Research - when it comes to social research, there is Interpretative, or Illuminative.
Illuminating is shining a light on something - your subject is either in the dark, or is ill-lit. Therefore you are expecting to see something that you haven't seen before, possibly because you are looking in a way that you could not previously. Also you are devoting time and energy to look curiously, and using your own self - your intelligence and experience - to make sense of it. Your ability to draw on your own resources - your knowledge and experience of people and social situations - to make sense of what your find. My work environment was diverse so I've spent a lot of time observing social interactions in the work setting. As my work is about feelings, perceptions and understandings, the need to listen to people and observe, interpret and understand their words and actions.
Research can be messy. Rarely linear. Often recursive
Linear
Question -> Literature Review -> Method -> Analysis
Recursive Plan
-------> -------> ------->
Prima facie question Lit Review. New Questions. Method(s). Analysis. ------|
<------- ^ <---------- |
|--------------------------------- <----|
Think about evidence - it needs to be considered critically and assessed. John Dewey (1920/2004) argued that only "reflective thought... is truly educative in value" (p3). It is a deliberate self-questioning about the rounds for a belief, from other kinds of thought where there is little consideration for the quality of the evidence. Be suspicious of thinking based on tradition or authority (!) Is this why people have said I am difficult to manage - because I don't necessarily agree with authority! Be wary of the passionate and the vested interest!
What research is:
Aim to find new knowledge,
Be thorough
Be balanced
Be fair
Be ethical.
And what it is not:
Not journalism
Not campaigning for an issue.
Don't assume you already know the answer and try to prove it.
Research is about disciplined, balanced enquiry, conducted in a critical spirit.
Critical awareness. Your attitude to knowledge is more important than the amount of knowledge you can demonstrate. You need to be healthily sceptical - be suspicious and doubtful until you have chewed it over in several different ways - before you decide something is 'truthful'. However in social situations all reporting is in the context of the experience of the individual. Hmm. Difficult to be confident of a position.
Thursday, 30 November 2017
Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Tutorial with Jill - Tuesday 28 November 2017
I had a trip to Coventry for a tutorial yesterday. This went well. Jill had hammered into my draft literature review. Overall, it hung together quite well, but I had messed up the referencing (again!). It turns out I write quite well when I believe in the theory I'm discussing, but when I think the theory is inaccurate or substandard and indicates a gap in the literature, I'm less articulate.
I need to sort out my note taking. We had a discussion about getting the full pages of an article listed in the bibliography, but also the need to specify the exact page number in my text. Drat! I've been manually note taking and sometimes have missed the exact page number for every quote. But when I take notes and quotes in typescript, I'm so much quicker and get more of the details right. Now I've taken my blog off my website, I'll probably keep my notes on the blog, and have all the details to hand.
We had a debate about the section where I describe the principles of Schwartz's Theory of Basic Values, because it is a long section of description, but is required to make the reader familiar with the theory. As I want to apply this theory in my research in the NPG, I think it's essential to be a bit descriptive.
I showed Jill the book I was using for instructions on my research project - How to do your Research Project, by Gary Thomas. This is specifically for educational and applied social sciences, and she validated it as a good choice.
I explained my difficulties with Writing Week - good high level overview, but somewhat short on specific advice on how to write, and short on examples of good practice from well written essays. Neither could I get 1-1 advice on writing until 13 December - a week after the essay deadline.
I said the most useful part of writing week was when we had a session with 3 highly experienced PhD assessors who said they were still getting PhD theses handed in at what appeared to be the second draft stage. It was normal and acceptable to be at the 6-8th draft before finalising. So my literature review having major amendments at 2nd draft seems to be ok.
Jill gave me the go-ahead to start data gathering at the NPG to see what values, according to Schwartz's table of basic values, are in the newly rehung 20th Century Gallery. (I forgot to ask about the ethics form, for the second stage of research. I know this needs to be done before I start data gathering).
I need to sort out my note taking. We had a discussion about getting the full pages of an article listed in the bibliography, but also the need to specify the exact page number in my text. Drat! I've been manually note taking and sometimes have missed the exact page number for every quote. But when I take notes and quotes in typescript, I'm so much quicker and get more of the details right. Now I've taken my blog off my website, I'll probably keep my notes on the blog, and have all the details to hand.
We had a debate about the section where I describe the principles of Schwartz's Theory of Basic Values, because it is a long section of description, but is required to make the reader familiar with the theory. As I want to apply this theory in my research in the NPG, I think it's essential to be a bit descriptive.
I showed Jill the book I was using for instructions on my research project - How to do your Research Project, by Gary Thomas. This is specifically for educational and applied social sciences, and she validated it as a good choice.
I explained my difficulties with Writing Week - good high level overview, but somewhat short on specific advice on how to write, and short on examples of good practice from well written essays. Neither could I get 1-1 advice on writing until 13 December - a week after the essay deadline.
I said the most useful part of writing week was when we had a session with 3 highly experienced PhD assessors who said they were still getting PhD theses handed in at what appeared to be the second draft stage. It was normal and acceptable to be at the 6-8th draft before finalising. So my literature review having major amendments at 2nd draft seems to be ok.
Jill gave me the go-ahead to start data gathering at the NPG to see what values, according to Schwartz's table of basic values, are in the newly rehung 20th Century Gallery. (I forgot to ask about the ethics form, for the second stage of research. I know this needs to be done before I start data gathering).
Monday, 27 November 2017
Womanhood exhibition at Cambridge Artworks
Yesterday I went to a 2 day exhibition at Cambridge Artworks. (This is a good venue, does some interesting small scale exhibitions, around the back of Cambridge).
Pippa Davismoon and Charlotte Morrison work together on similar subjects around womanhood - Charlotte focusses on body image, scars and conflicting narratives, whereas Pippa explores the female form. Both artists work in glass and ceramic. I spent a lot of time talking to them.
Charlotte had considered the conflicting narratives about breastfeeding - how women are pushed by the medical profession to breast feed for as long as possible, but also how women are encouraged to return to work. She had collected phrases from her research: "at least 6 months", "I can't", "not in public", 'must return to work", "cover up", "it's natural", and printed them on slips of acetate, displayed next to a series of glass nipple shields. She was interested how the nipple is deemed the pornographic part of the breast, so cannot be shown on prime time tv, but can be shown as part of an art exhibit.
Charlotte had also worked a lot with people who had scars - most of whom covered them up. She was interested in the language used around the body and potential/actual scars. She noted that surgeons who referred to the body as an object, with phrases like "cut here", whereas when women were talking about their body and its scars, used terms of bereavement. She had worked as a counsellor in the medical field and had obviously listened carefully to the female experience. She worked in porcelain ceramic (so expensive it was called white gold) and found the materiality of the porcelain to be inspiring to use to express the preciousness of women's experience. Quite inspiring.
Pippa had also worked with words. She had gathered words used by groups of people to describe women, printed them on ceramic discs (cut with pastry cutters?) and lip shapes, and let people play with them. I made two little dancing figure shapes, one with words that described my Mother, and a completely different one that described me.
She had done a lot of work about menstruation (not a subject that greatly appeals to me) but some interesting interpretations in ceramic and glass. One series of wine coloured glass was demonstrating how vaginas are all different shapes - i.e. not the standard shape illustrated in textbooks! Some lovely mono prints in naive drawing style, but so enhanced by the simple square white box frame. Proper framing elevates the artwork (note to self!) Must improve my privileging! She had also made ceramic panty liners, rolled as if they had been stuffed in a handbag (both used and unused!), which made me both laugh and shudder. The skill to use the ceramic in such a thin, delicate, manipulated way was admirable, but also quite revoltingly abject.
Pippa Davismoon and Charlotte Morrison work together on similar subjects around womanhood - Charlotte focusses on body image, scars and conflicting narratives, whereas Pippa explores the female form. Both artists work in glass and ceramic. I spent a lot of time talking to them.
Charlotte had considered the conflicting narratives about breastfeeding - how women are pushed by the medical profession to breast feed for as long as possible, but also how women are encouraged to return to work. She had collected phrases from her research: "at least 6 months", "I can't", "not in public", 'must return to work", "cover up", "it's natural", and printed them on slips of acetate, displayed next to a series of glass nipple shields. She was interested how the nipple is deemed the pornographic part of the breast, so cannot be shown on prime time tv, but can be shown as part of an art exhibit.
Charlotte had also worked a lot with people who had scars - most of whom covered them up. She was interested in the language used around the body and potential/actual scars. She noted that surgeons who referred to the body as an object, with phrases like "cut here", whereas when women were talking about their body and its scars, used terms of bereavement. She had worked as a counsellor in the medical field and had obviously listened carefully to the female experience. She worked in porcelain ceramic (so expensive it was called white gold) and found the materiality of the porcelain to be inspiring to use to express the preciousness of women's experience. Quite inspiring.
Pippa had also worked with words. She had gathered words used by groups of people to describe women, printed them on ceramic discs (cut with pastry cutters?) and lip shapes, and let people play with them. I made two little dancing figure shapes, one with words that described my Mother, and a completely different one that described me.
She had done a lot of work about menstruation (not a subject that greatly appeals to me) but some interesting interpretations in ceramic and glass. One series of wine coloured glass was demonstrating how vaginas are all different shapes - i.e. not the standard shape illustrated in textbooks! Some lovely mono prints in naive drawing style, but so enhanced by the simple square white box frame. Proper framing elevates the artwork (note to self!) Must improve my privileging! She had also made ceramic panty liners, rolled as if they had been stuffed in a handbag (both used and unused!), which made me both laugh and shudder. The skill to use the ceramic in such a thin, delicate, manipulated way was admirable, but also quite revoltingly abject.
 |
| Pippa Davismoon, monoprint |
 |
| Pippa Davismoon |
 |
| Pippa Davismoon, Monoprint |
 |
| Pippa Davismoon, Monoprint |
 |
| Pippa Davismoon, Monoprint |
 |
| Pippa Davismoon, monoprint |
 |
| Charlotte Morrison, ceramic breast with scars |
 |
| Charlotte Morrison, Ceramic breast and bra |
 |
| Charlotte Morrison, ceramic breast, before and after surgery. |
 |
| Pippa Davismoon, glass vaginas. |
Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Analysing good writing - thoughts from the bike ride.
https://makingamark.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/breach-of-rules-taylor-wessing-photographic-portrait-prize-2017.html
I have been thinking about critical writing recently, and have come across a brilliant example in the above blog post by Katherine Tyrrell. So I'm going to analyse what she does. She is a retired senior civil servant and her writing shows her experience - I suspect she may have been something like a senior policy researcher, from her style and structure of argument.
Tyrrell starts by describing her purpose for writing about art competitions - 3 reasons. Then focuses on her 3rd reason - criticising the conduct of judging panels. Sad but necessary.
Makes the point that confidence in competitions is undermined by allowing entries that breach the rules, and allowing said entries to win prizes!
Gives example image.
Quotes from Judging panel - their first sentence confirms the entry is outside the rules.
Notes that £7,000 of prize money (funded by entry fees) was awarded to the entry that was outside the criteria.
Notes need for (MPs) everyone to operate within the law and clear rules.
Quotes competition legislation, Gaming Act, contract law, Advertising Code of Conduct.
Quotes from competition rules. Also quotes from entrant, who acknowledged her application is outside the terms and conditions - so no deceit on her part.
States Judging Panel only has titles and works, and no further information. Therefore competition administrator should have removed ineligible works prior to judging panel.
Quotes rules "Judges decision final and no further correspondence will be entertained". States she is outside of the competition and therefore can comment outside the competition.
States Judges do not have the right to vary the rules of the competition (i.e. eligibility or otherwise) or that they can include ineligible exhibits or award prizes to them, outside of the rules.
Suggests changes to rules be checked by a lawyer.
Notes competition was sponsored by Law Firm!
Notes there was no-one acting as Guardian of the Rules (in HR we used to call it Custodian of the Policy)
Suggests artwork could have been displayed outside of the competition, but at the venue.
Suggests rejected entrants/prize winners might want to claim their money back due to breach of rules - (reminds readers of Weinstein, Spacey, and 2008 BBC breach of Broadcasters Code and refunds subsequent)
Quotes Advertising Standards Authority - legal, decent, honest, truthful etc.
Sums up by suggesting Compliance with the Rules, Guardian of the Rules role, plan for non-compliant entries.
Clarifies that entrant was not at fault - clear statement of non-compliance
Names the Judging panel(!)
Provides bibliography
Provides links for previous winners.
I thought it was a brilliant piece of writing. Great structuring and clear narrative to a well reasoned outcome.
I have been thinking about critical writing recently, and have come across a brilliant example in the above blog post by Katherine Tyrrell. So I'm going to analyse what she does. She is a retired senior civil servant and her writing shows her experience - I suspect she may have been something like a senior policy researcher, from her style and structure of argument.
Tyrrell starts by describing her purpose for writing about art competitions - 3 reasons. Then focuses on her 3rd reason - criticising the conduct of judging panels. Sad but necessary.
Makes the point that confidence in competitions is undermined by allowing entries that breach the rules, and allowing said entries to win prizes!
Gives example image.
Quotes from Judging panel - their first sentence confirms the entry is outside the rules.
Notes that £7,000 of prize money (funded by entry fees) was awarded to the entry that was outside the criteria.
Notes need for (MPs) everyone to operate within the law and clear rules.
Quotes competition legislation, Gaming Act, contract law, Advertising Code of Conduct.
Quotes from competition rules. Also quotes from entrant, who acknowledged her application is outside the terms and conditions - so no deceit on her part.
States Judging Panel only has titles and works, and no further information. Therefore competition administrator should have removed ineligible works prior to judging panel.
Quotes rules "Judges decision final and no further correspondence will be entertained". States she is outside of the competition and therefore can comment outside the competition.
States Judges do not have the right to vary the rules of the competition (i.e. eligibility or otherwise) or that they can include ineligible exhibits or award prizes to them, outside of the rules.
Suggests changes to rules be checked by a lawyer.
Notes competition was sponsored by Law Firm!
Notes there was no-one acting as Guardian of the Rules (in HR we used to call it Custodian of the Policy)
Suggests artwork could have been displayed outside of the competition, but at the venue.
Suggests rejected entrants/prize winners might want to claim their money back due to breach of rules - (reminds readers of Weinstein, Spacey, and 2008 BBC breach of Broadcasters Code and refunds subsequent)
Quotes Advertising Standards Authority - legal, decent, honest, truthful etc.
Sums up by suggesting Compliance with the Rules, Guardian of the Rules role, plan for non-compliant entries.
Clarifies that entrant was not at fault - clear statement of non-compliance
Names the Judging panel(!)
Provides bibliography
Provides links for previous winners.
I thought it was a brilliant piece of writing. Great structuring and clear narrative to a well reasoned outcome.
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Exhibition: Grayson Perry - The Life of Julie Cope - Firstsite, Colchester
Grayson Perry's exhibition opened last night, and the private view was absolutely heaving. I decided to go on Saturday morning, when it would be quieter, in order to sit and draw. This was a good decision.
