Betti Pettinati-Longinotti

Summary: Residency 1
July 8, 2010
MFA AIB at Lesley University

"One Law for the Lion and the Ox is oppression." ~ William Blake
Upon departure of Residency 1, I found myself initially feeling scattered, confused and
somewhat depressed. It took me a few days to regroup emotionally, to think and contemplate
about the numerous criticisms of my work. Having a few days of car travel, visiting with family
along the way and viewing some outstanding exhibitions helped to heal my weary soul, though
still arriving home feeling like a bloodied warrior.
Even thinking out the criticisms of my work, the worst of it was the assessment I received
which cited negative remarks by faculty and student(s) who led critique sessions. The only
somewhat positive statement on my assessment was that my ‘attendance was fine’. For the first
part of my summary herein, I would like to respond to the negativity found within the MFA
Group 1 Student Assessment.
I will agree that I need to be more vocal, especially within a program whose major crux
hinges upon the ‘oral’ critique and participation. First let me say, I am an introvert, as identified
by the Myers Briggs Personality Types Test, based upon Carl Jung’s Archetypes of Personality.
I am almost completely right-brained. I do not consider this to be a weakness I am just stating
who I know myself to be. I have taught art for 27 years, and feel more comfortable in leading a
critique, or leading a class discussion versus jumping into a cycle of conversation, critique or
opinion. It takes an enormous amount of courage for me to foist out words into a discussion. I
will work on this! I also realize I need to, to not only survive this program but to succeed in it!
However, I was equally dismayed that within the assessment provided, little to no
notation was made to my strengths of participation. A self-assessment of my strengths:
• Using my free time wisely to begin my research in the library and begin composing my
blog in the computer lab, when most others were off enjoying an iced coffee.
• The only student within my Elective seminar to comply with the 2nd assigned request to
research and bring in images.
• I was one of the only 3 students from Group 1 who attended both Colloquiums and
brought forward the idea at the 2nd, which fostered the realization of the critique
conducted; and was also present for the critique, when not all of Group 1 attended.
• I volunteered as the Group 1 leader for the AIB MFA Facebook group.
 Betti Pettinati-Longinotti 2

Lastly, because a person doesn’t always speak up, it does not mean there is not significant
learning and processing going on.
Regarding the critiques, I am the kind of person that needs to allow things to resonate a
bit before I can respond. I felt I did better in responding to my Crit Group’s work in the 2nd
group critique led by Deb Todd Wheeler and Ceasare. After I understood the work of my peers
in my group through their own words and those of others in critique, I was ready then to interject
my thoughts.
My desire for a Group 1 critique were for getting to know my peer group better through
their work, and would have preferred this in the beginning of the program versus at the end. One
of the true strengths of the program is of the community built with peers, and I am enjoying the
continued community built now through Facebook communication, both within groups and
individual correspondence. I truly feel I have made some friends and colleagues for life, which
is a treasure!
Within the Group 1 critique though, I realized where I significantly went wrong in
preparing for Residency 1, perhaps misinterpreting what I should bring. At first I understood I
should bring all the work I got into the program with. Since I was directed to write a restatement
and resubmission to the program before I was accepted for the June residency, I brought with me
the images of the works I submitted for the resubmission. However, as spring evolved we
received some emails from Lois Goldenberg indicating goodwill for our semester, which left me
thinking I should be actively working to bring some new work also to Residency 1. The one
actual piece I brought was ‘new’ and also experimental, to anything I have done in the past.
As we experienced the Group 1 critique, it seemed to me that some people brought everything
they had ever done. I regret not bringing my portfolio with me. I could have easily mounted
images of the many pieces I have completed in the past, and that were indeed a component of my
first submission of application to the program, and that could have assisted in answering
questions about a medium that not too many really understood.
The large consensus through all the critiques was to ‘draw’ versus relying on the
photographs for the foundation and scaffolding of my new work. The second criticism
resounded was to lose the grid in the construction of the portraits using the murrini.
I heard in the numerous critiques of my own work and others, was that Semester 1 is the
semester to explore, and experiment which is my plan at this point.
 Betti Pettinati-Longinotti 3

I began researching artists and topics suggested to me within the critiques while still at
the residency and have continued to build my research and reading list for the semester. For the
Contemporary portraits/ Art Heroes, I am researching Chuck Close and James Esber. I also feel
the aesthetic quality of these portraits is quite graphic and reaches to Warhol, and researching his
work as a secondary informant to my work. I will also reference Mondrian for the composition,
if having difficulty breaking workable sections up by contour alone. I have also decided after
Critical Theory I that I would like to focus the murrini portraits to my female art heroes.
Regarding Critical Theory I, I was a bit dismayed to observe that the lexicon of Art
History within Western culture as presented, has largely not changed too much over the last 30
years. As the timeline of the 20th century unfolded and was presented, I wondered where was the
presence of ethnicity and women artists. It seemed to me that what was presented was largely a
history of white male artists’ works, from a white male discourse. I understand that this is a
crash course to bring the group audience into a common understanding of the major evolvements
within Modern and Post Modern Art, but little reference was made until the end, of any ethnicity
or of female artists, and that that was, was fairly minimal.
I had some basic disagreement with the text, Believing Is Seeing, from which the first
sessions were based, on the foundation of What Is Art? I have some fundamental issues of
conflict, and the one time I spoke up within the first lectures, during the 2nd session, I felt I was
stigmatized by revealing a very personal difference of opinion based upon my faith perspective.
Once we entered into Post Modernism, I was more comfortable entering into the conversation
and made remarks regarding Marina Abramovic and Fred Wilson.
Within the MFA Group I Assessment, it is noted that Oliver stated I had difficulty in
following the discussion. The only time I think that he may have gotten this impression when we
were discussing a required reading. When the reading was projected it did not have page
numbers and was frustrating to find the parts he was referencing to the notes I had made. I chose
the Found Image as a 3rd choice for the elective seminar and was somewhat disappointed that we
had little hands on involvement which was so rich in the other seminars that my peers were
engaged in. I chose this seminar as one of my prioritized choices per the theme of the new work
I had begun, but it had little reference for what was presented, and was the only non-
photographer or video/ animation person in the group. However, I enjoyed seeing all the images
 Betti Pettinati-Longinotti 4

and video clips that Oliver shared. There are also pieces to the reading he presented that are
relevant to my work and have included the reading on my reading list.
My directions for this semester are to experiment with drawing, painting and
photography which may develop to inform my glasswork. I will complete one more
Contemporary portrait of an art hero utilizing the murrini technique, based upon the critique
sessions and to apply all that I learned through the first piece. My goals for the program are to
continue to draw, paint and photograph to again, perhaps inform my glasswork and to search,
find a voice and thesis for my work. The varied strands of my first new explorations will carry
subsequently varied artist statements. Please visit my blog to gain a better understanding of
these strands at: http://plstudioart.blogspot.com/.