Summary of Residency July2011 BPLonginotti[1]

8/6/2019 Summary of Residency July2011 BPLonginotti[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/summary-of-residency-july2011-bplonginotti1 1/11

Pettinati-Longinotti

Betti Pettinati-LonginottiAdvisor, Ben SloatGroup 3, Summary of Residency 3July 17, 2011

End of Semester/ Preparing for the residency:

The end of the semester is always hectic for me. The end of a school year, giving exams, closing

up my art classroom for the summer, on top of making sure everything is shipped and packed for

the residency. I think that this program is significantly more stressful on students out-of-state,

and for those that have more sizeable works to ship. Not only is there and an additional expense

for the shipping costs, but the time to bring work to a conclusion is also abbreviated due to the

time in advance that work needs to be shipped. I only bring this up because the shipping

consideration is a huge one.

This past semester, after learning from an ordeal last semester, I invested in a professional

shipping case, that I had custom built for the Uomini Famosi archive I am working on. I

designed it to eventually hold 50 pieces. Though I suppose this is something I am learning about

that is integrally important to my work. Having some practice with this now is informative to

future experiences that require the packing and shipping of my work, especially my glasswork. I

thought it was humorous that the evening before the residency, some students were in the

Newbury building, and a student I didn’t know came by. I have learned since that he is sort of

one of those controversial characters. However, he asked me outright, if that was my shipping

case. Of course I replied that it was. He exclaimed, “Are you crazy?!” I laughed it off, but he

is a local. He has no idea what it is like to participate in this program, having to make decisions

about all these extraneous pieces. I am not reviewing this so much to gain sympathy, but it is a

considerable issue that is not discussed in any formal report within the program.

1




Crit Space:

I was placed on the 3rd Floor again for the 3rd time. I suppose this is the logical choice for my

work, because I always request access to daylight and a wall I can nail into for the glass pieces. I

have learned to arrive a day early, after my experience first residency. It was just too stressful to

arrive on Day 1 of the residency. Arriving early allows you to scope out your space and work

out any problems if ones exist. This past residency I was initially given very little space, just two

kiosk walls. I reiterated to the powers that be that I needed a wall to nail into, and that I had

large paintings to hang. So my area was adapted before we started hanging work. I think this

must be a huge ordeal to arrange everyone’s ‘crit spaces’ and to make everyone happy. I have

recently read on a few blogs that several people were unhappy. There is a kind of pecking order

though, that students think about being chosen for the 1st floor (floor 2), ‘that if you are chosen

for that floor you are a stronger student’. It seemed to me that most of the students that were on

the first floor this past residency were also placed there last residency. The placements on the

floor changed but the players were the same.

Critiques/ Information Gleaned:

I thought it interesting that my two group critiques led by faculty were the ones that led my

group critiques first residency. I did not get to critique with them last residency, so I was

anxious to hear their remarks about the direction I had gone in a year’s time.

Faculty Crits-

My first group critique was with John Kramer. He took a very creative approach to our first

critique, in that the artist was not allowed to say anything about their work, to explain or to

2




defend it. It was a clean strategy to have members comment on your works, what they were

about without any foreknowledge. I enjoyed it, learned a lot about my work, but also learned

that in the real world of the exhibition, titles, catalogs and artist statements do assist the viewer in

understanding the work. I can say it was extremely difficult to sit there and not be able to

comment on your work. It was a little unjust for some of the group, as the students in their first

residency had already given their talks, so we did have some foreknowledge of their work and

intentions. It was rewarding though to have feedback that revealed my progress had come very

far within a year’s time.

My second group critique was with Deb Todd-Wheeler. My critique with her during my ‘first’

residency was quite radical and scalding. So I felt a little cowering knowing she would be

leading a critique. Some of her comments during first residency still stir inside me. I do not

want to dwell on my recovery from that critique, but do feel that faculty should know how

devastating remarks, may be. Despite my memory trauma that lingers, the critique this past

residency was quite beneficial and bore little residue from the first one I remember. Deb’s

comments revealed to think more about the lighting of the archive as an integral component to

my installation. She really did not like to votive tea lights, and thought they cheapened the

quality of the overall piece. While I know that the lighting is something that I need to make

some decisions and choices about, I feel the votives help to make a statement about the sacred to

the secular which is a metaphor implied in the piece.

Hannah Barrett was my advisor last semester, and we had some good discussion propelled from

the research papers and the blog entries viewed through the semester, while commenting on the

actual works. I think she was a little disappointed that I did not bring my actual 40 x 40” stained

3




glass assemblage, Homage to Kollwitz . But the expense to ship that round trip from NC to

Boston would probably cost another $600.00 in addition to the $700.00 already spent on the

actual work brought to residency, not to mention the cost of the shipping case built. A

photograph would have to suffice for the stained glass assemblage. She gave me good

commentary though on my paintings in addition to my glasswork, that was lacking in most of my

critiques, especially the group critiques. In my blog I commented on how difficult these were to

photograph, and I think the actual pieces cannot compare or were able to reveal their textural

qualities. Within the program I have had to walk a thin line in the use of glass, and this is

something that I had to really learn to defend with Hannah. I chose her initially as an advisor

consideration, because she is a painter, she does work figuratively. I do believe myself to be a

painter, even with my glass works. I do think myself to be a sculptor. Although my first mentor

suggested I think of myself in this way with the archive installation, I was just beginning then to

conceive. Hannah though could not see my connection from painting to glass that conceptually

has always been there for me, since my first seduction with glass as a material. I think that

through my papers and our conversations over the semester, she was better able to see those

connections and what my vision is for my varied strands of work in painting and glass.

Hmmm… Ben Sloat, what can I say about him? I must say that after first viewing your faux

stained glass piece of Michael Jackson, I had and interest in working with you. I sincerely also

like seeing how your direction as an artist has evolved from what you were trained to do, to what

work you are actually doing. I so appreciate that you have embraced the medium of glass for

me, which is something I have had to, as I previously stated, ‘walk a thin line’. I like that you

have sought out some contemporary references for my work, such as Spencer Finch, and the

4




sculptural / environmental glass works of Gerhard Richter. During our varied critiques and

discussions you asked me to consider conceptual and architectural approaches. In regard to the

architectural, mostly dependent on commission work to financial support these endeavors, I had

pretty much agreed and come to the conclusion to put these opportunities away for the duration

of this program. I feel through your reiteration to look for some potential opportunities, and have

since researched during the first part of my 3rd semester, varied public art projects that might

include architectural glass. My only objection to this is that at this point in the program when I

need to be focusing on my thesis, that it is probably contrary to that direction. However we will

see where the opportunities and potential proposal concepts lead. In almost every critique, the

discussion mostly evolved around the archive of the glass portraits and the issue of lighting these

more profoundly.

Faculty that I signed up with for critique:

Tony Apesos was my mentor 1st semester. I have a profound respect for his opinion and where

he was able to take me in my work from my first residency. I think that it is important within

this program that you have at least one faculty member that can see your growth and how you

evolved. Tony through my research helped me to form my concept for my Uomini Famosi

archive, although the technique that I am pursuing for this has changed since my idea first

semester. I enjoyed observing him look at my varied work. I think that he took the most interest

in my paintings. He asked me if he could touch them, and if about my process, and technique in

building up the texture. He looked like he was going to climb into my paintings. We discussed

the photomontage elements in the paintings and their purpose within the compositions, and

whether or not to include these.

He also really liked my murrini assemblages, what I am now calling ‘vitreous femmage’. This

5




is a strand of my work, I thought I would leave behind this semester, but his positive opinion of

him has swayed that decision. I may continue with these, but feel a need to focus more in

completing the archive, continuing my painting series just begun, and working on conceptual

exploration.

Jan Avgikos gave me, in my opinion, the most valuable critique of my residency. She was

drawn into the Uomini Famosi archive and gave me succinct commentary on the other strands of

my work. She was able to look at my list of women artists and who was already represented and

see what the holes or deficits were in my potential archive. She elicited varied names of women

artists that should definitely be included such as Cecilia Beaux and Hedda Stern. She also gave

me clear tutorial on women’s art collectives and including them as meta-narrative threads within

my archive. She had a definite opinion about the Guerilla Girls, and I am finding some really

love the group, and some have a poignant disdain for them. In the end I know that it my

decision, and if I keep them I need to learn how to communicate a defense for their inclusion.

She absolutely did not like my paintings. She said they were just too large and too greasy. In

retrospect it made me laugh. I said to colleague Dwight later on I might have a new name for

this painting series, “Big Greasy Women”. I have learned that the controversial opinions out of

critique can totally turn around within a semester. What some will dislike they find an affinity

for later on and vice versa. I have an interest in continuing, because it is still an area of pure

exploration and development. My paintings are for myself at this point, and whether they are

formally shown or not will ultimately be my decision. However, I already know that they will be

shown at an upcoming solo exhibition I have been granted at Salem College in February/ March

2012. I realize technically these are more radical, but I like knowing that my work is not overtly

myopic in scope and style.

6




Sunanda Sanyal gave me my very last critique. Jan and Sunanda I chose this semester to critique

my work because I had not had any prior interaction with them in looking at my work. In self

-evaluation of the program, it occurred to me that there are some faculty that you might never

interact with. So my critique with Sunanda took place after the conclusion of Critical Theory III.

He was captivated with my artist statement and had a direct commentary about the archive and

the hyperlinks of the collective having their presence online. He said, that is what would be

conceptually contemporary. So that is a piece that no one else picked up on or gave me any

opinion about. I think that our Academic Faculty brought other concepts to the table than

looking only at the aesthetic strengths and weaknesses of your work. Within the archive he

could clearly pick out Faith Ringgold and I learned that she was one of his professors. He also

had an interest in my homage to Käthe Kollwitz and I learned that his dissertation was on

Kollwitz.

Grad/Student/Peer Crits-

The graduates that I selected to have a critique with were Melanie Carr Eveleth, Betsy Hubner

and Cameron Bennett. With Melanie, again the critique seemed to circumvent mostly around the

archive. Melanie encouraged me to look for more references that were contemporary, and it has

since occurred to me that the artists I am depicting are not necessarily the most prominent

references to the aesthetics and concepts of my work. Perhaps in the critique of my work, I

should be more vocal about what my contemporary references are. Betsy was my buddy coming

into the program. She did a good job with that role and we have a bond. I enjoyed seeing

Betsy’s work evolve over the three residencies that we were together. We discussed the entirety

of the work I brought to the residency. In our discussion, I thought about an important concept

7




to stained glass, that could be applied to my archive, that I have not researched fully or

articulated yet, which is the history and origins of stained glass within the sacred, being a vehicle

of education for the illiterate. I think that is at the core of the conceptual intentions of my

archive: Do we know women’s art history and how have they been embraced within the art

canon? How many women artists are references to contemporary artists? I think there is still

illiteracy about women artists within our contemporary culture.

I chose Cameron Bennett because I think the man is so misunderstood and represents a style and

competency in painting that is disappearing or at least minimized within this program. He is a

student that many of his peer colleagues disliked, but I think those are personality issues. If you

can look beyond those issues, you will find Cameron has a lot to offer. Cameron and I spoke

about the sacred to the secular concepts within my archive and the possibility that many people

might not understand the meaning of the tea lights in the archive vitrines utilized as votives.

With so many of our contemporary population being un-churched and the loss of votives within

the ecclesiastical environment, that many might not get the connection. However, as an artist, it

is my symbolic metaphor and my connection and one to make about the ‘canon’ sacred to the

secular. We also had good conversation about my paintings. We discussed mostly technique

and material and he offered me some advice on process of acrylic versus working with oil.

