Self-Evaluation

It's crunch time on this Context of Practice course.  I'm trying to complete a "student self-evaluation sheet", which I have to hand in by tomorrow, 15th May.

Overall, I think I ought to get a decent mark.  As is my wont, I've overdone most things - gone way over the top on writing blog posts, for instance.

However,  I'm finding it hard to evaluate my work against some of the learning outcomes on the form so I thought I'd use this space to chew things over.

Outcome 1

Identify and demonstrate an understanding of key ideas and theories that affect the practice, production and consumption of art, design and media 

 I don't understand some of the theories, mainly because they're produced by people using language designed to prevent me understanding.

I have made valiant efforts to overcome this - notably by reading "The Story of Art" by E.H. Gombrich from beginning to end, followed by "What are you looking at" by Will Gompertz,  which I'm half way through.

But I can't give myself top marks, can I?  So next category down:  70-79%

Outcome 2 

Begin to apply appropriate theoretical approaches to the study and interpretation of art, design and media

 This course has encouraged me to start researching artists, notably:

• Edmund de Waal  
• Antony Gormley  
• Richard Deacon 
• Anish Kapoor
• Alison Wilding
• Bill Woodrow
• Richard Wentworth
• Tony Cragg
• Grayson Perry
• Martin Creed
• Damien Hirst
• Marcel Duchamp

I've also checked out other aspects of the art world, such as Charles Saatchi's role in it,  whether  conceptual contemporary art is a con and other people's views on art theorists.

I wouldn't have done any of this if it wasn't for this course, so it is delivering benefits.  

However, I can't say I've used "appropriate theoretical approaches" in doing this.  I've just followed my nose.  So 70-79% again?

Outcome 3

Research, evaluate and contextualise their own area of practice informed by key ideas and theories.

Researching Antony Gormley and another artist, David Reekie, influenced my Faces project, currently being assessed for my Artist-Designer-Maker assignment. 

Similarly, reading about Michelangelo in "The Story of Art" led to the basis of the glass sculpture I've proposed for Derriford Hospital.  I've been shortlisted for that project.

Previously,  I made a glass sculpture to "echo" the "Signs and Wonders" installation of Edmund de Waal in the V&A

On the other hand, a lot of this isn't evident in the work I produce, and I've often struggled to see the relevance of topics we've covered in this course to my practice.

I'm not sure that I've addressed the outcome with these remarks.  So 70-79% again?

Outcome 4

Demonstrate a range of communication skills utilising academic conventions.

I'd rate my communications skills as follows:

• Written.  Excellent.  However, I abandoned using the Harvard referencing scheme in my blog and just used links (loads of them!) instead, so I fall down on "utilising academic conventions".
• Verbal.  OK.  I'm much better at writing because I'm not a fast thinker.  Composing text gives me more time and encourages me to analyse issues (this post being a good example of what I mean).  On the other hand, I think I come across as passionate and enthusiastic when I speak in public, which most people like.
• Visual.  The fact that I've won competitions for my designs for the Devonport Column Gate and a Sunfish in Plymouth's "Making Waves" project demonstrates my strengths in this area - not only in coming up with well-researched ideas but also in presenting them in a compelling way.   

In retrospect, I think the presentation that Helen and I did missed some interesting points on the issue of the value of art.  I suspect that it demonstrates that I'm not very good at teamwork.

So, 70-79% again?