The Critical-Personal Reflection comprises a short essay (approx. 3 11/2 pages) of both critical and personal reflection on one (1) of the artistic works and / or actions studied this quarter. It may be one of the works that appear in your Exhibition Virtual; a work that comes from the Virtual Exhibition of ortho team; Or simply a work studied this quarter that left you particularly moved, curious, or restless. The essay will be written in Spanish, in a Word document, double spaced and in font 12 point Times New Roman, with margins of one (1) inch. This is not an academic research article. On the contrary, Critical-Personal Reflection should be conceived as a kind of survey that seeks toe stablish a triple articulation between (1) the critical dalysis of the work in question; (2) experience personal of this work (i.e. from the viewer’s perspective); and (3) the field conceptual of “political art” (Latin American and general) proper. While not It is about formulating a list of bullets, The Reflection can be organized freely and consistently around the following questions:
What were your first impressions of the work, and why do you think they were? provoked by looking at it for the first time? • How did these first impressions change as you investigated more about its production context and its aesthetic and critical approaches? • Among the ideas and / or problems related to “political art” in Latin America that we study this term, which ones do you think are particularly suitable for illuminate the work, and why? • Are there any concepts, issues, or debates that came up this quarter — whether in the readings, either through another artistic work / action, if not well in any of the class discussions — that complicate or problematize the analysis of this work? Which ones, and how? • Is this work effective as “political art”? How, or how not? What are your achievements (aesthetic, conceptual, and / or political), and what are its greatest limitations? • Have your ideas about Latin American political art evolved — its possibilities, its limitations, its paradoxes — after studying and reflecting on this work? How, or how not?
