Our class presentations were diverse as usual. I think, as a group, we are displaying the full spectrum of problems students have when learning to develop methodology.
A methodology is meant to enable a research to have a hypothesis, gather data, test, (fail, retest, fail better) and draw a conclusion.
Our product developer was going straight from idea to making, because he wants to get stuff made. Another person gave the whole methodology from concept to output (too much info); someone else gave some great examples of developing mark making from her idiosyncratic eyeliner marks on her hand, developed with different media (stones, metal objects).
My presentation just was not very good - I showed my Values Table and Free Association writing. Danielle asked whether I was using a tabulated format as a reaction against my white collar work history. This floored me. I had no idea what she was talking about. I know I have an absolute horror of A4 paper size, due to too much time spent handling paper, but I don't think I am using a table as methodology as a reaction against clerical work. (Gareth's notes: Giving yourself a form of clerical work - job is devising the methods/process - an interesting paradox/connection in reacting against the identities.)
I was asked whether honesty was a concept - I think it is, and therefore it is difficult to portray in artwork, other than by symbolism. I am using an honesty leaf.
I was advised to seek out data - as answers to questions. I was advised to put the email requests for data about value, as an initial paragraph, prior to the table. This document forms an appendix to the report. Expect to fail, retest, fail better, go round the loop a few times, then this creates robust data. Identify what learning there is in the failing, and what is the learning in the fail better? (This is critical).
Think about "problem" -v- "research". When you think about a problem, there is a tendency to go straight to the solution. However, as researchers, it is about coming up with ideas on how one might find things out - so first find the question, do many drawings, find many solutions. Identify who am I when I am researching. Much more generation of ideas. Be very clear about how you do it. We are doing making research not product research.
Be pragmatic. Clearly define your concept. More drawing.
Then I had a tutorial with Linden which I found really helpful. We discussed how to use the table and its data to move into sketchbook interpretation. She made me focus on what I am interested in:
Valuing the Under-valued
Exploring representation
Dignity of people -v- expendable people
I need to negotiate value - restrict the range, and find out about representation of value.
I am not interested in the difference in how genders are valued and in what way. It is just about women for me.
Advised to read Mark Johnson The Moral Imagination (ebook via LM library) He talks about negotiating own values.
Don't look at/worry about too many philosophies - they often miss out the relationship between us and the world we inhabit and the matter/substance of it.
I am interested in the hand tool.
Ask why are these women interesting?
Interlocutor
Stories about Alex, Bhuta, Anita. What is the question about I am asking about these people. Why do their cases interest me?
What should be valued? Who should be doing the valuing?
Do free association writing about halo and horns.
Interested in behaviour.
Consider gestures in representation. Linden's African women sculptures at Sainsbury Centre. Portrayals of success - woman, baby, breasts - success - I have a child and I can feed it.
No comments:
Post a Comment