1) I reviewed the two projects that were posted when I did the article. The first project was Labruna’s and the second was Collins.
2) The reason I selected Dan Collins exhibit is because it was very similar to mine. I wanted to compare my exhibit to his. Surprisingly we did not have a single repeat in artworks.
3) I did not have too many challenges in writing the article. The hardest part was to find something I would have changed because I enjoyed Dan Collins exhibit so much.
4) Providing a critique for my peers I feel is very beneficial. By seeing how an outside person views your work you can get a better idea to see if your opinion came across the way you wanted it to.
5) If someone critiques my exhibit I would love to see what they wrote. By seeing an outsiders comments you can see if your work was understood the way you wanted it to be.
6) I would rate my article as a 7 on the scale. This is because I didn’t have too much to add to it because of how well it was done. I provided positive criticism but very little negative criticism. I know that will make the curator happy but they may have been looking for advice that I was unable to provide.
7) This project was good to work on. It really gave me a better idea on how curators work and how the critics think when they view the works.
No comments:
Post a Comment