In Response to Angie's Critique

I enjoyed the critique Angie gave my work. She offered a new perspective to the work and some interesting ideas have come of it. I never thought I was so concerned with making a mark, or leaving a mark. As Angie spoke about the work in this manner it seemed the work came alive in a different light. I was interested in the idea that the work looked like an artifact found in the ruins. The question of why do we leave marks also interested me. I do want to be remembered. Not as a great artist or anything, not as a name. I want to be remembered as an individual who did something different. I wasn't necessarily thinking that the floor tiles were from Haskett Hall. I think they are more broad than that. The shoe print is a Vans shoe, not puma or converse. I feel as though everyday we go through our lives making marks mentally and physically. I question the intentions society in this vain. Marks, on a broad scale aren't made for good, they seem to me to be made of sale. What can we do to sell this product or idea. In the case of this work they shoe print is important because of one reason. Angie states that reason well with this quote "These is a nice anonymity to this project, it could be any ones footprint, but on the creator knows that it is theirs." I find the shoe print nice because I've worn the shoe for a while now. I bought it at a second hand shop in Columbus. The original owners wear on the shoe is severely distorted at this point, now it is my own. I used the shoe to aid in making my artwork, in the same way I used a shoe that was not mine in another piece. I plan on hanging this piece along side the Chanel footprint piece and seeing what dialogue the two works have between on another.

Charlie