I've been torturing myself about the research paper over the past few weeks. I keep thinking I've hit on what it is I want to focus on and then, like fine sand, it seems to slips through my fingers.
I've been fixated on studying Neil Bousfield's work in more depth. It feels like a natural fit for several reasons:
He works in relief print, mainly wood engraving and wood cut. I think he occasionally toys with lino.
A sense of place is central to his work.
He lives in Norfolk, in an area I know well so I feel a connection to his subject.
I think there's a chance I might be able to interview him.
My problem is narrowing down exactly what it is I want to investigate. It's something to do with how he uses archival materials to explore the history of a place and then makes work that references that but that also says something about our connection to the place and our feelings about it as well as it's future.
It would be so much easier of I could just write an essay about lots of creatives and how being immersed in a place and really understanding it affects their work. It's the depth and focus on something really narrow that I'm struggling with. I don't really know how to start writing which is the problem I think.
I was wondering whether I should look at another artist to compare the work somehow, maybe to see if there are parallels? I'm not sure, but comparing two artists would seem to broaden the writing and provide for a more interesting research experience.
Cézanne and his numerous studies of Mont Sainte-Victoire sprang to mind. He's another artist whose work I really enjoy and I was fascinated to learn how he researched the mountain and learned all about it's geology to better understand what he was looking at when I saw the recent exhibition at the Tate Modern. There are some definite overlaps here I think, I also think it would be interesting to study a painter rather than a printmaker as the second artist, I'm not sure why but I have a feeling that broadening the technique would be good and make me focus on the ideas and images rather than getting too caught up in technique.
I have tried jotting down ideas and then started trying to formulate these into more of a research question.
Ideas:
Understanding Geology/past/history to communicate emotion
Familiarity of 'my place' to represent the experience of landscape
Knowing a place - key to communicating its meaning
Understanding a landscape to communicate it wholly
Knowledge of geology, past human use, present issues to communicate the notion of 'place'
Feeling of ownership and belonging
Research Question:
The importance of knowing the landscape to Neil Bousfield and Paul Cézanne
Knowing your place. The importance of understanding the historical landscape in the work of Paul Cézanne and Neil Bousfield
I've started to jot down what sort of areas this question might delve into. Current ideas are:
What is 'place' (from an artistic point of view?)
Ideas around capturing the experience of place
How knowledge of the past affects the artists view of a place
What archival materials and knowledge did these two artists draw on?
I'm feeling slightly better and like I have some sort of direction but I really hope after our group session tomorrow I might have a lot more clarity! I'm really excited about doing the research, I really want to delve into this subject, but I also want to be clear that I've understood the question properly and that the subject is ok to pursue.