There were 4 huge tapestries - two of the stages of Julie's life and two of her with each of her two husbands. The life tapestries were in GPs usual high colour, pattern and detail, and they repaid long study. As she is an Essex girl there was a lot of detail about Essex - from the Canvey floods with policemen with the Essex badge on the helmet, brutalist buildings and landmarks from Basildon, scenes from Colchester and Maldon. Absolutely brilliant detail.
Interesting use of the voiceover. GP has written The Ballad of Julie Cope which gives an auditory narrative to reinforce the visual narrative in the tapestries. Very clever social commentary that interweaves observations of how life has evolved in Essex, with social aspirations and the expectations contrasted with the reality of life. I identified with much of what the Ballad described, particularly when he poetically explains how the fictional Julie goes to university in mid life to expand her horizons. In her case, she then meets her second husband and life moves on. GP has an uncanny ability to pick out life details that many will identify with, and use them to demonstrate broader generalisations about life. I need to think about whether a written piece would enhance any of my embroidered samplers.
There were some of his sketchbooks on display, one of which is the original sketch from which the tapestry of Julie and her second husband was made. There were also about 9 linocut prints, unfortunately displayed opposite an orange screened window, which reflected on the photos. These prints were wonderful - GP has very distinctive ways of creating texture - circular scribbling, cross hatching etc - and it was lovely to see that these infills had been applied to linocut, for printing. Very inspiring.
Photos to follow
There were 4 huge tapestries - two of the stages of Julie's life and two of her with each of her two husbands. The life tapestries were in GPs usual high colour, pattern and detail, and they repaid long study. As she is an Essex girl there was a lot of detail about Essex - from the Canvey floods with policemen with the Essex badge on the helmet, brutalist buildings and landmarks from Basildon, scenes from Colchester and Maldon. Absolutely brilliant detail.
 |
| Courtesy of Firstsite |
 |
| Courtesy of Crafts Council |
Interesting use of the voiceover. GP has written The Ballad of Julie Cope which gives an auditory narrative to reinforce the visual narrative in the tapestries. Very clever social commentary that interweaves observations of how life has evolved in Essex, with social aspirations and the expectations contrasted with the reality of life. I identified with much of what the Ballad described, particularly when he poetically explains how the fictional Julie goes to university in mid life to expand her horizons. In her case, she then meets her second husband and life moves on. GP has an uncanny ability to pick out life details that many will identify with, and use them to demonstrate broader generalisations about life. I need to think about whether a written piece would enhance any of my embroidered samplers.
There were some of his sketchbooks on display, one of which is the original sketch from which the tapestry of Julie and her second husband was made. There were also about 9 linocut prints, unfortunately displayed opposite an orange screened window, which reflected on the photos. These prints were wonderful - GP has very distinctive ways of creating texture - circular scribbling, cross hatching etc - and it was lovely to see that these infills had been applied to linocut, for printing. Very inspiring.
Photos to follow
Sunday, 12 November 2017
Feedback on first draft of literature review - thoughts from my bike ride
During Writing Week, we were given advice from 3 highly experienced PhD assessors. One piece of advice was to get into a network of 'critical friends' so you can mutually critique each others work, so you don't end up handing in ill-crafted work. These Assessors had obviously seen too much work that was only crafted to first or second draft level. They said 8-12 drafts were normal.
So I took a brave pill, found a critical friend and sent my work to him. Oh my word - I've found a gem! He went straight to the heart of my discontent and identified what it was. I think participating in Writing Week has given me a very high overview of writing issues - but not given me the thinking skills to apply them.
One of my issues was about the use of integral and non-integral references. We were clearly told the difference between them - Author (date) says "..." (integral), or this is the idea (author, date) (Non-integral. Use one when you want to privilege the idea, the other when you want to privilege who said it. But no indicators as to when each is appropriate - that is for you to decide - unless your supervisor says otherwise! We were also shown bar charts analysing when integral and non-integral references were used in 4 different PhD theses (engineering, peace & justice; art, health sciences) - but these were only on the screen for 30 seconds each; they had different patterns of referencing; and had been randomly selected (not selected for being good examples). These bar charts showed referencing patterns varied, but not what was appropriate or why. So I came out of the session feeling somewhat bemused.
I decided to write my literature search as if the ideas were most important - so did non-integral references throughout. Yet, if I think about it, the literature search must focus on the high quality writers who went before - there is no point standing on the shoulders of anyone other than giants - so therefore credit them! Some of the points that I made, originated from the seminal writers in the field and were not opinion (which is how my review read). It would have been much easier if we had been directed to credit the authors in the literature review.
I had been worried that when I stopped writing about Standpoint Theory and Situated Knowledge, and moved onto Schwartz's Theory of Basic Values, it was too methodologically heavy and should be sited in the Methodology, rather than the literature review. But this appeared to be ok.
One of the Writing Week sessions told us about signposting. But I've not grasped how to do it. I suppose a major criticism of this week is that while we've been told what is needed, we have not been told how - or given examples of work that shows it. The Centre for Academic Writing does offer one-to-ones, but this means another trip to Coventry for me. Maybe I should submit a piece of writing to them for critique, and book a session with them before I have my next tutorial with Jill. I'd like to get my Literature Review wrapped up for my next tute with her on 28 November. Hand-in is on 7 December.
I think a major stumbling block to higher level education is that we just don't do enough writing. In my first degree we only did 2 essays a year (theory and taught modules were a small part of the process), and when studying abroad in Australia for a year, I think I did 6. For my time at London Met, we only wrote 1 piece per module, and these were not always essays. A friend who did a history degree a long time ago said he had to knock out 4 essays a month, and with this level of practice, he could do it quickly and articulately. If I had written more essays, for different purposes, I'd be more able to just knock out an essay. If I'd only had to use one referencing system I'd be at least partly competent at it.
My writing skills should be better. It's not as if I've never written. I find it odd that I'm still feeling as if I'm running in treacle, and that highly experienced PhD supervisors are making very basic criticisms of the work submitted to them. Yet it is obvious that the same mistakes are being made by students and they are not being pushed to the right quality before submission.
My critical friend was so helpful - but I feel a bit downhearted that I can't already write to the appropriate standards. I need to think of it like an apprenticeship (except I don't have 7 years) - I have 2 years on my MRes to get from beginner writer to master wordsmith. It takes a lot of practice and botched work to attain skill. I'm not sure whether this makes me feel better or worse!
So I took a brave pill, found a critical friend and sent my work to him. Oh my word - I've found a gem! He went straight to the heart of my discontent and identified what it was. I think participating in Writing Week has given me a very high overview of writing issues - but not given me the thinking skills to apply them.
One of my issues was about the use of integral and non-integral references. We were clearly told the difference between them - Author (date) says "..." (integral), or this is the idea (author, date) (Non-integral. Use one when you want to privilege the idea, the other when you want to privilege who said it. But no indicators as to when each is appropriate - that is for you to decide - unless your supervisor says otherwise! We were also shown bar charts analysing when integral and non-integral references were used in 4 different PhD theses (engineering, peace & justice; art, health sciences) - but these were only on the screen for 30 seconds each; they had different patterns of referencing; and had been randomly selected (not selected for being good examples). These bar charts showed referencing patterns varied, but not what was appropriate or why. So I came out of the session feeling somewhat bemused.
I decided to write my literature search as if the ideas were most important - so did non-integral references throughout. Yet, if I think about it, the literature search must focus on the high quality writers who went before - there is no point standing on the shoulders of anyone other than giants - so therefore credit them! Some of the points that I made, originated from the seminal writers in the field and were not opinion (which is how my review read). It would have been much easier if we had been directed to credit the authors in the literature review.
