However, what I began to do was pick out certain phrases: THINKING WITH THEORY, PATTERNS OF DIFFERENCE, ASSEMBLAGE IN FORMATION.
I also started to think about what consumed most of my brain all last week: Midterm Critiques. Critique in grad school (in my opinion) is all about trying to gauge whether or not what you are saying your work is about is actually reflected in the work, and vice versa. The problem with this is that art can be approached from a million difference places. When Mazzei was discussing the theoretical underpinnings of something and how that understanding can change the interpretation of the thing, it became apparent that these same ideas can be applied to the critique process. So many times when talking about a particular work of art, we are asked to account for all work that came before it. And not only to think about the work before it, but the social, cultural and educational implications of that work, and what it means to now create similar work today. This is a form of "thinking with theory". Depending on a viewers prior knowledge and personal experiences as well as preferences, innumerable different meanings can be derived from a particular work of art. This is part of what is both exciting and frustrating about the art making process. As artists we must be aware of as many different interpretations of the work we create as possible, and decide what interpretations to push, OR, how to move the work away from unintentional connections/interpretations that we want to eliminate. Often times we are too close to the work, and only able to view it through our own personal lens. This is why critiques provide an invaluable insight into as many different ways of thinking as possible.