June 2013 Residency Summary
Amy Hagberg
I got the most feedback this residency
from Ben Sloat, because not only was he my semester advisor, but he also led
the first critique in my group. Ben
talked the most about my copper house sculpture. But then Ben has always liked my sculptures
best. Although he liked the copper
house, he wanted to see ash and traces of the burnt wood under my house. He asked what happened to the ashes. I said I put them under the peonies, because
peonies like wood ash. He said he wanted
to see ash falling through the floor of the house and peonies growing up.
Someone in my critique group suggested
using the ash from the fire to make an image; perhaps for use in carbon
printing or collaging.
Ben asked if my work was about process,
visual syntax, or the effect? I think it
is becoming about process and effect, because they are really two ends of a
see-saw that balance each other out. But
I think I need to consider this more deeply, because I cling to visual syntax,
the way I cling to language for concrete understanding and communication.
Ben said there is a lot of space between
where the photographs and sculptures exist.
This is something I will have to discuss with this semester’s mentor. At least this semester nobody said the
sculptures and photographs were speaking different languages, like was said
often at the January residency.
Ben felt I should think about the dual
conversation in my work. The light in my
fire images he pointed out is both destructive and constructive. I should think of light as the way of being,
and going inside to greet the light. I should think about what is seen, and what
is unseen. He said I am interested in
the distorted visual.
Michelle Saffran also commented on the
light in my work. She said the way I’ve
used light conveys a mediated sense of memory.
She said I have personified discarded remnants as beings both forgotten
and disabled. She considered them
proxies for psychological landscapes. She
thought I held the tension well in my photographs. And she also felt there was a sense of the
organic as well as the human within my work.
Ben liked my metaphorical conversation of
the roof. I said the human psychological
roof is a construction of memories, thoughts, and beliefs that human’s use as a
shield to feel protected from the world.
That was why the house’s roof was a book containing imagery of the house’s
past experience. Ben felt my house was
a production of ritual. I think that is
absolutely correct. And that ritualistic
aspect is oddly very important to me, although I need to find the answer to exactly
why. He told me I should think about
upending nostalgia. He also said I
should spend some time with my copper house contemplating it.
Ben said I am letting the photography
guide my voice instead of making it speak for me, and I am allowing the
material to dictate me instead of me dictating the work. He felt the urgency was not there. He said, “the photographic confusion is not
Amy’s confusion.” He said I should think
about how Anselm Kiefer and Doris Salcedo’s work coveys grief without any words
necessary. He felt there was too much
terrain in my photographs, and this made them too explicit and over explained. Ben thought I should think about cropping
sections out of the images, and printing these cropped sections larger.
On that vein, Molly Painter suggested I
cut out portions of my photographs and reconstruct them into a larger house
drawing. She said I should piece them
together like memories. I like this idea
very much. And I have been thinking of
constructing three-dimensional ‘memory houses’ from shreds of my photographs. If nothing else I think will be an important
exercise for me.
Ben said the structure of the poem is
assisting my work. John Kramer said
something similar last semester.
In my next critique Matt Saunders and Michael
Newman said I am trying to pack things into loaded images. This harkens back to a comment Ben made. And it also made me think of what Laurel
Sparks said to me at the January residency, commenting that my sculptures were too
packed with information. I guess I still
need to heed what she said: “Being literal is dangerous territory. Being opaque is dangerous territory.”
Michael thought my images had more of a
feeling of perpetuity than demise, like the forest was reclaiming the
structure. He said there was a balance
between constructing and destructing.
Matt made the interesting comment that
there was a resonance between the house as a chamber and the box of the pinhole
camera.
They both said that in the photographs of
the copper house burning I had successfully tricked the viewer into thinking
the photograph was of something much larger. And having the actual small structure next to
the photographs gave the viewer a pleasant surprise.
Deb Todd Wheeler, my new advisor, was the
next to weigh in. She made the point
that representing time in a still medium is a very difficult thing. I guess that is true. But I must note that my Dad used to repair
antique clocks and tower clocks, so it’s difficult for me not to try to
incorporate time in my work. Every
Saturday the clocks must be wound in our house, or time seems to stop. Through my memories of mechanical time pieces,
I am not just physically, but emotionally and historically, tied up with symbols
of time.