I had been worried that when I stopped writing about Standpoint Theory and Situated Knowledge, and moved onto Schwartz's Theory of Basic Values, it was too methodologically heavy and should be sited in the Methodology, rather than the literature review. But this appeared to be ok.
One of the Writing Week sessions told us about signposting. But I've not grasped how to do it. I suppose a major criticism of this week is that while we've been told what is needed, we have not been told how - or given examples of work that shows it. The Centre for Academic Writing does offer one-to-ones, but this means another trip to Coventry for me. Maybe I should submit a piece of writing to them for critique, and book a session with them before I have my next tutorial with Jill. I'd like to get my Literature Review wrapped up for my next tute with her on 28 November. Hand-in is on 7 December.
I think a major stumbling block to higher level education is that we just don't do enough writing. In my first degree we only did 2 essays a year (theory and taught modules were a small part of the process), and when studying abroad in Australia for a year, I think I did 6. For my time at London Met, we only wrote 1 piece per module, and these were not always essays. A friend who did a history degree a long time ago said he had to knock out 4 essays a month, and with this level of practice, he could do it quickly and articulately. If I had written more essays, for different purposes, I'd be more able to just knock out an essay. If I'd only had to use one referencing system I'd be at least partly competent at it.
My writing skills should be better. It's not as if I've never written. I find it odd that I'm still feeling as if I'm running in treacle, and that highly experienced PhD supervisors are making very basic criticisms of the work submitted to them. Yet it is obvious that the same mistakes are being made by students and they are not being pushed to the right quality before submission.
My critical friend was so helpful - but I feel a bit downhearted that I can't already write to the appropriate standards. I need to think of it like an apprenticeship (except I don't have 7 years) - I have 2 years on my MRes to get from beginner writer to master wordsmith. It takes a lot of practice and botched work to attain skill. I'm not sure whether this makes me feel better or worse!
Saturday, 11 November 2017
Last day of Writing Week.
Over-confidence comes before a fall.
I'd had a good day of writing on Thursday and went out for dinner with a South African student, Darren, who has just started his PhD on the selfie. We went for a curry and he was telling me about his trips to London, where he had been to the National Portrait Gallery to look at 16th and 17th century self portraits. He's been considering the use of the mirror in his literature review - and he's concluded he knows NOTHING. (I know that feeling!). He asked at the NPG if he could access their archive, filled in some paperwork ... AND HE'S BEEN IN!!!! Wow! I did not think it was possible! I was so envious - but he had the confidence to ask, and was rewarded.
Then Friday morning I was tired and tetchy and I was late for the Writing Abstracts class - I checked twice the start time - and was told 11am - but when I got there, it had started at 10. The tutor was abrupt and quick, and I felt did not explain the exercises well, by assuming a lot of prior knowledge. I felt out of sorts and upset. I think there was a lot of valid learning and analysis in the session ... but I did not get it.
I caught the first train available home, and the first two trains interchanged perfectly - no waiting. I still felt tetchy and put it down to just wanting to be home and being tired from a week away. I just missed the train to Braintree by 4 minutes, so had an hour to wait. This meant I was travelling for 4 hours. Once I was home, I had an horrendous upset stomach which lasted about 12 hours. This might have been why I felt out of sorts all day long.
I'd had a good day of writing on Thursday and went out for dinner with a South African student, Darren, who has just started his PhD on the selfie. We went for a curry and he was telling me about his trips to London, where he had been to the National Portrait Gallery to look at 16th and 17th century self portraits. He's been considering the use of the mirror in his literature review - and he's concluded he knows NOTHING. (I know that feeling!). He asked at the NPG if he could access their archive, filled in some paperwork ... AND HE'S BEEN IN!!!! Wow! I did not think it was possible! I was so envious - but he had the confidence to ask, and was rewarded.
Then Friday morning I was tired and tetchy and I was late for the Writing Abstracts class - I checked twice the start time - and was told 11am - but when I got there, it had started at 10. The tutor was abrupt and quick, and I felt did not explain the exercises well, by assuming a lot of prior knowledge. I felt out of sorts and upset. I think there was a lot of valid learning and analysis in the session ... but I did not get it.
I caught the first train available home, and the first two trains interchanged perfectly - no waiting. I still felt tetchy and put it down to just wanting to be home and being tired from a week away. I just missed the train to Braintree by 4 minutes, so had an hour to wait. This meant I was travelling for 4 hours. Once I was home, I had an horrendous upset stomach which lasted about 12 hours. This might have been why I felt out of sorts all day long.
Thursday, 9 November 2017
Starting to flesh out my thesis.
I dropped in to see Jill, my supervisor, this morning. I was well fired up, having slept on the ideas raised in yesterday's writing sessions. I had created a one-page mind map, as suggested in the session with experienced Supervisors.
Upside down because I've forgotten how to rotate it here.
Putting it into a linear order:
Title - Valuing Women
Literature review - describe Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Useful because multi-dimensional
contrast with single value theories (Kohlberg and Gilligan) Unhelpful because one-dimensional
Situated knowledge - partial and privileged. Plus debate by critics
Women (+ lack of power) -v- men (+ power) in situated knowledge
Masculinist values
Data gathering - visit to NPG 20th Century Gallery - rehung 4/11/17
use Schwartz Table of Basic Values to identify values in artworks
identify gendering of media in art
identify Collections Policy and gendering in collecting criteria.
identify sources of artworks on display (NPG collection or private collections)
Analysis - evaluate values displayed in 20th Century Gallery rehung artworks/selection criteria
create gender breakdown
evaluate compliance with policy
identify patterns and trends
Conclusions - to be advised
Practical outputs - My textile artworks
Semi-structured interviews with many woman about specific women.
Identify values and categorise according to Schwartz Table of Basic Values
Identify patterns and trends
Select (very few) women who display values that demonstrate a diversity of values on Schwartz's table
Create (3?) samplers
Upside down because I've forgotten how to rotate it here.
Putting it into a linear order:
Title - Valuing Women
Literature review - describe Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Useful because multi-dimensional
contrast with single value theories (Kohlberg and Gilligan) Unhelpful because one-dimensional
Situated knowledge - partial and privileged. Plus debate by critics
Women (+ lack of power) -v- men (+ power) in situated knowledge
Masculinist values
Data gathering - visit to NPG 20th Century Gallery - rehung 4/11/17
use Schwartz Table of Basic Values to identify values in artworks
identify gendering of media in art
identify Collections Policy and gendering in collecting criteria.
identify sources of artworks on display (NPG collection or private collections)
Analysis - evaluate values displayed in 20th Century Gallery rehung artworks/selection criteria
create gender breakdown
evaluate compliance with policy
identify patterns and trends
Conclusions - to be advised
Practical outputs - My textile artworks
Semi-structured interviews with many woman about specific women.
Identify values and categorise according to Schwartz Table of Basic Values
Identify patterns and trends
Select (very few) women who display values that demonstrate a diversity of values on Schwartz's table
Create (3?) samplers
Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Writing week - Day 3
Thesis Structure and Argumentation
Each discipline will have its own meaningful structure. Take advice from your supervisor.
Titles should indicate topic and scope of study. Play around with your title. My first attempt:
Valuing Women: identifying the rationale for women to value other women in roles rarely portrayed in art.
Consider your audience for your thesis. What impact do they expect?
General statement
Elaboration
More detail
Leading to Broader Statement
or Opening with an anecdote/case study that illustrates point then moves to a more general discussion. (I've seen this in various theses and it really puts me off. I want something that tells me the purpose before the detail).
Intro - General to specific
Method
Results
Discussion/conclusion - Specific to general
Often used for science subjects - no literature review
Intro - General to specific
Literature Review
Theme 1
Theme 2
Theme 3
Conclusions
Creating a Research Space (CARS)
We analysed some text - I found this difficult. Is this for the Introduction?
