I was very excited by the possibilities that this feedback raised. It’s extensive written feedback. I’m thrilled with its positivity, and as always will concentrate on the possibilities for improvement in this post. At present, I don’t see a pressing need to rework this one as the feedback is positive. I will however try out a couple of the suggestions that Andy makes and blog them. I may choose to rework this assignment at the end of the course.
You can read the feedback here, Kate Aston Assignment 1 feedback.doc , opens in a new window.
Assignment – technical skills, visual skills, quality of outcome, demonstration of creativity
The focus differential could have been much greater – agreed! I need to explore the possibilities offered by Photoshop. Also agreed that framing could have been more consistent. Although I used a tripod I cropped some shots and managed to send the framing off when doing so.
I really like Andy’s idea of “exploring short video pieces that shifted attention slowly from one view to another”. I will set up again and try this out, though my video skills are very basic indeed. I also appreciate his comment that the previous iteration had less obvious combination of images. I’m also keen to try it with more space around the objects, as he suggests. I am very happy with the knowledge that I met the brief as I did not find this assignment straightforward.
update – I ended up not redoing this work beyond a simple edit. I really struggled with finding rework that wasn’t overkill for the assignment given that it met the brief in its submitted state. Ultimately I did rework it, but it evolved into A5 rather than being another iteration of A1.
Engagement very good. I need to anchor my criticism either in my own thinking and/or by reference to others in the debate. (more context)
Don’t give up on Imber, but keep it outside of coursework for the moment.
I missed other research areas outside of windows. Andy suggests semiology, self portraiture from a feminist perspective (I think I will be exporing this for A3), decoding and advertising. I ended up exploring these areas more fully in all subsequent assignments.
I found Andy’s comment about presenting binary or dualistic positions of personality and self very interesting, and completely get how this can limit the spectrum of self, changing according to context. I think this is part of the reason that I struggled with this assignment, it seemed to require a fairly binary representation, and I think that life is much more like a glitter ball with hundreds of facets changing according to the light and position.
Interesting points made around the work that wasn’t developed – the Lacock nets. The reason for this was simply that I could not make as compelling a “second side” to that story. Good point about the different nets giving variety – if I did reshoot I would use a variety of nets. I loved the comment about stage lighting, I can see how this could work within the setup that I had.
Suggested reading/viewing – William J Mitchell, The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era. 1992, MIT press. I have ordered this from a second hand bookshop.
Update – hands up – I have really struggled with finding a way into this book. It’s scope is vast and I am still trying to understand it in such a way that I can make a difference to my practice with it.
Pointers for next assignment
“Consider your work and its related research from both the position of its from (form?) and its concept”
Absolutely. This one ended up a bit rushed, I hope to do better with this next time. I also intend to be far more focused with A2, it grew like Topsy.