#advancedresearchmethod

TASK: Write a reflection on what you saw today. Which methodology/ies could you use to analyse images from the exhibition?

Eliasson’s interest in nature, geometry and how humans perceive, feel and interact with the world around us is explored throughout the exhibition. What strikes me most about this exhibition is how has taken over the gallery; not in every room but in every aspect: indoors, outdoors, the restaurant, live link ups to his studio in Berlin, to the recycling of T-shirts in the gift shop to get a discount, nothing has been missed.  It is completely interactive almost to the point of assaulting your senses.

The artwork covers the period from the 1990s to the present day which means you could analyse this work from a historical perspective.

The broad variety of the work covers several genres that could be used to analyse this exhibition: Art Theory: conceptual, abstraction, aesthetics, and environmental theory. The work covers a period of 30 years so you could also analyse this in a historical context. To give justice to this exhibition several of these methodologies would have to be used to analyse it fully. I would use those previously mentioned; historical, conceptual, abstraction and environmental.

The moss wall, 1994, was revolutionary in its day but it feels out dated to me now. It would be interesting to analyse this further in the historical context to better understand the impact at the time and how that has influenced other works.

I am a lover of symmetry and geometry so the kaleidoscopes and the artwork in the model rooms were interesting but my favourite pieces were; Beauty, 1993, Your Blind Passage, 2010 and a more recent work, Big Bang Fountain, 2014.

Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uvIRMIvCTE-XS6_e9b11FY66DQs_O6r5/view?usp=sharing

Beauty, 1993

I could have sat at the back of the room and watched this rainbow of colours pouring down all day, it made me feel completely relaxed and peaceful. Eliasson’s ‘interests in illumination, nature and perception’ was the inspiration for this piece. I would analyse it using a conceptual methodology to gain a better understanding of this piece. It might lead me onto other methodologies to investigate.

VIDEO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FRdn9A-FFyc9BqR3rHWf6oBo4sBTV6Xa/view?usp=sharing

Your Blind Passage, 2010. (image from Guardian Review) 

This had the most profound impact on the senses, having limited sight, the changing colours and the weird, not very pleasant taste it left behind. When one sense is blocked your other senses kick in to bridge that gap, to keep you safe, it’s a primal instinct. I suspect it is the piece that affects the audience the most and in very different ways; some love it, like me, others would hate it. Again this is very conceptual and abstract.

VIDEO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17YcgqdNu66jvmFtCuhqLs76-H6VIfMLe/view?usp=sharing

Big Bang Fountain, 2014

It’s difficult to decide whether I prefer this artwork to Beauty. Beauty affected how I felt i.e. peaceful etc. but this intrigued me in how it affected my sight. Once my eyes adjusted to the darkness I was able to make out the different shapes and droplets of the water. It also left a residual image on my retina so that even after the water have disappeared I could still see its ghostly shadow floating in the air until it was replaced with the next ‘real’ burst of water. I would certainly look at this from a conceptual and art theory perspective.

The first thing that I realised when we started our group presentation was that one of our peers was absent. I did not know where he was neither had I been been told anything. The presentation required a team work, which never existed. The atmosphere was quite embarrassing. 

So, what went well?

The presentation was made in Powerpoint, so at least we could all have our slides. I can literally talk just for myself, as it was obvious that everything was done at the last minute. I think that having some points in mind before giving an oral presentation is one of the key things to do. I had them, and it went well. I could speak without reading anything a part from the quotations. My tone voice was clear and everyone could hear what I was saying.  The topic itself was of my personal interest, in that I had already dealt with John Heartfield. 

If it was possible, I’d improve the spirit behind the whole presentation. 

First thing, I find incredibly pointless looking at someone reading aloud through the whole presentation. I could do it myself. This is not engaging at all, and I was not surprised when I noticed people’s looks, evidently starting to fall asleep. 

I realised that my presentation lacked of a better historical contextualisation, which would have helped people understand what was the political climate of the time. This is very important, as, although this topic has not the relevance in my essay this is a general rule that I tend to forget.