Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Analysis of the feedback for my Proposal and Contextual Review.

I was a bit disappointed by my 60 and 64% for my project homework.  I did not grasp what was wanted or how the writing style for every submission has to be tailored to the requirement for that specific piece of script.  The feedback was completely fair but did show that I had needed more tutorial input to understand the requirements.

Proposal feedback

"An interesting and project with considerable potential.

A number of your questions focus on ‘value’ — are you really interested in this? If so, how are you going to tackle it? What does ‘value’ mean to you? Is this about the role of representation in ascribing, defining, and affirming what is and is not of value? How are you going to investigate ‘value’?

When I had my tutorial, Linden gave me quite a lot of suggested reading around culture, which I followed up.  I found it useful and it informed my thinking in ways I would not otherwise have found.  However, my style of research is to stop reading when I have enough material for what I am to write. Otherwise I get bogged down with data.  Value is definitely what I am interested in, but I was diverted by following up the suggested reading. So I have not read around the subject of value, although it was in the very first drafts  that I gave to the tutors. So rather than gather lots more data, I wrote the Proposal at that stage, rather than keep data gathering.  My understanding of writing a Proposal at that stage, was influenced by my BA experience that the proposal should be very loosely written where the expectation is the research will go way beyond the proposal.  

While your methods and questions do relate to each other, the do not fit together tightly, but expose interesting gaps in the spaces between, implicit pieces of the jigsaw puzzle? 

Linden said the Proposal should be tightly defined - and mine definitely was not.  But in previous education, I have been very clearly instructed "go where the research takes you" and if you have tightly defined the proposal, surely this precludes the happy accident?  

If you took your methods and questions separately, other methods could be developed for your questions, and other questions for your methods. But perhaps these other methods and questions are already implied; not stated but somehow encompassed within the project? 

Now I have re-read the questions, I think I have the questions in the right field, and I have done quite a lot of data collection, but I don't know how to use it.  I think we have spent too long in class chewing over theory of what research is and means, but not how to do it.  I know this term is about practical research.  But how can I tightly define what I want to research, before knowing how to do it?

What role do images play in defining ‘value’ in ‘culture’ for instance? What is ‘culture’? Your icons are not ‘celebrities’ in the cultural industry sense, but icons of your lived experience. This in and of itself is a significant theoretical strategy. That which is emerging appears multi-faceted and complex.

Images play a huge role in defining value in culture - but I am rejecting the value system behind most media publicity of women.  So in my writing to I need to identify this?  Or do I focus on what I think is valuable and why?  Is this why I am interested in places that seem to take people seriously e.g. (NPG) rather than trivially (Hello magazine, cinema).  Am I saying I want high status organisations to take low status people seriously?  I think I am.  And probably because high status organisations are more likely to publicise their strategy documents on line, and I can see they are making efforts to represent the population more consistently, probably because Govt funding requires it.

I am absolutely not interested in celebrity.  "Icons of your lived experience" is a brilliant summation of what I am interested in.  I am flattered that it is a "significant theoretical strategy" but feel a bit of a dimwit in that I have no idea what it is!!  So is Iconography of Lived Experience something I can look up, or am I defining it myself?  Multi-faced and complex sounds like hard work and I feel stuck in the mire.

What methods would you use to address the questions you pose? How would you explore you question: Does UK society value similarities or differences when comparing women to self?

Not sure.  

What questions are raised by the work you are proposing to do? Why cross-stitch?

I don't expect my work to raise questions in people's minds.  I expect people to look at it, identify someone they know who has demonstrated similar skills, and for it to raise a smile of recognition. And for the viewer to acknowledge that is it as relevant for people with insignificant lives to be displayed in public spaces, as it is for the publicly significant people.

There is huge scope for enquiry, and your project could be developed in numerous ways, all with the potential to develop into interesting work.

The scope for enquiry was expanded by me listening and taking advice from my tutor, and it distracted me from what I wanted to explore.  I need to follow my own path.

Contextual Review feedback:

Submitted in two parts, your review related works and literature demonstrate an ambitious breadth of research.

I am not sure which two parts they refer to.  I botched the first submission of the Contextual Review, as I wrote a literature review, before realising the requirement was for the writing to cover the Context, so needed more than literature.  I also used the wrong referencing system.  So the final Contextual Review was a complete rewrite.  There was a diversity of objects which I had used for analysis, which could be the other part they refer to.

You engage in a wide range of relevant debates, and demonstrate a good grasp of hegemony and representation. Including more quotations and more analysis of images and quotations would enable you to use act of writing to articulate your thoughts, to bring out your thoughts through and in writing. This is not merely a matter of writing style, but a strategy by which clarity develops simultaneously in your mind and on the page. 

I am not at all sure what they mean by use of quotes.  I was taught during my BA specifically not to use quotes, but to paraphrase and reference the source.  I thought the paraphrasing was meant to show your analysis, without using the quote.  And I did analyse some images, restricting them to 3 pertinent ones, but was limited by word count from doing more, or more detail.  Linden has said she will conduct an academic writing seminar, once a class member is back from sick leave.  Every time I think I have mastered a writing style, the rules seem to change and I don't grasp it.

Your bibliography could be longer and represent more fully the breadth of research you have evidently done.

In my BA, I was taught to only reference what I had actually used, not everything I had considered.  And the style guide we have been given, quite simply, is badly written.  So I am unclear what can be included in the bibliography and the style of presentation.  And I find fiddling with these details so hard!

There are questions in these pieces of writing that do not appear in the project proposal.

This is because it was completed after the Proposal.  And the word count on the proposal was already over-count.  Better use of wording would have meant a complete rewrite … again!

On page five you write ‘representation is the key to changing the status quo’. You are referring to Stuart Hall’s reader, and this insight seems to be at the crux of the project, but it is not clear what your argument is, why is representation the key to changing the status quo?  

True.  I don't have the answers yet.

Icons, celebrities, portraits — are you proposing that portrait are a site for engagement in debate about icons and celebrities?

I am proposing the portrait is a site for engagement.  I had not thought about the subject of my artwork being an icon, although I think my interest in the domestic and mundane representation could elevate it to icon.  I have never used the term 'celebrity' and am not interested in celebrities.  I can't even say I am reacting against celebrity by focussing on the mundane.  Celebrity completely passes me by.   My work may inspire a debate about the comparative importance of mundane icon and celebrity but my interest is focusses upon the value of small acts, usually of kindness.
  


Points that came up in the tutorial conversation:

Lived life - v - representation.  Complex political and theoretical position.

Spectacle defines us.

Icons of own lived experience.

Freedom to decide own values.

Centre for Cultural Studies, Birmingham.

High culture/low culture.  Reader required.

Why textiles? Low culture and strongly female oriented.  Ditto cross stitch.  Traditional. Simple.

Propaganda - from the same root as propagate.  A multiplication from a single root.  Identify a political desired (if unpalatable state), link to a something already believed to be true, and promote the two ideas together.  This will link the two concepts to one positive idea.  Examples from British Library exhibition that showed good and bad outcomes from this principle, were the Green Cross Code, and a Nazi schoolbook demonstrating the bad cost of supporting the mentally defective (their terminology).

Role of images in culture.

"What is Worthwhile".


No comments:

Post a Comment