Reflection at the end of Unit One: (I have reflected more fully on works made in the ‘Process’ blogs. Here I reflect on my overall learning after semester one, and thoughts about moving forward).
My subject remains a challenge. During this unit I have narrowed my focus from critiquing discourses of ‘other’ nature generally, to ‘other’ animals, and then more specifically to the animal agriculture industry. I have struggled with how to approach this. I did not want to reproduce normalising images of violence to other animals, or to be violent in my approach to making; I believe that both the other animals and people involved in protecting them, have suffered enough violence. I started with looking at cells of other animals and humans, mainly with the idea that it would be good to see them side by side without being able to distinguish from where they come, and to see how equally beautiful they are. I used bright colours and also worked on copper as a way of celebrating this beauty. (The photographs of the copper drawings do not represent their shimmering quality). I began to think of ways to connect the two cells together through collage.
I hoped that the colour and life of the cells might be an interesting contrast with the black and white portraits ( I want my work to be hopeful and not entirely judgemental of those of us who are unaware of the cruelty of the animal agricultural industry – as a child of generations of animal farmers, I understand too well how difficult it is to escape the belief system).
However, while I found that making the drawings brought me closer to those killed, both human and non human, and I felt a great deal of empathy for them (I see this work as ‘bearing witness’), at the end of this exploration I realise:
- I HAVE UNINTENTIONALLY NORMALISED VIOLENCE TO OTHER ANIMALS IN MY CELL DRAWINGS. While the human kidney cells would very likely be taken with the consent of the human, or possibly after their natural death. It is very unlikely that the pigs died a natural death, and they did not give their consent to their cells being taken. This makes me question the ethics of making them, and feel I do not want to develop them further, unless I work only on the human cells .
- GENERALLY THE PORTRAIT SKETCHES ARE LITERAL AND ILLUSTRATIVE. I had thought to use a title ‘Murdered by the Animal Agriculture Industry’, but it should not be necessary to use such a title. The drawings need to speak for themselves.
- I do NOT feel any of my works are ‘resolved’. I am not satisfied either, with the extent that either the cell drawings or the portraits begin to critique discourse inherent in the iconography of human supremacy over other animals. Though I outline several ideas for developing this work in the other ‘process’ blogs, I do not feel that these ideas are quite right either. (I should add that I am pleased by how far I have come in narrowing my focus in 3 months and confident I will find my way in the next year).
I am holding on to two of the general aims I set at the start:
- How can drawing be used as a research method that contributes to new knowledge (rather than draws on knowledge already in the public sphere. (Simoniti, 2021)
- How can I bring my drawing into the public sphere and move toward a dialogic practice (Kester, ‘Conversation Pieces’ p. 23: dialogic art necessitates a shift in our understanding of what art is – away from the visual and sensory (which are individual experiences) and toward discursive exchange and negotiation).
I am not yet clear how drawing can be used as a research method that contributes to new knowledge not already in the public sphere, although the making has resulted in ideas that I could discuss that relate to social justice issues. For example, the ethics of making violence visible (drawing murdered people or drawing parts of murdered beings – in this case their cells). But this new knowledge has occurred from the making/thinking, and is not evidenced in the drawings. In fact the drawings reflects the fact that my thinking is still influenced by the colonising discourse of other animals, and it is difficult for humans to get away from this way of thinking. There is learning to take from Black and Feminist artists in this respect. See for example, this article about visibility of black people, in relation to the work of Kerry J Marshall. https://hyperallergic.com/341588/kerry-james-marshall-and-the-politics-of-visibility/. However the difference is that black and feminist artists are working from their own experience as members of an oppressed group, while I am working from my experience as a member of the oppressor group.
In relation to bringing drawing into the public sphere/and moving toward discursive exchange and negotiation: first I have to have some work worth negotiating over, or I have to organise an event where people can collaboratively engage in making work related to the theme. I think this is something I might come back to toward the end of the MA.
From the start I wanted to develop drawing as a method to critique dominant discourse and oppressive iconography. I am struck by the idea that visual art is essentially about observing the external, or on the other hand, making our internal world visible. In either case it is about seeing/looking/being seen. My exploration, however, is about what we do not see (or turn away from). I’m excited to realise this relates to Plato’s cave (which I have used in previous drawings in relation to other unrelated discourses).
Perhaps this is also work for unit three. Perhaps, too, it might involve puppetry (or animation).
Finally – in my proposal I identified what I like about drawing – strong colour, figures, narrative, ambiguity, mixed media/layering, humour. It’s feeling like a tall order to fit this into my current political framework, and focus on animal agriculture. I have resolved, having finished unit one, to start unit two by spending more time with my sketchbook exploring playful approaches to thinking about discourses impacting our relationship with other animals.
Drawing As Critique 