Move 1 - Establishing a research territory
Move 2 - Establishing a niche
Move 3 - Occupying the niche.
Move 1 - sets context, identifies where you are coming from. Enables you to claim centrality and make generalisations.
Move 2 - Counter claims; identifies gap/contradictions/problems in previous research. Raises questions. Extends previous knowledge.
Move 3 - Purpose/nature of research. Creates research questions or hypotheses. Indicates principle findings.
Introduction is 10% of word count. When well written, makes the rest impactful.
Literature Review
Based on themes. Argument driven.
Methods
Important to say why useful to your practice. Prove rigour. Don't go multi-methodological unless there is a reason.
Gather data - but explain the implications of the data.
Conclusions.
Points to consolidate your research. Report, relate, interpret, and anticipate potential criticisms.
Don't fall into the front loading pit - too much literature review and method, too little on research; or the backloading pit - too much results, too little theory.
Create paragraphs with Topic, Expansion; Narrowing; Illustrating; Analysis; Conclusion.
Don't use However unless you are showing contrast.
Start with territory, move from old to new information; repeat key words to carry through readability.
Homework - create 3-5 sentences on each of Topic, structure, Headings.
Meet the Supervisors Session
Sir David Morris, Economist - Centre for Academic Writing - purpose to give a practical, supportive edge to Doctoral Writing.
1. Expectations of written English are changing. More non-native English speaking candidates and assessors. Less formulaic now. Important to transmit meaning. You need to understanding it!
2. Get structure clear. 1 subject per paragraph. 1 idea per sentence. Clean numbering of paragraphs and clearly labelled diagrams.
3. Golden thread running through thesis. Create yourself a 1 page diagram of your thesis outline.
4. 8-12 drafts is normal. Do not try to write it in one draft. Write as you go for practice.
5. Manage your resources. Your have to manage your supervisor. You provide the agenda and minutes. Use the Centre for Academic Writing for support.
When your supervisor asks What have you been reading, try to include something like Rowena Murray' "How to Write your Thesis".
Get non-supervisoral people to read your work. Other students. Other people with academic backgrounds or specialist interests in your field.
Sheena .... Faculty of Arts & Humanities
1. Writing process - varies according to student. Many right ways of doing it.
2. Writing Product - Don't go against convention of your discipline. Take from your Supervisor ... and follow it.
Erik Borg - CAW
Writing is iterative - repetitive.
Provide some of your writing to your Supervisor before your tutorial. Your intro to date, or some ideas, or a book review. You are leading the process.
Your PhD is a collection of evidence to prove your expertise in your field. It may lead to a book or 3/4 journal articles.
Look to other people's theses for structure. Make a judgement on readability.
PhD is negotiation between you and 2 examiners. Find 'critical friends' who will practice how you might respond to questions arising.
Work out how to synthesise conflicting guidance from different supervisors.
Narrow your journey.
Your supervisor may not be as expert as you in your field. Their skill may be in asking the questions that provoke you to go further, in a pertinent direction. Use the full supervisory team. Identify the diversity of their skills e.g. the methodology expert.
Read selectively and purposefully. Keep note taking.
Key problem - mismatch of Research Question and Research. If so amend the research question to fit the research.
What's in it for the Supervisor? Pique their interest.
Do one thing well, not several things badly. Focus your interests.
Another really interesting session.
Each discipline will have its own meaningful structure. Take advice from your supervisor.
Titles should indicate topic and scope of study. Play around with your title. My first attempt:
Valuing Women: identifying the rationale for women to value other women in roles rarely portrayed in art.
Consider your audience for your thesis. What impact do they expect?
General statement
Elaboration
More detail
Leading to Broader Statement
or Opening with an anecdote/case study that illustrates point then moves to a more general discussion. (I've seen this in various theses and it really puts me off. I want something that tells me the purpose before the detail).
Intro - General to specific
Method
Results
Discussion/conclusion - Specific to general
Often used for science subjects - no literature review
Intro - General to specific
Literature Review
Theme 1
Theme 2
Theme 3
Conclusions
Creating a Research Space (CARS)
We analysed some text - I found this difficult. Is this for the Introduction?
Move 1 - Establishing a research territory
Move 2 - Establishing a niche
Move 3 - Occupying the niche.
Move 1 - sets context, identifies where you are coming from. Enables you to claim centrality and make generalisations.
Move 2 - Counter claims; identifies gap/contradictions/problems in previous research. Raises questions. Extends previous knowledge.
Move 3 - Purpose/nature of research. Creates research questions or hypotheses. Indicates principle findings.
Introduction is 10% of word count. When well written, makes the rest impactful.
Literature Review
Based on themes. Argument driven.
Methods
Important to say why useful to your practice. Prove rigour. Don't go multi-methodological unless there is a reason.
Gather data - but explain the implications of the data.
Conclusions.
Points to consolidate your research. Report, relate, interpret, and anticipate potential criticisms.
Don't fall into the front loading pit - too much literature review and method, too little on research; or the backloading pit - too much results, too little theory.
Create paragraphs with Topic, Expansion; Narrowing; Illustrating; Analysis; Conclusion.
Don't use However unless you are showing contrast.
Start with territory, move from old to new information; repeat key words to carry through readability.
Homework - create 3-5 sentences on each of Topic, structure, Headings.
Meet the Supervisors Session
Sir David Morris, Economist - Centre for Academic Writing - purpose to give a practical, supportive edge to Doctoral Writing.
1. Expectations of written English are changing. More non-native English speaking candidates and assessors. Less formulaic now. Important to transmit meaning. You need to understanding it!
2. Get structure clear. 1 subject per paragraph. 1 idea per sentence. Clean numbering of paragraphs and clearly labelled diagrams.
3. Golden thread running through thesis. Create yourself a 1 page diagram of your thesis outline.
4. 8-12 drafts is normal. Do not try to write it in one draft. Write as you go for practice.
5. Manage your resources. Your have to manage your supervisor. You provide the agenda and minutes. Use the Centre for Academic Writing for support.
When your supervisor asks What have you been reading, try to include something like Rowena Murray' "How to Write your Thesis".
Get non-supervisoral people to read your work. Other students. Other people with academic backgrounds or specialist interests in your field.
Sheena .... Faculty of Arts & Humanities
1. Writing process - varies according to student. Many right ways of doing it.
2. Writing Product - Don't go against convention of your discipline. Take from your Supervisor ... and follow it.
Erik Borg - CAW
Writing is iterative - repetitive.
Provide some of your writing to your Supervisor before your tutorial. Your intro to date, or some ideas, or a book review. You are leading the process.
Your PhD is a collection of evidence to prove your expertise in your field. It may lead to a book or 3/4 journal articles.
Look to other people's theses for structure. Make a judgement on readability.
PhD is negotiation between you and 2 examiners. Find 'critical friends' who will practice how you might respond to questions arising.
Work out how to synthesise conflicting guidance from different supervisors.
Narrow your journey.
Your supervisor may not be as expert as you in your field. Their skill may be in asking the questions that provoke you to go further, in a pertinent direction. Use the full supervisory team. Identify the diversity of their skills e.g. the methodology expert.
Read selectively and purposefully. Keep note taking.
Key problem - mismatch of Research Question and Research. If so amend the research question to fit the research.
What's in it for the Supervisor? Pique their interest.
Do one thing well, not several things badly. Focus your interests.
Another really interesting session.
Writing Week - Day 2
Referencing
Why reference? Situates your work in history and culture. Strengthens and gives credibility. Shows grasp of conventions. Shows your working and progress through ideas to your conclusion. Also identifies the gap.
