Work done on creating questions and shortlists was time well spent.
• structured the methodology
• showed complexity of thought going into subject
• sets the stage for prog exam
• criticisms arising are constructive: mostly about couching terms/sensitive interviewing
• will knit well with assignment materials
As regards assignments:
• Iain will get hold of the new, simpler set of instructions for me.
• It's expected that some work I have done will fit in quite well (in particular, my assumptions about the taxonomy of terms exercise seem to have been more or less corresct)
• It's important that my advisors can say that I will have this work done, but it may not be essential that it is done now, though clearly I'd like to get it sorted out anyway.
• There seems to be more leeway about providing work that obviously fits the intention of the assignments without adhering to the letter of the law. This is good news because I've done a lot of work on the relevent areas: maybe just not the specified work.
On the artwork:
• General agreement with my self-criticism. Work has lacked material and expressive richness of late because of time constraints and production capabilities. My stated aim of spending more studio time doing autographic work (versus digital production chipped away at inbetween my research studies) seems well received as a proposed remedy. I just need to make that work! However, no complaints about my work. Quality could be better, but I'm obviously doing what I can under the production circumstances.
Some points not covered:
• joining art practice to my case stufy methodology: I've a pretty decent idea of how my writing and researching is going to perform self-reflexive/hermeneutic research, but as yet, I've only pencilled-in how I intend to examine issues in the research in my artwork. Although I'm clearly relating my own work and its' accompanying propositions (my understanding of what book arts are and my work's place in it), to the work of others, and stating an aim to scurry backwards and forwards between my assumptions and what I glean from other folks' practice, this is more about comparing theory. I'm not really comparing the work itself that clearly here. So it's not comparative analysis, this reflexive process that the work is supposed to take up. It's more, I think, going to be about finding understandings of issues raised through art means... Obviously I'm unclear here. How can I make work that forms part of my investigation. Do I have to wait and see what I start finding out?
• I also want to figure out how I am going to construct my thesis. I was reading about Ricoeur this morning, about how the studies in the Rule of Metaphor gradually unfold the different levels of R's theory of metaphor. From a stylistic point of view, I think I'd like to take up something similar, I think. I haven't read the Rule of Metaphor yet, so I can't say what this unfolding means in terms of R's methodology (one presumes, in setting out to writew, that he already knows what his theory is, and is using these 'layers' as illustrations rather than as hermeneutic experimentation) Nonetheless, my existing metaphor of 'back and forth' or of 'repetition' could easily make for dull reading if there is no 'dramatic structure' to how my understanding unfolds. The problem is, that I don't know what I'm portraying. So I can't decide in advance what to unfold, what bits will unfold in different case studies, etc. Perhaps it won't be possible to do this. Or, perhaps, I will discover a story in the course of my research which I will later be able to edit into something readable. A hermeneutics of continuous repetition or fractious back-and-forth could be very trying, and I aspire to something less dull. Fingers crossed for a good story! This would be an interesting point to discuss another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment