Calendar: October 2010

30 09 2010

Click on below for detail … hidden to save loading time

Read the rest of this entry »

Has Monash really dumped jewellery?

29 09 2010

I’d very much like confirmation from someone in the know …

… but (following news initially sourced a few months ago) looking at the Monash University website, it looks like Jewellery is definitely no longer offered under Fine Arts.

There seems to no longer be a graduate intake …

screen shot taken 28th Sept 2010 22:25 (click on the image to go to the original source)

… though it does look like anyone already in the course may be continuing through the rest of their degree year(s) – that is, there are no longer any first-year subjects, but still what look to be second and further year subjects.

Or, this may mean it is being offered as a ‘specialisation’ of sorts, not under Fine Arts though, after a foundation first year…

screen shot taken 28th Sept 2010 22:25 (click on the image to go to the original source)

Can anyone please confirm and fill in some detail?

If I’ve nagivated the Monash website correctly (and not missed Jewellery being offered through another degree), what could this mean for studying Jewellery / Gold & Silversmithing in Melbourne? It’ll be a shame to lose a degree of diversity: of places to study and of formative environments for students …


Update (27th November 2013) : in an important update to this story, please see Melissa Cameron’s post about Monash jewellery – it is STILL offered at Monash, but as part of a restructured art degree


Blog link updates

28 09 2010

After trialling three different levels of ‘blog’ categories in my Links page, I have decided it’s time to update and migrate them. So the following have moved … just in case you were worried!

from Blogs #3 (just started) to Blogs #1 (current) – excellent to see the more regular posting!

the following are in danger of being moved from Blogs #1 (current) to Blogs #2 (in hibernation), but not just yet

also, most importantly, I have found some more blogs – some new, some I just hadn’t seen before (I did spend hours searching the net to find these, so if you know of others, please please do let me know!)

Finally, I’m considering if there’s in fact a time when a blog ought be moved out entirely, even from Blogs #2 (in hibernation) … if a blog hasn’t been updated for over 12 months, is it really of interest? Perhaps it is… what are your thoughts?

‘Re-Visions: new art from old’ @ RMIT First Site Gallery

27 09 2010

Having recently heard Helen Dilkes speak at the RMIT Seminar, and admiring her work an exhibition last year, I was interested to see her work in ‘Re-Visions: new art from old‘ at RMIT First Site Gallery. She is joined by Sarah Edwards and Charlene King in making work in response to Turner’s ‘Rain, Steam and Speed‘ oil painting.

Turner: Rain, Steam and Speed (image in public domain)

Also though, I have a particularly strong attraction to the making of art in response to other artworks (I’ve written about this before) – I love the idea and am always interested in how others respond themselves – so that was also a big part of wanting to see this exhibition.

Each of the three artists have made one piece in response to this painting – the sparseness of the room in keeping with the mood of the painting I think.

installation; Helen Dilkes pieces

Helen’s piece reminded me of steam clouds. The texture was interesting – it looked like it could have been made from cuttlefish-cast components; the construction was so intriguing (I couldn’t spot any solder joins, most confounding!). And of course I love exhibition displays that play with shadows.

Helen’s artist statement links this piece with her exploration of conic sections and slices, as “a kind of metaphor for duration“.  On initially seeing the piece I made my own connection to the painting, however I felt much less certain of this after I reading her text, which I have to admit confused me a bit … it’s certainly not a criticism by any means, though it has made me think about the balance of sharing the meaning behind an artwork versus leaving the interpretation to the viewers’ imaginations.

An artist will naturally respond to another artwork within the context of their own practice – I’ve done it myself – though I wonder if compressing much detail (which has taken the artist a great deal of time to explore in-depth) into an artist statement potentially complicates the relationship of viewer to the work being observed? I’ve often found it difficult to know how much of the background detail to share when discussing a particular piece – do I share the whole background of my research, or enough of it to give a little context to the viewer, or nothing and just let the viewer draw their own conclusions… how much do I want to influence their experience? I know I often appreciate background information, but does everyone? I think it takes great skill to find just the right balance, and of course it is different for each artist.
Just a few thoughts … I like that a visit to an exhibition can provokes such contemplation of related issues…

Update (27th September): in one of those coincidences that sometimes happen, both in making and writing, Mark of Melbourne Art & Culture Critic also recently shared some thoughts about artist statements (also quoting from one of my recent posts, which gave me great pleasure; thank you Mark!)

Sarah Edwards (installation) and Charlene King (paintings)

Re-Visions: new art from old‘ is at RMIT First Site Gallery until 25th September 2010 (sorry – I have been out of Melbourne so much the last few weeks that I only got to visit it on one of the last days!).

Update (28th September): I have just found that Mary Hackett has also written a review of this exhibition, in which she has answered one of the questions I had by detailing that the pieces were made using rapid prototyping …