Recently we had a group tutorial in which my painted wall work was viewed and criticised by the class. I was originally happy with this piece, however, I felt it did not feel relevant to my practice of investigation, and rather felt more like an illustration of data which did not aesthetically or conceptually link to the way in which this data was found.
In the crit, my studio tutor and peers stated that he thought the wall evoked the work of Abstract Expressionist painters, such as Piet Mondrian, rather than evoking a clear sense of architectural space, as I had envisaged. Any allusion to space could not be seen from the static and squared off drawing, and therefore the piece did not evoke a sense of architecture but rather became another painting on a wall. My peers seemed confused about the relationship between the investigation and the work, and therefore thought of the work as something separate from this, suggesting further more painterly approaches to my practice, which I am actively trying to avoid. I feel like the nature of this project needs to be unreliant on gesture or distinct materiality, and rather exist separate from an art object, existing wholly within the act of investigation. Therefore, in my future explorations into display, I need to focus upon documenting this experience in the best way I can, rather than materially exploring the nature of the data collected.