Group Critique with Sally Knight: Sally led our group critique, and I may have signed up with

her if we were not assigned to her. Sally was in my first group, when she was in her 3rd

residency. Sally mystifies me a little, and I am still trying to figure her out. I can’t say that I

really understand her work, and mutually I do not think she understands mine. Responding to

Sally’s work, I related better to her earlier work and the work represented in the catalog, more

than the work shown in the exhibit. Regarding the group critique with her, I think that at the

8




point in the semester when the group critiques are scheduled with the grads, our minds are

already mush. Some students want to skip out on these critiques. Sally’s approach just

regurgitated discussion we already had as a group, but that was new only to her. My last two

grad critiques in prior residencies were far more personally productive, and so I found the

experience with Sally disappointing. I think it is instrumental to myself though, to learn what

works and what I find most meaningful to the critique, what might I offer new to the

conversation.

Critical Theory III: Critical Theory III with Sunanda had us all unnerved prior to the residency.

Our group has a private Facebook group page, and we rant, rave and discuss the program through

the semester. The amount of reading Sunanda gave us was huge. I think the problem with that

is, that to read it all prior to the residency, retaining all the concepts for discussion by the time

the seminar approaches is unrealistic. We though had really dynamic discussion within the

seminar, very often diverging from the main outline of the established concepts for the session.

The discussion is still something that resonates, and concepts tend to become even more

engrained as you look at art, and experience things in life and have discussion with others. I

believe the main core of what I will bring to dialogue in my next paper, Critical Theory in

relationship to my work, will naturally focus on the readings that circumvent around feminist art

and the art canon; and the monograph versus the universal; and ‘otherness’ within visual study

relating to diachronic and synchronic paradigms.

Elective Seminar: As a student in my 3rd semester/ residency, our elective seminar was

Professional Development with Laurel Sparks. I was impressed with the booklet of information

that Laurel provided and the connecting illustrations and discussion we had on the material. As

9




an older student in this program, and a teacher that has worked actively as an artist, I wasn’t sure

what the workshop might offer. I was really impressed and found I have a lot to work on.

Specifically I learned differences in a teaching resume to an artist resume that an artist statement

can vary to the venue or purpose. Our visit to the Steven Zevitas Gallery was eye opening, and

we even saw some of your work from the storage area, and your new work, Ben Sloat Notables.

The workshop was very constructed around the New York culture, and I found myself having to

translate opportunities to my own compositional culture available in North Carolina. I think that

for a program that brings people together from so many different areas across the nation, that

focusing on primarily the New York culture is a little unproductive and unrealistic, at least at this

point of being represented or participating. Even Steven Zevitas was very discouraging about

approaching galleries right now. I have the highest opinion of Laurel Sparks, but I think the

focus of this workshop needs to focus more on successful approaches that we might segue into,

finding opportunities to venue our work.

Closure and transition: Since I have been back from the residency, I have had the opportunity to

meet one time with my mentor. I quickly realized some of the challenges that are presented in

this semester, opposed to my past two semesters. My mentor is further away, within the state,

but not local. Travelling and making an appointment to visit, will be a little harder and to

arrange as by product of distance. Pam Toll has a global reputation, and one of the most

significant reasons that I proposed to work with her, but her studio, which is absolutely

wonderful, does not have access to the Internet. With my work being fragile and in oil

(paintings), it will be harder to find approaches to share my progress with her. I will have to

think about this more and prepare ways to share my work that does not rely entirely on Internet

10




access.

Last semester, as a gesture of thanks I had a closure meeting with my mentor (Terri Dowell-

Dennis) after the residency, sharing my experiences and gaining some more objectiveness to all

the reactions and input. I would like to do that again with my mentor from this past semester,

but have not been able to make contact with Glenda (Wharton) yet, since I returned.

11

Summary of Residency July2011 BPLonginotti[1]

Documents

Transcript of Summary of Residency July2011 BPLonginotti[1]