When I took my seat in the lecture hall I had prepared myself for something… that couldn’t keep my attention at the least. Something boring and uninteresting in other words. I was happy to be proved wrong, though.
It was Dr. Jon Clarkson who told us about the possibilities, choices, chances and implications of views and viewpoints and how important they are for a piece of art, whether it is a painting, a photograph, a sculpture or anything else. I was taken by surprise by the topic and I definitely had a good time, because when it came to an end I wondered why it felt like it had begun only minutes ago… I learned quite a few interesting things on that lecture and my notebook was filled with useful information. When I got home I checked the people whose names were mentioned in the lecture and their work, which was absolutely fascinating.
But when I thought about it, there was something that I noticed during the lecture (that my friend also saw) that didn’t leave a good impression. What Dr. Clarkson did was split the topic into four sub-topics (this was good) and whenever he introduced a new sub-topic he explained it only vaguely and he showed us works of different artists connected to the point he was trying to make. The problem was that the connection between one artist and another and the connection between one work and the other didn’t really stand out and Dr. Clarkson didn’t really help point it out. I’m not saying that he did no explanations—he said a lot—it’s just that he didn’t manage to connect the things he was explaining all that well.
But let’s not dig deeper into that. What’s important is that I learned new things and I believe I can already start putting them to practice.