magenta_atnegam
Ontological Justification of Self-Advocacy
My monument started with the intention of remembering the lives of the neurodivergent people across time -- in the past, the present, and the future. That brought in the symbolic shape (the sine-cosine wavy shape that represents 'seeing' the world differently when the 'light' reflects our eyes) in the first place.
However, the more I worked on the project, the more I felt that the "emphasis" on the shape and the word "neurodivergent or neurodiversity" might separate people into groups. At this point, I struggled to find my stance/ground between all the intertwined relationships and connections between propaganda, politics, arts, communication, education, slogans, instruction, and others -- in terms of "monument" or being monumental.
By definition, neurodiversity is for everyone and 'is' every human and every cognition. By definition, neurodiversity draws on the spectrum of human cognition, including those with clinical diagnosis/labels, such as ADHD, Tourettes, ASD, and dyslexia, and those without clinical labels, celebrating the diversity of human cognition and brains. However, this understanding is not widespread yet in the world. The word 'neurodiversity,' in this contemporary era/time, seems to be used to "help" a group of people -- and when done legally and for paperwork, it is conducive, but in everyday lives, I am not sure. (It is kind of a similar discussion for the label dyslexia -- many people in the neurodiversity communities prefer to use words like 'holistic thinkers' and '3D thinkers' for everyday life (not legal/paperwork) when possible.)
Therefore, after experiencing the sense of unsatisfaction from where I was heading for the first half of the project, I decided to add the idea of 'the foundation of human existence' and 'widening focal points, rather than emphasizing the shape solely.' As a result of contemplation on three main ideas (1. breathing as anchoring, 2. the birth string on one arm, 3. monument in Greece), a vivid image of the performance came out with the essences from all of these three ideas without making things complicated and too much.
I see the performing part as part of, not the whole of, my monumental sculpture.
During the critic, I did not receive feedback from my classmates. I received questions from them. Expressing something about ontology or the foundation of human existence always brings in the sense of abstractness in art -- at least for me. So they asked questions about the meanings of each piece of my performance. The questions were about the 'objects' used in the performance rather than what I did during the performance. At that point, my subconscious or unconscious started to worry that maybe this was an indication that I did not consider who the audience members would be when planning the performance. I saw this performing -- extended -- self of the monument is between performance art and theater art; so, being away from theatrical art which carefully investigates the target audience and its intended impact on the audience, I did not really put my time in who the audience would be and their possible awareness level(?) of neurodiversity and human existence related thoughts.
Materiality and Moment. The in-between of these was what I was experimenting with by extending the life of my sculpture by adding the performing part.
What surprised me was my inner response after the performance. I started to feel awful. I think that my knowledge of that quite a lot of the students at this college does not know what neurodiversity is has been suppressed by my conscious self, but during and/or after the performance, I felt like I was facing this knowledge right in front of me. This brought up all the traumatic memories that I have silenced for my entire life regarding being dyslexic/neurodivergent. At this line of thought chain, I thought, "the word traumatic is so cliche these days." And my stronger/future-oriented self said that, as an artist working between performance art and sculpture, I should be able to channel these feelings in the process of art-making.
For this project, I channeled it during the performance, especially when anchoring in existence (between time-space) by breathing, but I do think that channeling all these "lived experiences" during the art-making processes will 1000000000000999999999222888333377744422% enhance my artworks and the artistic endeavors and processes.
(About two weeks ago, I was questioning "lived experience vs. art," and it is interesting this question and this writing come together just perfectly like this.)
Contextualizing this part in terms of my learning in the course, I think the sculpture-making process, for me, is weaving the threads of 'thinking through making -- embodied cognition' and 're-living experiences, blooming lived experience.' Seeing and touching the symbolic magenta shape (sine-cosine shape) visually has immensely helped me safely, effectively, and creatively arrive at recognizing lived experiences in the world and within myself.
Also, during the critic, Professor Lee shared her feedback that she would have added more visual cues/clues about the symbolic shape (sine-cosine shape) on my clothes or mask. When I first heard that during the critic, it enhanced my thought processes of the audience's eyes and the performance space. What if I came closer to them? What if I instructed them to sit more closely with one another so that the overall angles are not too spread out? What if?
I personally did not want to add more shapes (the symbolic shape), so I kept thinking about the dim lighting, the far distance between myself and the audience, and the audience seat.
Professor did share similar thoughts about one or two weeks ago, such as drawing the shape on the mask. However, I decided not to include that because I did not want to visually force the viewers to see the shape during the transient performance, which is about every human existence, rather than one "archetypal" neurodiverse individual. Also, I would display the sculpture after the performance, which the audience can come closer and see and observe.
For the performance aspect of my monument sculpture, I wanted to convey (in my own way, which people sometimes verbally described as abstract, depending on their viewpoints) the feeling of the very foundational image of existence as well as the feeling of 'being.' In this sense, the ontological justification of self-advocacy is the same for every single person, regardless of having a clinical label or diagnosis or being neurodivergent. Through this window of contemplation, I wanted to show the similar-ness between all existing humans while giving an indirect clue about the performer (neurodivergent individual) having their own way of experiencing its existence through space and time by "growing" the shape biologically and "breathing" the shape every day.