Integral citation - X (date) says ... Privileges the author. Most often used when you want to identify a seminal writer, and they are the most important thing.
Or when you are comparing/contrasting two authors, so you can be specific about each writer's position.
Non-integral citations. This idea shows .... (X, date). Privileges the idea, and is used more often when you are reviewing and analysing the concepts while acknowledging the author.
Or when you are giving a negative evaluation of what an author says.
Direct quotes used for short pieces of text. A summary is used for long pieces of text that you want to reference and paraphrasing is used for shorter pieces that you can say better or apply in a context.
Direct quotes to be used when you cannot say it better. Be selective in this.
Indirect quotes to be used when you are showing your interpretation, and how you control and craft your text. Gives your authorial voice.
Verbs used when using integral and non-integral citations indicate your stance and give authorial voice: X says; X claims; X suggests; X postulates; X proves.
Use of past/present tense gives indication of your view on cited work - present tense for concepts that are current; past tense for outdated thinking.
Coventry uses Harvard referencing (Author, date) with tweaks!
A good session.
Idea for thesis
Ideas started coming together again today during my swim. 2500m in a 50 m pool - 5 x 10 lengths.
In my literature review, I have decided to review Schwartz's Theory of Basic Values, followed by some stuff on masculinist values, women being associated with a single value (caring).
In the body of the work, I'd like to do a case study, where I review the new 20th century Gallery at the National Portrait Gallery to see how the new hanging fits with the policy criteria for this gallery (which they specify) and their Collections Policy. I have a suspicion that, although the new hanging is better than the last one (for a variety of reasons), it does not represent women equally favourably as men. I'd also like to consider the media of the imagery for its gender match.
In my literature review, I have decided to review Schwartz's Theory of Basic Values, followed by some stuff on masculinist values, women being associated with a single value (caring).
In the body of the work, I'd like to do a case study, where I review the new 20th century Gallery at the National Portrait Gallery to see how the new hanging fits with the policy criteria for this gallery (which they specify) and their Collections Policy. I have a suspicion that, although the new hanging is better than the last one (for a variety of reasons), it does not represent women equally favourably as men. I'd also like to consider the media of the imagery for its gender match.
Monday, 6 November 2017
Exploring my Abstract for my Literature Review
I went for a swim after class and the thoughts started to come together. Tomorrow's session is the first writing practice. I don't know whether to be delighted or scared.
I've been reading about Nancy Hartsock's Situated Knowledge which basically says all knowledge comes from the perspective of the individual, therefore is partial and conflicting. I want my literature review to cover this ground to try to identify what values are formed and held by women, but at present my reading only indicates that these gender specific knowledges are present, not what they typically are about. So not only do I need to explore Situated Knowledge but also I'd like to identify some specific fields of situated knowledge (like Gilligan - women typically operate with an ethics of caring). I think I'd like to identify 3 fields of Situated Knowledge. I was reading another (political) article which said women were more likely to support government policies that focussed on education and health care, so maybe these might be my next two areas of Value that are associated with women.
So my slightly amended abstract for the literature review is:
"The aim of this literature review is to explore why, what and how women value other women. The time range has been restricted to the last 30 years - 1987 to date. The literature review uses the concept of Situated Knowledge to identify values associated with women. It aims to identify different methodologies by which women's values have been explored, and to consider how the outcome of the research is impacted by the method. Further analysis will take place to identify how the values of women have been represented in art, by women, with examples of media which have a materiality that resonates with the subject."
I've been reading about Nancy Hartsock's Situated Knowledge which basically says all knowledge comes from the perspective of the individual, therefore is partial and conflicting. I want my literature review to cover this ground to try to identify what values are formed and held by women, but at present my reading only indicates that these gender specific knowledges are present, not what they typically are about. So not only do I need to explore Situated Knowledge but also I'd like to identify some specific fields of situated knowledge (like Gilligan - women typically operate with an ethics of caring). I think I'd like to identify 3 fields of Situated Knowledge. I was reading another (political) article which said women were more likely to support government policies that focussed on education and health care, so maybe these might be my next two areas of Value that are associated with women.
So my slightly amended abstract for the literature review is:
"The aim of this literature review is to explore why, what and how women value other women. The time range has been restricted to the last 30 years - 1987 to date. The literature review uses the concept of Situated Knowledge to identify values associated with women. It aims to identify different methodologies by which women's values have been explored, and to consider how the outcome of the research is impacted by the method. Further analysis will take place to identify how the values of women have been represented in art, by women, with examples of media which have a materiality that resonates with the subject."
Writing Week Day 1
Researching PhD Through Writing
Research is a process through to writing.
Read, research, analyse, write.
Important to write as you go.
Read widely.
Group your articles
Mind map - colour code what is ideas from your reading, and your thoughts about them
Don't think of your writing as an object, an end product.
Think about what you want to argue. Not about the text as an end product, but how to produce it. It's about creating the knowledge.
Write all the time. Your ideas/focus will change from what you put in your proposal, to what you put in the Masters/PhD.
Book - Writing Your PhD in 15 minutes a day.
Pre-writing and Playful Writing.
Keep notes on what you have read, what your opinions were. Play with ideas. Define the problem. Find conflicting arguments. Use the polemic and find your position.
Re-drafting
Streamline by argument and iterative process. Get some structure.
Revise
Get the structure right. Sequential order. Linear process of points in argument.
Editing
Grammar, punctuation, spelling. Minor alterations only.
Find daily writing time. Same time/place. Get into a discipline of writing every day.
I think I do this - sometimes on my blog, but also in my exhibition book.
Start an Annotated Bibliography
1. Citation details
2. Statement of main focus
3. Argument/theory?
4. Limitations of paper (identify the gaps)
5. Your evaluation of fit/non fit with your research.
Free Writing
This enables you to separate the creative ideas from the dross, while preventing the editorial mind from removing creative/unstructured bits because they aren't obviously useful. Then review a few days later to pick out the gems. I think I do this anyway via my blog.
How Experienced Writers Revise - George Ttroouli
You are looking to find your niche in relation to other known stuff.
When reviewing your work, continually revise - look at your Research Question, what are you doing, which way are you going next?
Guide the way you make decisions about what next by setting limits to your scope and checking them continually.
Create your abstract. What does your framing achieve?
Useful book - Writing your Journal Article in 12 weeks - Belcher. Useful techniques.
Be brave enough to discard. Understand the 'why' for the need to change.
1. Set own measures - be clear about the purpose of each paragraph/chapter.
2. Recognise the emotional side to intellectual work.
3. Invent (your questions)
Plan
Draft
Revise (macro changes)
Edit (micro changes - don't do this earlier as it is a waste of effort when you subsequently revise it)
Then there was a bit that I was not clear about. We were talking about the first few lines - but I'm not sure whether this was about the whole thesis or an article or a chapter? Define your terms. In the literature review or the chapter? Outline the conceptual processes of article. Keep narrowing the direction of the chapter. WYSIWYG. What you see is what you get.
Signpost your writing. At the start: This will do ..... At the end: Having done ... I move to ...
Science theses have standardised structure:
Introduction (purpose, literature review)
Methodology
Research
Analysis
Discussion.
Subheadings are part of the signposting.
Art subjects less clear/more flexible. But no actual direction given!
Paragraphs are 3 stage structures. Point, evidence, analysis.
I enjoyed the day, but feel both sessions were very brief overviews, with too much input with very little actual practice or understanding gained.
Research is a process through to writing.
Read, research, analyse, write.
Important to write as you go.
Read widely.
Group your articles
Mind map - colour code what is ideas from your reading, and your thoughts about them
Don't think of your writing as an object, an end product.
Think about what you want to argue. Not about the text as an end product, but how to produce it. It's about creating the knowledge.
