My final notes from last semester.
I have the Roman guy asking a question that bothers me. I heard the term “ambiguity” used a few times during our final class critiques like it was something positive and necessary in artwork. It was used when the art was seen as being too straight forward. But I disagree that ambiguity is a positive in artwork. I feel that the term that should have been used was “depth” and that artwork can have depth whether it is ambiguous or not.
Does that make sense? Or do I need to clarify?