Sophie Ashdown

Since my research topic is related to Constructivism, I’m including a paragraph with a brief summary of what the art movement was, who were the key artists, and how it has evolved to today.

Despite thinking that I know a fair bit about Constructivism, I am finding it challenging to write a concise description of it, that is informative but still interesting and engaging. What I have written so far sounds more like a textbook than a researched analysis.

I can include when and how Constructivism started, who were the founding members, what art they created, and what were the key defining characteristics of artwork from that period. But how much do I include narrative about the social and political climate that triggered the movement? I found myself going down a rabbit hole describing the dawn of the Russian Revolution. I had to stop myself before I started doing an in-depth review of Battleship Potemkin!

Thankfully I will have the opportunity to discuss this with Gia and she can steer me back on course.

Plus I’m randomly struggling to decide whether to use past or present tense when describing Constructivism. It WAS a art movement from 1920s Russia, but it still IS an artistic style today. Which to use? My section on Constructivism currently has both tenses, depending on how I’m describing how/where it fits with the sentence.

I’m happy to find that I’m enjoying finding out new things about Constructivism, but am spending far more time reading about it than writing about it so I need to sort that out quickly or this paper will never get finished!