Pettinati-Longinotti 1

Betti Pettinati-Longinotti
Advisor, Hannah Barrett
Group 2, Summary of Residency 2
January 27, 2011

Semester Closure:
Residency I critiques gleaned the major advice and directive to ‘explore’, and to draw

and paint. Throughout every correspondence with Tony Apesos, my advisor, during Semester I,

I was encouraged and directed to ‘work hard’. So these were the major motivations employed

within my process through the body of my studio and academic work during Semester I.

Sometimes I felt during the semester that my exploration was too broad, sometimes exploring

completely new media and technique to re-exploring concepts and media interested in the past.

My past mentor commented in her mid-term evaluation that this directive for exploration may be

a trap for me. Being an older individual in the program brings forward a lot of baggage, some of

which I need to lose. Sometimes it is painful, like an emotional prying off of fingers.

Through all of my exploration Tony really only commented back to my ‘Uomini Famosi’

thread of work, as I suppose because that what was primarily talked about within our one-on-one

critiques during Residency I. Therefore, all my research during Residency I was devoted

towards supporting my current concept, which has evolved significantly since coming into the

program. I did work hard, I did truly explore and I feel Tony noticed that. His feedback to my

papers provided new insights for research, questions to ask and to find the answers to. Many

questions still remain unanswered, but hopefully will be answered as I continue on this journey.

Input from past mentor artist brought forward:

Needing closure from Residency II, I had dinner with my mentor artist from the past

semester last night. It was good to dialogue with her about the varied critiques and feedback of

my body of work and to discuss future direction. I found out last night as well that Terri Dowell-
 Pettinati-Longinotti 2

Dennis, past mentor, knows my new mentor, Glenda Wharton, and spoke eloquently about her

work. She spoke how wonderful that I am able to work with an artist of her esteem and the

coveted Creative Capital Grant that Glenda is a recipient.

Terri gave me great dialogue and worked with me during the semester to work out

problems I had during Residency I, to be able to articulate about my work, and the work of

others. I feel as I had an enormous turn around within the arena of group and peer critique.

Surely as a high school art teacher, I am used to leading a critique, but wearing the participant

hat and interjecting into dialogue is a far different dynamic. I am naturally somewhat shy in this

regard, so I am really very grateful to Terri for coaching me with verbal articulation in

preparation for the residency. Having a closure discussion with my past mentor gives me a good

cleansing to plunge forward into the next semester. I will meet with Glenda Wharton the first

time this Saturday.

Critiques/ Information Gleaned:

The varied critiques naturally gleaned different responses to my work. I was able to

audio record most of my critiques once I was able to affirm the operation of this new device and

application of my IPod. I am looking forward in listening to these additional times through

ensuing semester, as I feel we continue to glean thoughts not originally absorbed, or of notes

taken. Within some critiques, the leader and participants understood my work, and sometimes

not.

Faculty Crits-
I had Faculty critiques with Tony Apesos, past advisor; Hannah Barrett, new advisor;

Stuart Steck, leading the first of my Group critiques; Deborah Davidson; I signed up with Laurel

Sparks and Ben Sloat. I also had a good discussion with John Kramer, that gave me a sound
 Pettinati-Longinotti 3

critique Residency I.

Tony I know had looked at my blog throughout the semester, so nothing was actually

new to him with exception of seeing the work in actuality. He encouraged me again to

investigate caricature in connection to my work with portraits. I appreciate that and may

investigate that, but feel that places what I am trying to do with these in a different genre than

what I am trying to achieve. I was pleased to have him respond to my intuitive paintings, which

were not addressed through the semester, except to ask me how my painting connected to my

portraits. My critiques with my new advisor were a bit gut wrenching, and my assignment to

develop an idiosyncratic style in my drawing and work is an immense request, because I do not

know if that can be controlled. But of course it will be attempted and has my prioritized focus

and attention.

My critique with Stuart was positive and I appreciated his perspective on my paintings on

glass of my ‘Uomini Famosi’ from the perspective of an art historian. He gave me sound

feedback on departures to make this installation/ archive a stronger statement about the ‘Art

Canon’.

