I use my actual family or if I could just substitute other people to create an image of a family.

Gary said that it's also a matter of up to where will I take the simulation of a home's family portrait area, staging it in such a way that it's more than a simulation or that there's a limit to the simulation. He also highlighted that I'm not only doing portraiture through the photographs, but with the objects as well. I need to decide on exactly what I intend to portray, and take responsibility if/when I portray strong issues such as alcoholism. Gary also said that, based on what I shared during the portfolio presentation, a very interesting thing that I could also use to create a portrait is my father's medicine, his pills and the pills that have to be crushed an put in his food. And I went "Oo nga noh?"

We get to be a panel for a mock thesis deliberation on a class of 10 students by sir Leo and it was both tiring and informative for our own practices. We get to see how each student articulate their works and compare them to the written drafts that was sent to us. I think by seeing the comparison and being able to point out who was unsure about their proposals was a good exercise of our understanding how to conceptualize a work of art. 

Today we experienced being panel members for mock deliberations of Leo Abaya’s undergraduate class in the College of Fine Arts in UP Diliman. Reading younger artists’ thesis proposals made me reminiscent of when I was writing mine. It was a whole different feeling, coming from a different perspective of having just graduated and coming to know more the non-academic parts of the art industry. I felt that we were able to see easier what were obvious strengths and weaknesses of the proposed works. The different topics also brushed on similar concepts we discussed in our personal practices, so the whole experience became a source of additional insights and interesting inquiries that can spark new possibilities.