I had this problem pointed out to me in sixth-form where I was trying to do too much history in my Fine Art course (apparently it was supposed to be focusing on contemporary art, I didn't do that). It caused neither my art or history teacher to like me, both thinking I didn't care about either subject. The problem was that I cared too much about both.
This should have been the last I thought about it.
I'm now in my final year where the words of my old art teacher start echoing in my mind. I should not be a historian. Yet, if I never chose this degree I would regret it for the rest of my life, most likely having the same experience if I were an artist.
This manifested again when I was locking in the topic of my dissertation, realising how much of historial research I was only interested in if it incorporated doing something. A lot of my enjoyment of history is experienced-based through clothes, buildings or art. Having to do a solely text-based research project, no matter how close it is to my heart, doesn't have that same level of understanding. A lot of feedback from essays tends to be that I take a very emphatic and narrative approach which is awful for research but perfect for creativity. Themes take a storytelling role, analysing characters and actors instead of people. If my outcome was something that did not need to be an essay I would be fine. My best work, in fact, was creating a recourse for a local museum for a public history module.
This just makes me feel like I'm not a 'true' historian. Nothing I produce will ever be publishable in a journal, instead be marked as 'pop history' as my lecturers love to complain about.
That being said, I now have three years where I haven't worked on my art. This is why I am so determined to work on it even more than ever. It would be wonderful to build on a portfolio and open commissions but I now lack this education that I could have pursued. It's akin to grief.
Grieving for two degrees I can never truly claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment