Sophie Ashdown

At our Tuesday tutorial on 28 April, we discussed a concept of “adjusting or disrupting your practice” where we evaluated ourselves on a sliding scale between five pairs of attributes:

We took some time to assess the pairs and where we fit for each.

Here is how I interpreted what the pairs mean, and where I think I fit on the scales now.

Material vs Conceptual

A materially driven practice is led by physical making, texture, objects/materials, experimentation with the media, and tactile engagement. The artwork could begin with a vague idea of what you want to make but ultimately would emerge through handling the materials.

A conceptual practice is led more by ideas, systems, research, theory, and context. The concept is clear and intentional from the start.

I think I began the MA more on the material side, focussed on patterns, paint application, visual experimentation, and
intuitive abstraction. I would start with a concept but would let the work organically grow as I went, although I would be quite structured about it. For example for this piece I started from the centre and worked my way outwards. I prepared the colours ahead of time and measured out roughly how much space in the “rings” to give each colour, but I let the work evolve as I went:

Over the course of the past two years I believe I have shifted more toward the conceptual side, particularly through systems, data, mapping, measuring, and my bond with Constructivism.

However, I would say that I’m not fully conceptual because I still value having work that is tactile, I want my work now to have some emotional and visual richness, and particularly I care about how the data is translated so that it is not purely literal. Even with the data pieces I want them to look like attractive pieces of art on their own.

So I think I am about here on the scale:

Iterative making vs Research based

I interpreted this pair as:

Iterative Making means learning through repeated making, experimenting visually, trying things out, evolving through process, discovering through doing. Potentially the work develops by cycles of making and remaking.

Research Based means that the work can start from researching the concept, doing theoretical enquiry, historical research, being influenced by specific artists or art movements. By doing the research and enquiry, the making is guided by what was learned.

Prior to the course I think my practice was more iterative because I experimented with different patterns and forms of abstraction, I would test out ideas, and discover new methods along the way. (Not all of these ideas and methods worked out!)

By doing the MA, I think I have clearly pushed more toward research-led practice, evidenced by Constructivism, cataloguing patterns, putting more context into my work, and exploring my research question of data as a material in art. Now that I am making more data-related art, there is a great deal of time spent doing the research and the calculations for the data before actually putting any paint on the canvas.

However I don’t think I’m quite as far to the right on this as I originally thought on the day of the tutorial. I believe that although I do have a more concrete idea of what I want to make and why, I still make art experimentally and resolve my ideas as I go. I’m not trying to just illustrate a theory, I want to enjoy making the art and be satisfied with the result.

For example with the painting I made based on percentage of people working from home, although the outcome is a fairly literal rendering of the data, I still experimented and adjusted along the way. What I learned is that I need to still retain a healthy margin of artistic license, to interpret the data rather than just represent it. I think I am getting to the point where my process is research → making → reflection → more research → more making.

I think I would put myself about here:

Intuitive vs Structured

I think that Intuitive implies being emotional, instinctive, spontaneous, and exploratory.

Structured implies systems, planning, organisation, rules,
methodology, and frameworks.

This is probably one of the most interesting tensions in my work. I do have naturally intuitive tendencies where I can be emotionally reflective, visually responsive, and open to discovery.

But my current work increasingly uses systems, grids, categorisation, data, numerical structures, and Constructivist geometry. So my work has become much more structured during the MA. In my current work on personal data, I think that I can use structure to hold emotion. Where the blue painting 9above) seems somewhat cold, I think my personal data pieces reference my history, memory, relationships, identity, etc.

In terms of the making process I would be significantly more on the structured side, however there is still some element of the intuitive particularly when I am have a personal connection to the basis for the piece.

I would put myself here for this one:

Continual vs Periodic

In terms of making, I think that Continual means a regular ongoing practice and constant making that is integrated into daily life, whereas Periodic implies bursts of activity, project-based pieces, and various pauses between intense periods of making.

I wish I could say that I am a continual maker of work but that wouldn’t be true. I could say that I am a continual thinker of art because it is constantly on my mind and I continuously draw inspiration and ideas from the world around me. However I have struggled at different periods with juggling my time between work, motherhood, family, relationships, volunteering, and general managing of life as a single mum. I have tended to work in bursts of activity, for example when there was a show or exhibition coming up, when I had the opportunity while my boys were away, or specific periods like doing the Artquest 30/30 challenge.

For artistic thinking, I am continual, but for the purposes of this exercise in terms of making, I am more periodic:

Process vs Outcome

Process means that it is the making process that is most important rather than the ultimate end product, and Outcome means that the finished work and having resolved pieces that are “exhibition-ready” is the most important.

I think that I used to be much more on the Outcome side because I would mostly make pieces that I thought would sell or were specific to a particular exhibition, rather than just enjoying the process of making something because I liked it personally. Now though I think that the MA has shifted me more toward process than I realised before doing this exercise. I feel more comfortable now with experimentation, reflective making, failing at making something, and letting my practice evolve.

However I am still quite focussed ultimately on the outcome. My methods mean that I have a clear idea of what I want the outcome to be and I enjoy getting to that point. I wouldn’t want to just keep being in the “making” stage without actually finishing pieces, but I’m allowing myself with more thinking time along the way.

I would say I’m here for this one:

So overall my results are as follows:

Through discussion in the tutorial about the above, we were asked which of the pairs would be the most challenging to change, and I would say that Intuitive vs Structured would change me as an artist the most.

This sits just fine with me though because I am accepting myself more and more as the type of artist I am. I know that I am structured, methodical, and targeted in my approach.

I feel that the MA has not replaced my artistic instincts, but it has layered research, structure, and conceptual thinking onto them. I can see that this will continue to help me evolve as an artist even beyond completing the course. I expect to keep harnessing what I’ve learned and experienced to shape my development over years to come.