As well as the Group Work run by Ariadne, I engage with 3 groups: the Thames Valley Group, the Level2/3 Group run by Lynda Kuit and the 3.1 Research and Practice Group run by Barry Rourke.
I must confess that I have had less engagement of late, however. Traditionally these have been physical groups – a once per month meet up that generally reviewed work or perhaps had a guest speaker or workshop. These were very valuable but have become far less frequent.
With covid most groups have moved online and also proliferated – there are lots of versions of different groups – for example the Level 2/3 Group and the 3.1 Group above. I am not really sure why there are both, often with the same people. They also tend to meet more frequently eg the 3.1 Group meets every 2 weeks.
As a consequence I have found that much less work has been discussed – frankly almost all of the discussion is to do with dissatisfaction with or the change at OCA. The rest of the discussion has mostly involved working through academic processes. My attendance has rather withered in the face of this, although I have engaged with any work that has been posted for review from the groups – for example undertaking a detailed analysis of Matt Lewis’s work last week, documented below:
Hi Matt
Am hoping to make Thursday, in case not some brief comments on your images. Given the clear theme of the male body and nature, I was surprised by how many different responses I got from the different images:
1. Reminds me of Anna Brigman’s work, therefore humankind flowering/growing in nature.
2. One of my favourites, I like the way the fungus? on the left of the tree echoes the hands.
3. Insect, or maybe hiding your head in the sand/river. Beautiful image although the human form is quite obvious.
4. Despite the nakedness this one has a kind of subtlety I appreciated, reminds me of the work of Scarlett Hooft Graafland (apologies if these references have come up in previous discussion, I can’t remember).
5. Dead wood.
6. This is much more domineering, man as superbeing landing on a planet as if in a film. This jarred the most for me in terms of meaning in the set.
7. Man corrupted, or like a forked tree branch that will not go straight and eventually break under its own pressure. I get the idea of the multiple exposure, and realise this is not the only one that uses that, but it is more obvious here. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing it changes the meaning somehow.
8. Another favourite, man now fractured – although the multiple exposure here could be the parts of two people and is more subtle in execution but more potent in meaning (for me at least).
9. Hiding.
10. While this could also mean hiding it has a more delicate touch and works better for me.
11. I like the shape in the tree but to be honest I really don’t like the more obvious element of the man on the log – reminds of someone taking a crap in the woods – although I guess that could fit with your theme!
12. Fits well with image 1 although the positioning of the hands suggest a tension rather than cohesion with nature.
One suggestion given your theme (and the references you made on a call to monotheism in one of our calls) might be to change the order – e.g. start with 1 – man lands on planet as superbeing, cast in the image of God. Man begins developing with nature (e.g. 1) before tensions develop in the natural system as man outgrows his (given your patriarchal theme) place. Man corrupts, splits, and is ultimately overcome by nature in a war he cannot win.
One suggestion on the title might be The Book of Lamentations – which would connect with the monotheism and the potential destruction of place.
Cheers
Jonathan
Level 3.1 Learning Log 