Deb challenged me to just how far could I let the burn go. She said if I’m going to burn something down
I should go all the way. She said I
should be really experimental with the burning, and try a larger camera. I should also think about more objects in
decay. She said the more objects I
investigate the more interesting my story will be.
Deb also made the point that when relying
on a series its as if you’re afraid that one piece won’t say what you want all
by itself, when actually one piece should be able to speak for itself.
She also said that “House” is a little
trite, and I should think about using something else for my visual stand-in. She
thought I should try to make things that look less like houses and more like
something falling apart and scary. And I
should think about not relying on photography.
Much more was said on the structure and
the symbolism of “house” during the course of the residency. Several people commented
that maybe the house was too literal for all I’m trying to say. It was said that I should create a form that
conveys instability, and that is a little off kilter, like the security of a
horizontal line put on rough waters, as opposed to a once structured home. It was repeated that the images need more
danger, like conveying the sense of things falling on on the viewer.
Sarah Barr, who was in my very first AIB
critique group, said that I am “stuck on architecture.” That was an interesting comment, because
looking back at my work, it’s all focused on the interiors and exteriors of
buildings.
Molly Painter, again, suggested I think of
the house as an act, and have the actual structures more physically involved in
my interaction. She said I should try
making prints against the walls, and try putting cameras inside the structures or
use a go-pro camera. She said I should go
treasure hunting. And I should think
about walking around the space while photographing it with my long exposures. She
said I’m almost there. And she reiterated
what Deb Todd Wheeler said, that I must push it all the way. After my last semester summary Ben told me
I’m an action word person. Molly is also
an action word person, so I think that’ a big reason why I’ve retained many of her
comments.
Several people said my self-portrait was
very piercing, and that I should do more self-portraits. Mary Zompetti commented that some of my
images had a little bit of “stock” quality, and seemed to rely on special
effects. She thought the successful
images left more to the imagination, where the viewer wanted to get closer, but
was a little afraid, creating a psychological dance.
Nicole Daviau commented that my photographs
were trying to disturb, while the sculptures were trying to fix. She said it
was as if I want to make things whole again.
When commenting on my barn and cabin
sculptures, Nicole said I should be as authentic with the materials as
possible. And if the structure was
falling apart, I should not use new wood for the armature (as I did), but use
wood that was also falling apart. Nicole
suggested I take my sculptures to the places that inspired them and photograph
the two together.
She said my copper house was all very
cleverly crafted. Nicole wondered if
anyone had faulted me for my cleverness.
I said, no, and that she was the only one who called it clever.
Fia Backstrom said I should think about
how both the image and the building were falling apart the barn photograph that
had ice on the negative.
She said analog works very well with the
process of memory. She could tell that process
was very important for me. But I need to
figure out how can I edit my work down to say what it is I mean. She felt the dangerous pieces were the most
successful. She said if I try to fix the
work before the viewer sees it I don’t allow the viewer to experience what I’m
feeling. And I need to allow the camera
process to speak of how it both shows and destroys.
My first semester advisor, John Kramer,
said I need a way of saying more than just “old house falls.” Pinhole says “dreamscape, memory.” He felt that I am pushing myself into a genre
with an old place and an old process.
John suggested I try to photograph a real
house burning. He thought I should talk
to a local fire department about photographing a controlled burn. I have a friend who is a fire chief in a
local volunteer fire department. He said
they are doing two controlled burns of houses in September, and he will let me
photograph them.
John also said I should try constructing a
book, laying out my imagery to see what it says to me.
Since this is the start of my third
semester people at the residency began to talk about the thesis. Jason Pramas said for preparation we should
start thinking about what we are bringing to the pie that is new. He strongly suggested that we start writing
thesis ideas down. Sunanda Sanyal made
some great comments in our critical theory class. He said art making may be therapeutic, but
this program was not art therapy. The discussion
of the work must be outside of one’s self.
One needs to neutralize the construct one is working on in order to step
back and see it. If you see the whole
thing as a construct you can break it down.
We should think about how to frame a body of work around our argument. My favorite thing that Sunanda said was “Be
irreverent to art, because if it’s sacred you can’t reach it.”
