Saturday, March 5, 2016

Reviewing Peer Responses

1.
2. When looking at project #1, I did notice multiple elements and priniciples; however, I think it would have to be completely intentional for a photographer to limit the amounts of these elements.
3.None of the artists that I chose were in my peers collection, but this was done intentionally. I wanted to see why different art attracted my peers attention, and through that, I developed a better understanding of the individual.
4. Charles E Burchfield “Winter, East Liverpool 1927,” Oil on Canvas, really peaked my interest, but in an indifferent way. The art itself seems to be a caricature, and almost a cartoonish representation of that time and place: which leaves to question, what is the distinction between fine art and television? I’m not sure if I love this piece or not, but I keep finding myself staring it at.
5. What I found to be really fascinating in reviewing both projects by two individuals was the level of knowledge I have acquired about both of my peers. Ashley’s art: in both projects, contained some form of nature in it. Abstract Muse’s art: was almost always abstract, and these qualities permeated through her photography. It’s really interesting to see what motivates and inspires others artists to create.

6. I found both comments to be very insightful: as they supported and critiqued my style. I think constructive critism is imperative: as long as it doesn’t render one useless. Gaining the perceptions of others has helped me identify my strengths and weaknesses.

No comments:

Post a Comment