Well I have done a little bit of designing and making at home, after what seems like an age in lockdown. The design phase was only one week, which I find a bit of a rush, and I find it hard to design in 2D only without trying to make several versions as I go, and responding to their failures and successes. I had started to research the Victorian architecture of Manchester when this was set, but the ideas were new and I had not quite assimilated my reading. This led me to a dilemma I had explored in my last written assignment. Do you make something because you like the aesthetic, or do you follow the concept and make accordingly. I looked at the visual images I had photographed and collected, showing the wide range of architectural details on prominent buildings in Manchester. I thought about the minimalist type of chess set that I would like to own.
I didn't want a literal copy of any of the buildings, or their Victorian architectural details, but I wanted to include the research if I could. I abstracted elements of the architecture and tried to soften them, to retain a connection that was not literal and not too fussy, and that produced a chess set that I would like to make and own.
At the crit it was quickly pointed out to me that my final drawings were only very loosely connected to my research. I had worked and reworked the drawings, becoming more and more abstract until I had removed a lot of the elements of the original drawings, to get a more pleasing and minimalist aesthetic. It was also pointed out that my final designs were more organic than architectural. This observation highlighted a dilemma that I struggle with. I like to look at ceramics that are sculptural, possibly architectural, perhaps I like the simplicity, the clarity and the precision.
I went away to think about it. In my written assignment I had decided that aesthetics were not the most important element in choosing a final project. I needed to follow the making or the concept. I was not unhappy with the making method of these pieces, as they were modelled from a solid piece of clay. It seemed that I needed to go back and embrace the concept, which in this case was Victorian gothic revival architecture from my hometown. I drew some more chess pieces based on the same architectural elements I had chosen for the first designs, columns, windows, stone-carvings etc. I made a couple of rough maquettes with more ornamentation, and less abstraction. The size was a constraint but could be overcome. I had a tutorial a week later with the new designs and maquettes.
I didn't really think I would like the pieces, I had lost the minimal and modern feel of my earlier designs, but I got absorbed in the making, and they started to grow on me a bit. I managed to make one of each of the main chess pieces based on my Victorian gothic revival architecture theme, with the exception of the Knight. My other chess pieces were tall and thin, so I used them to roughly measure a piece of clay for the horse's head. However when I tried to model it in detail, it was just too small, and I needed to add more clay. I had three attempts at the head, and was quite happy with the results, but each time the head became too big for the chess piece base. I might use the model of the final horse on a box, or place it on a stand or plinth instead.
Looking back I could have embraced the decorative embellishments on these pieces a bit more. I need to try to be more open-minded about decoration, as I think I was holding back a bit because I was making something I did not really like. As I go forward, I may either need to abandon a minimalist approach or choose a more abstract element of my family history/ Manchester theme, that allows me to be more abstract and organic.
Oh dear.
Comentarios