I thought my critique with Deborah Davidson was somewhat ironic. Prior to this critique,

I had just had a Group 2 peer to look at my work and he really thought two of my paintings were

the strongest of the entire body, one an intuitive painting the other a landscape. Deborah seemed

to give me very positive feedback but felt the body of work displayed with all the exploration,

was too much to look at. She told me to take the landscape paintings and focused nature work

down. One of the paintings she pointed to, to take down was one that my peer thought was the

strongest. It is ever interesting the contradictions in how people respond. I did take the

landscapes down after my new advisor saw and responded to this alternation of work displayed.
 Pettinati-Longinotti 4

I changed my work out 3 times during the residency. Not to whine, but I did not get the access

to daylight I requested, nor enough space to hang all the work I was directed to bring.

I signed up with Ben Sloat because working with the idea of conceptual work is still a mind-

expanding experience for me. He gave me varied feedback for direction especially in regards to

light as a medium and making my installation of my ‘Uomini Famosi’ a stronger visual

statement. I also enjoyed questioning him about his faux stained-glass piece of Michael Jackson,

found on his website, but not included in his lecture.

I chose Laurel Sparks for a critique because I felt that she gave me the strongest critique during

Residency I and sought out through discussion, where I was coming from, and where I was

trying to go, conceptually through media, technique and statement of idea. Her critique of my

work brought to Residency II, again was positive and provided good next steps with the threads I

desire to continue with. We had an insightful discussion about Pousette-Dart and next departures

for my intuitive paintings.

Grad/Student/Peer Crits-
Adam Bernard was assigned to our group. I was thoroughly surprised at his command of

the critique and what I was able to glean from it. Viewing the Grad exhibition, he was clearly not

one of my favorites, but after his discussion with us, I felt his dialogue was one of the most

helpful in providing direction and new artists to look at (and*re-investigate): Agnes Martin/

Intuitive painting/ drawing; Alberto Giacometti/ Portrait and figure.

I also had Grad crits with three respected upperclassmen, Carolyn Rordam, who I was in

Group critique with last residency and understands the glass techniques that I am attempting;

Julia Mills whose work inspired me with her expressionistic rendering of the portraits. Of all the

grads, her work and evolution spoke to me the strongest and struck an individual chord to what I
 Pettinati-Longinotti 5

am trying to achieve aesthetically in my portraiture explorations. Both Julia and Carolyn gave

me good suggestions on how to look at my developing archive of my ‘Uomini Famosi’

differently and how else they might be utilized as an installation. Brandon Kuehn I chose for his

devotion to the landscape, but our conversation veered in a different direction. Peter Zierlein I

chose to critique my work for his strong sense of design and clarity of concept. We had a good

discussion about Kollwitz. Through varied critiques, the use of ‘collage’ applied to my ‘Uomini

Famosi’ thread, which is something I am considering as applied to my new work this semester.

Critical Theory II:

The focus of Critical Theory II was on our understanding of the ‘archive’ and its implications to

contemporary art. During one of Michael Newman’s lectures he introduced us to the work of

Christian Boltanski. I was able to make a connection to his work, to my own archive developing

within my ‘Uomini Famosi’ thread with my paintings on glass, and a concept forming on the

sacred to the secular. Laurel in her critique with me, commented also on Boltanski’s work, and

visual associations for my developing installation. This was a full connection for me this

residency through varied experiences.

Addendum to Summary of Residency II:

Elective Seminar- The Elective Seminar I participated in was "Surface and Touch" with

Hannah Barrett. We were introduced to and explored stretching a canvas and varied applications

of grounds and materials to prepare the surface for painting. Some of the exploration was a

review for me, and some was a new introduction and investigation. I was able to begin

synthesizing this exploration through a recent exhibition that I attended, and spoke with the

artist, Ed Rice, about his surface treatments in his lustrous paintings. I blogged about this last

week <http://plstudioart.blogspot.com/2011 /01/exhibitions-at-scales-fine-arts-center.html>. I

 Pettinati-Longinotti 6

also am beginning to apply some of the material introduced by Barrett, having ordered linen for

upcoming paintings, purchased some PVA- a new medium and ground for me, and applied an

oil ground surface for a painting just yesterday. Surface and the ground texture is something

that is very important to my work, in both painting and working with glass, so this exploration

served as a beneficial re-jumping off point for my work.