Write all the time. Your ideas/focus will change from what you put in your proposal, to what you put in the Masters/PhD.
Book - Writing Your PhD in 15 minutes a day.
Pre-writing and Playful Writing.
Keep notes on what you have read, what your opinions were. Play with ideas. Define the problem. Find conflicting arguments. Use the polemic and find your position.
Re-drafting
Streamline by argument and iterative process. Get some structure.
Revise
Get the structure right. Sequential order. Linear process of points in argument.
Editing
Grammar, punctuation, spelling. Minor alterations only.
Find daily writing time. Same time/place. Get into a discipline of writing every day.
I think I do this - sometimes on my blog, but also in my exhibition book.
Start an Annotated Bibliography
1. Citation details
2. Statement of main focus
3. Argument/theory?
4. Limitations of paper (identify the gaps)
5. Your evaluation of fit/non fit with your research.
Free Writing
This enables you to separate the creative ideas from the dross, while preventing the editorial mind from removing creative/unstructured bits because they aren't obviously useful. Then review a few days later to pick out the gems. I think I do this anyway via my blog.
How Experienced Writers Revise - George Ttroouli
You are looking to find your niche in relation to other known stuff.
When reviewing your work, continually revise - look at your Research Question, what are you doing, which way are you going next?
Guide the way you make decisions about what next by setting limits to your scope and checking them continually.
Create your abstract. What does your framing achieve?
Useful book - Writing your Journal Article in 12 weeks - Belcher. Useful techniques.
Be brave enough to discard. Understand the 'why' for the need to change.
1. Set own measures - be clear about the purpose of each paragraph/chapter.
2. Recognise the emotional side to intellectual work.
3. Invent (your questions)
Plan
Draft
Revise (macro changes)
Edit (micro changes - don't do this earlier as it is a waste of effort when you subsequently revise it)
Then there was a bit that I was not clear about. We were talking about the first few lines - but I'm not sure whether this was about the whole thesis or an article or a chapter? Define your terms. In the literature review or the chapter? Outline the conceptual processes of article. Keep narrowing the direction of the chapter. WYSIWYG. What you see is what you get.
Signpost your writing. At the start: This will do ..... At the end: Having done ... I move to ...
Science theses have standardised structure:
Introduction (purpose, literature review)
Methodology
Research
Analysis
Discussion.
Subheadings are part of the signposting.
Art subjects less clear/more flexible. But no actual direction given!
Paragraphs are 3 stage structures. Point, evidence, analysis.
I enjoyed the day, but feel both sessions were very brief overviews, with too much input with very little actual practice or understanding gained.
Sunday, 5 November 2017
20th Century Gallery at National Portrait Gallery
I had a very interesting trip to the NPG. The 20th Century Gallery has been in the same format for about 15 years. They have had a rehang, closing off the windows on one side, thereby giving a lot more wall space for hanging, and dedicated lighting that is constant and not impacted by moving shadows caused by daylight. It's meant to represent inspirational pioneers, in a century of tremendous change.
This rehung gallery had 4 types of media represented - oil on canvas, black and white photos, cigarette cards and sculpture (head and shoulder busts). While the NPG is a gallery with conservative media, its Collections Policy states it is seeking to represent a wider selection of British people (and is aware of its under-representation of women and ethnic minorities) and to use a wider range of media. In my opinion, the media displayed in this gallery, seems to be more aligned with the male. Cigarette cards in particular would associate with men. So why no textiles?
It has been hung chronologically - 1900-1913, WW1, Interwar years, and WW2 and post war years to 1990. I only had the stamina to look at the first 3 sections, before I ran out of energy.
1900-1913 - I had seen a lot of these images before - lots of Charleston group artists and writers, suffragettes, (therefore good representation of women).
The WW1 images were heavy on representation of men, with three famous, huge, images of Army Generals, Navy leaders, and Parliamentary Statesmen. However there were also black and white photos of army people (I think who subsequently were the first armed forces who flew planes, i.e. before the RAF had formed) and cigarette cards. These were interesting - donated by a former director of NPG who had a large private collection. There were 6 cigarette cards, representing army and navy, old and young servicemen from Scotland, Ireland, England and Australia. There was also imagery of the first men to gain a double VC. Only one image of a woman nursing orderly, and one of an Indian soldier - both of which I have seen before (so obviously the paintings that get used to represent these groups).
I went into the Interwar section, and there were plenty of women represented - 33% - so not in line with population, but much better than usually represented. I need to go back and look again but my impression is that the women were artists, politicians, economists or significant in their own right e.g. aviators. Quite a few images noted that the sitter was of Polish Jewish origin, so migrant status could be inferred, although very few other minorities were apparent (e.g. Britten and Pears - gay men).
What was interesting was what was not there. Women were not represented as charming, beautiful, or sexualised. No nudes or partially clad bodies. Women were not represented as the sidekick of a significant man. Limited representation of the Royal Family - nothing of Elizabeth II subsequent to her accession or of her offspring or extended family. Representation of royalty was done via large old images of Edward VII and family when George V was a boy, a young Edward VIII (when Prince of Wales) in WW1 army uniform, George VI (who would not strike a royal pose) and George VI, Queen Elizabeth, and Elizabeth & Margaret as a family. Definitely playing on family and service. Nothing about modern Royals. Very little about celebrity.
I'm going to finish my analysis on my next trip and see what the driving forces are for representation. So far the men seem to be portrayed on grounds of status and heroism, but I can't work out what the women were portrayed for. Status in their own right? For being innovators in their field? But this seems to be entertainment or typically male roles e.g. aviator. Nothing about being valued for being a woman. Watch this space.
This rehung gallery had 4 types of media represented - oil on canvas, black and white photos, cigarette cards and sculpture (head and shoulder busts). While the NPG is a gallery with conservative media, its Collections Policy states it is seeking to represent a wider selection of British people (and is aware of its under-representation of women and ethnic minorities) and to use a wider range of media. In my opinion, the media displayed in this gallery, seems to be more aligned with the male. Cigarette cards in particular would associate with men. So why no textiles?
It has been hung chronologically - 1900-1913, WW1, Interwar years, and WW2 and post war years to 1990. I only had the stamina to look at the first 3 sections, before I ran out of energy.
1900-1913 - I had seen a lot of these images before - lots of Charleston group artists and writers, suffragettes, (therefore good representation of women).
The WW1 images were heavy on representation of men, with three famous, huge, images of Army Generals, Navy leaders, and Parliamentary Statesmen. However there were also black and white photos of army people (I think who subsequently were the first armed forces who flew planes, i.e. before the RAF had formed) and cigarette cards. These were interesting - donated by a former director of NPG who had a large private collection. There were 6 cigarette cards, representing army and navy, old and young servicemen from Scotland, Ireland, England and Australia. There was also imagery of the first men to gain a double VC. Only one image of a woman nursing orderly, and one of an Indian soldier - both of which I have seen before (so obviously the paintings that get used to represent these groups).
I went into the Interwar section, and there were plenty of women represented - 33% - so not in line with population, but much better than usually represented. I need to go back and look again but my impression is that the women were artists, politicians, economists or significant in their own right e.g. aviators. Quite a few images noted that the sitter was of Polish Jewish origin, so migrant status could be inferred, although very few other minorities were apparent (e.g. Britten and Pears - gay men).
What was interesting was what was not there. Women were not represented as charming, beautiful, or sexualised. No nudes or partially clad bodies. Women were not represented as the sidekick of a significant man. Limited representation of the Royal Family - nothing of Elizabeth II subsequent to her accession or of her offspring or extended family. Representation of royalty was done via large old images of Edward VII and family when George V was a boy, a young Edward VIII (when Prince of Wales) in WW1 army uniform, George VI (who would not strike a royal pose) and George VI, Queen Elizabeth, and Elizabeth & Margaret as a family. Definitely playing on family and service. Nothing about modern Royals. Very little about celebrity.
