Self Evaluation:
Aesthetically I believe that I have answered the brief - Having produced three illustrations in the correct dimensions each containing two colours plus stock. The consistency within my work is questionable, I would argue that the square and landscape formants are relatively consistent in the way they were crafted. However I think clearly the portrait image has a very different aesthetic. Considering this I would have argued the selection of this image during the crit in order to work on something that may have worked more consistently with the two other pieces.
When looking at the finished products in relation to my text I think they are relatively descriptive of loneliness. However I am unsure of the clarity of some of my ideas within the pieces. I deployed visual devices to relate to the article however their subtlety concerns me.
Peer Feedback:
Weaknesses
Peer feedback was capable of constructively critiquing my work. The feedback concentrated strongly on the limited clarity of important elements. I believe this is criticism was down to the subtle details in the 200x200mm and the 290x105mm specifically the Apple Mac and the single detailed figure. On reflection I could have used a lighter shade or a visual device in order to hi-light said details.
Further feedback suggested a lack of detail in other areas. Both the 105x200mm and the 290x105mm have large areas of dead space. This was intentional however my peers seemed to think the space was of no or little value. I had applied subtle textures to these spaces digitally however I think partially more defined imagery in the background would add value.
Strengths
Positive feedback mostly regarded craft and my drawing skills. It became apparent that my peers liked how the flat colour was applied and the narrative found in some of the work particularly the 200x200mm.
No comments:
Post a Comment