The first time I took it, the test described me as being ISTJ, with only 30 percent introverted.... now wait a minute, I know I'm more introverted than that. This number, along with the description I read of my result did not sit right with me. Later, after we talked in class I re-took the test, this time thinking honestly and completely about each question, applying the idea to multiple situations in my life. This time the test told me I was INTJ. Not a whole lot different, but this time I was 60 percent introverted (ok, that sounds like me) and intuitive instead of sensing, whatever that means. After reading this new description I was much more convinced of this second result (and a little creeped out by it's accuracy). Granted, I do not agree with everything that the description told me, I don't think I'm some master planner manipulator and I don;t sit in waiting for others to fail so that I can succeed (at least I hope I don't). However, one of the main differences was that the first result, ISTJ, described me as being someone who abided by, no cherished, the rules and judged others based on there ability to conform, an Idea that I attempted to read into myself, but did not at all agree with. The second result, INTJ, described me as being someone who understood the rules but did not necessarily agree with them. This is a much better description of who I am. I understand things and use pre-existing ideas if they make sense, but I also look for an alternative that could be better, different, or more interesting. I am very analytical, for me to understand anything I need to rationalize it. With the way I make art, I need to understand pre-existing theory (usually compositional) and apply it to the situation. Is this the best way to think about it? I understand the idea and then decide to apply the rationalization, or CHANGE it to make it work BETTER. Tools not rules, right?
When I critique art, I try to rationalize the idea behind it. Concept is very important, and for me to get behind it I need to rationalize it. this is probably the thinking part of my personality taking over. This also explains why I do not react to art that is purely emotional. Yes, I feel a certain way when I look at something but, like music, these emotions are stirred up by technical things ( line quality, contrast, rawness, texture). If I look at a piece of artwork and can not relate to it conceptually and it also has no interesting compositional characteristics about it, I shut down. On the other hand, art that references ideas is much more interesting to me.
Now, you might say, "Adam, you make pots, what the hell?" I thought the same thing for a while. why am I making pots and not something conceptually important and Duchamp-esque? Well I started with the fact that I like to make, and I hate mass produced, un-personal crap. Then I moved on beyond the obvious and began thinking about art as communication and the fact that pots were also a means of communication; conceptual art is a process of the discovery of ideas, as pots are a process of discovering ideas (specifically personal interaction of maker and object, object and user.) This is not me denying the idea of art vs. craft, Ill be the first to separate the two, but I will not deny the connections that art and craft share. What if craft becomes conceptually charged? What if I make something functional on top of a strong conceptual foundation? From the other direction what if one creates a painting or sculpture or drawing without this foundation of intelligent thought? It looks cool? So what? What is more art and what is more craft?
I made what I do make sense to me, I rationalized it.