I'm going to finish my analysis on my next trip and see what the driving forces are for representation. So far the men seem to be portrayed on grounds of status and heroism, but I can't work out what the women were portrayed for. Status in their own right? For being innovators in their field? But this seems to be entertainment or typically male roles e.g. aviator. Nothing about being valued for being a woman. Watch this space.
Friday, 3 November 2017
Exhibition books
I've been photographing my exhibition books - of which there are about 6 now. I first started keeping them purely to 'do as I was told' in order to be a good student. I was told to record my attendance at exhibitions on two facing pages of an A5 notebook - name of exhibition, date, location; a postcard, a drawing and notes on what occurred to you while looking at the exhibition. It has become an essential tool for me being a student.
I note down what occurred to me when looking at the exhibition - usually around the idea of "how does this exhibition represent women?" And sometimes years later, I look back at the book and realise those fleeting thoughts actually picked up on something critical. I use these books all the time and they often give me pointers to my current work, years after they were drawn. My best exhibition book pages always have my drawings on them.
 |
| Pitt Rivers Museum, thinking about labelling work and how it shows the thought processes/preconceived ideas/assumptions of the curator. |
 |
| National Portrait Gallery museum, WW1 exhibition, identifying that Officers were named, decorated, clean, fully suited-and-booted; whereas ordinary people were unnamed, possibly dead, generic types |
 |
| British Museum, Vikings exhibition. Packed exhibition with entry times 10 minutes apart and I tucked into a tiny corner with my stool, to be able to draw. |
 |
| Foundling Museum, Grayson Perry tapestry. I had to draw part of the tapestry before I realised it was a classical reference - the artist's self portrait is in the mirror. |
 |
| Foundling Museum. Grayson Perry tapestry. Part of the 6 tapestry Class and Status series. |
 |
| Smithsonian Museum - Happy memories of sitting in the atrium drawing the environment , while waiting for the free tour. |
Wednesday, 1 November 2017
Tutorial with Jill
We discussed how my literature review was coming on. Jill was ok with the 4 main articles I had chosen, but explained that during the 2000 word review I would end up referring to probably 40 articles. I'm having a good time reading around Nancy Hartsock, Donna Haraway, Sandra Harding, Carol Gilligan. I was reading Situated Knowledge by Donna Haraway on the train.
Literature Review purpose: to read, digest, and summarise. Not to come up with any conclusions of my own yet). This forms the basis of the MRes report, but will be expanded over the next 2 years.
Grounded theory - start with information gathering and having one's own suspicions/line of enquiry.
Information and suspicions/enquiry
leads to data gathering by
Research and reading
Interviews with candidates
Archive searches
Review all the above
Which helps formulate Clear Questions
Which returns to the beginning of the loop - informed literature search.
Look at Donald Schon - the Reflective Practitioner
Merlaut-Ponty - Phenomonology
Julia Negus on FB
Madeline Atkins.
I showed Jill the format of my note taking (hard copy) and she thought this was well thought through. The notes will end up in secure digital format, but I want the hard copy for back up. She said I needed to keep my research private until my MRes was completed, so I might need to take my blog off my website.
I also showed Jill some of my artwork from my recent classes. I'm linking the techniques of art (cutting) with Aunt Joan's key skills (dressmaking, glovemaking, flower arranging) by cutting into paper, and making Linocuts. I've mastered taking photos on my new iPhone which is useful during the tute, but I've not yet mastered where the images are stored, or how to upload them to this blog. (Another learning need!)
I'm going to be in Coventry all next week - despite my mess up on booking the Research Week seminars, I've been allocated a place on every seminar because others have dropped out.
After the tutorial, I went home via the London Transport Museum and looked at the Poster Girls exhibition. Very interesting. In the 1920s and 1930s, Frank Pick was a forward thinking company chairman who was way ahead of his time - he employed women artists alongside male artists to create posters to drive demand for train services, by advertising services to the leisure market so trains were used in the off peak (nothing changes - LUL only advertises off peak services to this day as the system is at capacity in the peak). Interesting facts included women being commissioned to create posters for sporting events (for men), and not being limited to posters of flowers (women used to be restricted to drawing flowers). The exhibition noted that women were paid less than men for the same work. Lovely posters and an enjoyable exhibition.
Literature Review purpose: to read, digest, and summarise. Not to come up with any conclusions of my own yet). This forms the basis of the MRes report, but will be expanded over the next 2 years.
Grounded theory - start with information gathering and having one's own suspicions/line of enquiry.
Information and suspicions/enquiry
leads to data gathering by
Research and reading
Interviews with candidates
Archive searches
Review all the above
Which helps formulate Clear Questions
Which returns to the beginning of the loop - informed literature search.
Look at Donald Schon - the Reflective Practitioner
Merlaut-Ponty - Phenomonology
Julia Negus on FB
Madeline Atkins.
I showed Jill the format of my note taking (hard copy) and she thought this was well thought through. The notes will end up in secure digital format, but I want the hard copy for back up. She said I needed to keep my research private until my MRes was completed, so I might need to take my blog off my website.
I also showed Jill some of my artwork from my recent classes. I'm linking the techniques of art (cutting) with Aunt Joan's key skills (dressmaking, glovemaking, flower arranging) by cutting into paper, and making Linocuts. I've mastered taking photos on my new iPhone which is useful during the tute, but I've not yet mastered where the images are stored, or how to upload them to this blog. (Another learning need!)
I'm going to be in Coventry all next week - despite my mess up on booking the Research Week seminars, I've been allocated a place on every seminar because others have dropped out.
After the tutorial, I went home via the London Transport Museum and looked at the Poster Girls exhibition. Very interesting. In the 1920s and 1930s, Frank Pick was a forward thinking company chairman who was way ahead of his time - he employed women artists alongside male artists to create posters to drive demand for train services, by advertising services to the leisure market so trains were used in the off peak (nothing changes - LUL only advertises off peak services to this day as the system is at capacity in the peak). Interesting facts included women being commissioned to create posters for sporting events (for men), and not being limited to posters of flowers (women used to be restricted to drawing flowers). The exhibition noted that women were paid less than men for the same work. Lovely posters and an enjoyable exhibition.
Art class at the Shedio
 |
| Graphite stick and printing ink |
 |
| Printing ink, graphite stick and gold pen |
 |
| Graphite stick and printing ink |
 |
| Printing ink and watercolour |
 |
| Printing ink on drop sheet, paper pattern, stitch |
 |
| Printing ink and hand stitch on paper pattern |
 |
| Graphite stick and artbar oil pastel on paper pattern |
 |
| Artbar oil pastels on paper pattern |
 |
| Artbar oil pastels on paper pattern |
Great day at the Shedio. We were in a new studio - huge loft apartment over a barn. Still a bit cold for some students, but fine in temperature for me!
This time I worked on an interpretation of my most recent sketch at an exhibition. I had been drawing a monochrome sketch of a friend's artwork. Lori's work was oil and wax on paper, highly coloured in shades of salmon, ultramarine and white. My drawing was tonal. I was thinking about Aunt Joan and her use of cutting implements in all her activities. So I decided to make an interpretation of this sketch by cutting into Lino. I cut a piece about 2" x 5", then played around printing it with black ink and graphite stick on newsprint and paper pattern. I happily created about 12 different versions of it in class. Then at home when the prints had dried a bit more, I worked into them with watercolour, thread, and gold pen. (see above)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)