28/10/2015
For the critique I decided to display a 40cm x 50cm painting of a Belemnite fossil on canvas. The paintings medium is coffee and acrylic paint, I used coffee due to it’s rich colours and glossy texture.
I researched into Charles Darwin's evolutionary drawings as the foundation of my project after collecting the items. I noticed Darwin’s drawings were all completed on brown paper which is what inspired me to start experimentation of drawing onto brown surfaces. I started by drawing directly onto brown paper but the surface didn’t give me what I was looking for. So I began experimenting with paints and similar mediums, however the rich colour that the coffee gave was much more interesting. With acrylic paint when it dried it was quite flat and I was looking for a medium that would provide layers.
In the crit it was questioned whether there was a relationship between the object in the painting and the materials used. There is no relationship between the two things, it was purely the processes of experimentation that bought the two together.
Also, it was questioned in the crit about my piece that the viewers found the subject unrecognisable. I understand that the subject that I am painting isn’t an “everyday” recognisable object due to its rareness. But this made me question the viewers on whether or not the subjects identifiability is important for the piece to be successful or whether it’s their frustration with the unknown that makes them intrigued by the piece. I feel that painting something that I collected, which is rare to the daily eye was more engaging than if the viewers were aware of what it is. Sometimes viewers don’t really look at work if the subject is something to be recognise, they don’t ask as many questions as they should be.