The second Bridge is a Bridge which challenges you to think about how other people work. Its is a piece that makes you analyse the way in which other people think. It is a task which forces you to ask questions and get in depth with the work of your partner. I was put in a pair with Alex Laverne, who for his first Bridge chose to create a wall banner which would demonstrate his feelings about moving to New York. This piece is a reflection of the shock of a person who moves from a relatively rural area to one of the busiest and most hectic cities. The image that he has created encapsulates this feeling perfectly. The image of a head exploding with ideas and observations demonstrate what Alex felt when he arrived here from Michigan.
What I wanted to do was to transform his piece from a two dimensional creation into a three dimensional one. To do that, I decided to take the initial idea of the piece, and adapt it to the three dimensional materials. What I ended up with was a skull filled with sealing foam that has a building, a goodzilla and a bomber embedded into it. It is topped then with the top side of the head, and furnished with paint in the outside, that resembles the one that Alex had.
The hardest thing for me was testing the materials, as it was incredibly unclear as in to how would the foam interact with the skull, and what would happen to the objects placed into it. It was also very difficult to find the paint that would work with plastic, and would create the drooping effect. What came as a surprise to me, was the fact that the one which worked was acrylics, that was not my first choice.
I think that during the translation process I managed to lose such aspects of the original as the eyes, and in my eyes, some of the complexity, due ti the fact that it was near impossible to fit in as many objects as there were in Alex’s piece into the three dimensional space. On the other hand, the translation brought the details out in the piece, for example the plane, and the Godzilla. It also helped that in three dimensions the shape of the head is more visible, and the foam re-creates the mist, but this time, the objects are not placed onto the mist, but instead they are inside it, and actually stickup of it.
In the critique I have learned that my piece lacks in surrounding, as in there was a lack of sense that there is something on every side of the object, and the rear seemed neglected to some people. There were also suggestions that the presentation of it could be different. People felt that the piece looked bad on the table, and that it would be beneficial if it was presented on a stand of sorts, something that would bring it out from the surroundings, as a piece on its own.
In my opinion, my piece was successful in translating the piece from a two dimensional one to a three dimensional one, keeping the spirit and the idea of the original. I also think that I have managed to create a visually engaging piece that grabs the observers eye. On the other hand, I don’t think that I managed to get all of the details into the piece, and therefore I could have done more on the detailing, and also on the presentation. If I could, I would change the way in which I demonstrated the piece, as I think that int lost a lot in the way that it looked. I would also change the composition slightly, in order to make it seem as if every side of the head is equally important.