Ontological Justification of Self-Advocacy
My monument started with the intention of remembering the lives of the neurodivergent people across time -- in the past, the present, and the future. That brought in the symbolic shape (the sine-cosine wavy shape that represents 'seeing' the world differently when the 'light' reflects our eyes) in the first place.
However, the more I worked on the project, the more I felt that the "emphasis" on the shape and the word "neurodivergent or neurodiversity" might separate people into groups. At this point, I struggled to find my stance/ground between all the intertwined relationships and connections between propaganda, politics, arts, communication, education, slogans, instruction, and others -- in terms of "monument" or being monumental.
By definition, neurodiversity is for everyone and 'is' every human and every cognition. By definition, neurodiversity draws on the spectrum of human cognition, including those with clinical diagnosis/labels, such as ADHD, Tourettes, ASD, and dyslexia, and those without clinical labels, celebrating the diversity of human cognition and brains. However, this understanding is not widespread yet in the world. The word 'neurodiversity,' in this contemporary era/time, seems to be used to "help" a group of people -- and when done legally and for paperwork, it is conducive, but in everyday lives, I am not sure. (It is kind of a similar discussion for the label dyslexia -- many people in the neurodiversity communities prefer to use words like 'holistic thinkers' and '3D thinkers' for everyday life (not legal/paperwork) when possible.)
Therefore, after experiencing the sense of unsatisfaction from where I was heading for the first half of the project, I decided to add the idea of 'the foundation of human existence' and 'widening focal points, rather than emphasizing the shape solely.' As a result of contemplation on three main ideas (1. breathing as anchoring, 2. the birth string on one arm, 3. monument in Greece), a vivid image of the performance came out with the essences from all of these three ideas without making things complicated and too much.
I see the performing part as part of, not the whole of, my monumental sculpture.
During the critic, I did not receive feedback from my classmates. I received questions from them. Expressing something about ontology or the foundation of human existence always brings in the sense of abstractness in art -- at least for me. So they asked questions about the meanings of each piece of my performance. The questions were about the 'objects' used in the performance rather than what I did during the performance. At that point, my subconscious or unconscious started to worry that maybe this was an indication that I did not consider who the audience members would be when planning the performance. I saw this performing -- extended -- self of the monument is between performance art and theater art; so, being away from theatrical art which carefully investigates the target audience and its intended impact on the audience, I did not really put my time in who the audience would be and their possible awareness level(?) of neurodiversity and human existence related thoughts.
Materiality and Moment. The in-between of these was what I was experimenting with by extending the life of my sculpture by adding the performing part.
What surprised me was my inner response after the performance. I started to feel awful. I think that my knowledge of that quite a lot of the students at this college does not know what neurodiversity is has been suppressed by my conscious self, but during and/or after the performance, I felt like I was facing this knowledge right in front of me. This brought up all the traumatic memories that I have silenced for my entire life regarding being dyslexic/neurodivergent. At this line of thought chain, I thought, "the word traumatic is so cliche these days." And my stronger/future-oriented self said that, as an artist working between performance art and sculpture, I should be able to channel these feelings in the process of art-making.
For this project, I channeled it during the performance, especially when anchoring in existence (between time-space) by breathing, but I do think that channeling all these "lived experiences" during the art-making processes will 1000000000000999999999222888333377744422% enhance my artworks and the artistic endeavors and processes.
(About two weeks ago, I was questioning "lived experience vs. art," and it is interesting this question and this writing come together just perfectly like this.)
Contextualizing this part in terms of my learning in the course, I think the sculpture-making process, for me, is weaving the threads of 'thinking through making -- embodied cognition' and 're-living experiences, blooming lived experience.' Seeing and touching the symbolic magenta shape (sine-cosine shape) visually has immensely helped me safely, effectively, and creatively arrive at recognizing lived experiences in the world and within myself.
Also, during the critic, Professor Lee shared her feedback that she would have added more visual cues/clues about the symbolic shape (sine-cosine shape) on my clothes or mask. When I first heard that during the critic, it enhanced my thought processes of the audience's eyes and the performance space. What if I came closer to them? What if I instructed them to sit more closely with one another so that the overall angles are not too spread out? What if?
I personally did not want to add more shapes (the symbolic shape), so I kept thinking about the dim lighting, the far distance between myself and the audience, and the audience seat.
Professor did share similar thoughts about one or two weeks ago, such as drawing the shape on the mask. However, I decided not to include that because I did not want to visually force the viewers to see the shape during the transient performance, which is about every human existence, rather than one "archetypal" neurodiverse individual. Also, I would display the sculpture after the performance, which the audience can come closer and see and observe.
For the performance aspect of my monument sculpture, I wanted to convey (in my own way, which people sometimes verbally described as abstract, depending on their viewpoints) the feeling of the very foundational image of existence as well as the feeling of 'being.' In this sense, the ontological justification of self-advocacy is the same for every single person, regardless of having a clinical label or diagnosis or being neurodivergent. Through this window of contemplation, I wanted to show the similar-ness between all existing humans while giving an indirect clue about the performer (neurodivergent individual) having their own way of experiencing its existence through space and time by "growing" the shape biologically and "breathing" the shape every day.