Critique

Work being critiqued: https://www.laurensimons.art/post/install-and-abstract

Notes taken during critique:

• Felt pen/paint pen, pastel, acrylic paint on panel

• MDF sticker

• Words

• Tattoos

• Self portraiture

• Computers

• Printers

• Upside down (mixed orientation)

• Im not a robot - AI

• Room/install plan

• Self standing

• Spatial relationship

• Free of the wall - can see images

• Commercial/found

• Visually looks like its been printed

• Advertising qualities

• Very smooth

• Room divider - presentation boards like a giant brochure

• The backs of the boards left completely unworked - works well as a disruption

• Disjointed puzzle

• Rearranged

• Zine - folded

• Linguistic code adds a layer to the order of the work

• Eye is a repeated symbol, overlaid in another language

• Human experience in relation to the machine being asked to navigate

• Are you human? I am not a robot

• Advertising/sales

• Communication

• Plato's forms - digital media references

• Digital thing that is manifesting

• Digital social media

• Physical drawing overlaid with the digital

• Crisp white space helps in the meeting of the two - heavenly

• Digital world disassociated from the human

• She's embodied in a world where the symbols are unlinked

• Disassociated

• Cybersigilism - tattooism - like a pentagram, occult, old tribalism, done in a new way

• Embodied symbols

• Identifying tribe through this alternative - standing apart

• Tattoos - placed deliberately over features - they float over face

• Its a virtual puzzle that could be decoded

• Tempted to fold them up

• The relationship between the panels suggests they could be rearranged

• How important is it that the work is on panels?

• Extension of the idea of engagement with the audience - 3 dimensional

• Open up a notion of movement

• Grappling in identity - identity is complex

• Modesty screens

• Maybe instead of a screen, have a false wall installed - that could enhance the meaning of the work

• Interested in the way the work is divided up - the puzzle aspect - gathering of codes around identity

• Not much information about the digital in the abstract

• Fragmented

• Identity undone

• More notes, more fragmentation, more overlaying, scribbled, carefully drawn, graphic coding

• Trying to mix up drawing and graphic marks

• Why are ares more carefully drawn?

• Thought is in parallel to perception, but in the work it seems embedded

• The increasing way that more people are seeing the world differently - drawing disrupts the capitalism - disrupts the work - increased attachment to our phones creates panic

• Rich topics to draw from

• Not completely about the computer - moves in and out - hinting

• Gentle treatment of the figure

• Bigger and higher

• More drawn to the monochromatic blue panel

• Suggested artists to look at - Josh Reames & Rose Wylie

The critique highlighted the way the work operates between physical drawing and digital language, particularly through its fragmented installation structure and layered visual coding. The use of chalk pastel, pencil, acrylic paint pen, MDF, and printed-looking surfaces creates an unstable relationship between the handmade and the commercial. While many of the marks are physically drawn, the work visually resembles something mechanically reproduced or digitally generated. This tension between human gesture and machine aesthetics became cental to the discussion, bringing up repeated references to advertising, printing, social media interfaces. The work appears to occupy a space where identity is continuously processes, verified, and reconstructed through digital systems.

A significant point raised during the critique was the installation format itself. The self-standing panels operate less like traditional paintings and more like presentation boards, room dividers, modesty screens, or folded zines expanded into architectural space. Their ability to stand free from the wall allows the audience to physically navigate around the work, creating shifting spatial relationships between image, body, and viewer. The fact that the reverse sides remain largely unworked was discussed as an important disruption. Rather than presenting a fully resolved object, the panels expose absence, emptiness, and incompletion. This reinforces the fragmented nature of the imagery and opens up the possibility that the panels could be rearranged, folded, or reconfigured like pieces of a puzzle. The critique suggested that this flexibility contributes strongly to the conceptual framework of unstable identity and digital disassociation.

The fragmented orientation of the imagery, including upside-down compositions and disjointed visual sequences, was also discussed in relation to perception and cognition. Rather than offering a singular reading, the work requires viewers to navigate multiple codes simultaneously: text, symbols, portraiture, graphic marks, and spatial arrangement. The repeated eye motif, overlaid with another language, was interpreted as both a symbol of surveillance and perception. Combined with the CPTCHA-like phrase "Are you human?" the work suggests a contemporary experience in which human identity is constantly mediated through technological verification systems. The critique raised the idea that the work reflects the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between authentic human experience and digitally constructed identity.

The discussion also focused on the relationship between drawing and graphic design languate. Certain areas of the work appear carefully rendered, while others are scribbled or disrupted. This inconsistency was seen as productive rather than unresolved. The tension between polished graphic surfaces and unstable hand-drawn marks reflects the conceptual tension between systems of order and human perception. One comment suggested that "thought is in parallel to perception," yet within the work these processes feel embedded into one another. This observation aligns closely with the way the drawings operate as accumulations of notes, fragments, interruptions, and layered visual thinking. The critique encouraged pushing this aspect further through more overlaying, more fragmentation, and a greater collision between graphic coding and intuitive drawing.

The critique raised several possibilities for future development. Expanding the scale of the work, both physically and vertically, could intensify the bodily relationship between viewer and installation. There was also discussion around developing the architectural qualities further, potentially through the use of false walls or more immersive spatial structures. These suggestions reinforce the idea that the work functions not only as image-making, but as an environment that viewers move through and physically experience.

Overall, the critique clarified that the strenght of the work lies in its ability to hold multiple tensions simultaneously: handmade and digital, embodied and disassociated, fragmented and carefully controlled, commercial and intimate. The installation format, symbolic layering, and coded visual language collectively create a space where identity appears unstable, rearrangeable, and continually mediated. Moving forward, the challenge will be to continue pushing the fragmentation, layering, and spatial experimentation while maintaining the subtle emotional sensitivity already present within the figures and drawings.