PHO705: Feedback on Final Proposal

This was a very useful 1-2-1 session guided by a true professional. Thank you for helping me to progress my work.

During the 1-2-1 there were some exciting and helpful turns, that I’d not expected. Thankfully I was able to address each point.

Referencing

Referencing had been deficient in my proposal. I’d not planned it to be a rushed job, but it was what it was, and I accept the comment. I’d since blogged my references, and was able to show these in my fully refreshed CRJ blog here.

In practice, my work is back on track, I just wasn’t able to assemble and organise references in time for the Proposal submission.

Proposal Organisation – Headings

A comment was made on the Proposal organisation. There was a need for more headings. The proposal was likened to a stream of consciousness, a comment which I love. There is a time and place I accept, but to be recognised as writing in the style of Roland Barthes, has to be an honour, surely?

Evidencing

Some assertions in my Proposal required evidencing. I can rectify the problem now, even if only for my own satisfaction. Points relate to detailing:

  • A planned Meeting with a Kodak scientist and specialist in digital imaging and medical imaging who works in the cosmetics industry.
  • A visit to a Digital Imaging Symposium in December – a Kodak scientist I’ve known since 2010 is set to give me an introduction. Note to self, I need to catch up with him on Friday.

My reviewer wanting to know more was encouraging. The project has been moving forward from interpretations of Biology theme and begins to enter a medical world of digital imaging. Why so? This originally was simply to validate a technical point around healing glow and Infrared emissions.

However, this research led me to investigate a bridge between Art and Science. especially following a Symposium back in September.

A further point that required evidencing concerned:

  • Creativity and the subconscious mind.

Direct evidence is present in the making of my work. The process is experiential. Appreciation of how abstract art is created cannot be assumed for the non-practitioner audience.

In academic terms, this is probably insufficient, or so I now realise. With the formal approach, I reference:

(Kandinsky, no date) Page ii on our spiritual relationship with the primitives, “… these artists sought to express in their work only internal truths, renouncing, in consequence, all considerations of external form”. So too I.

(Scarry 1987) page 21. “The human action of making entails two distinct phases – making up (mental imaging) and making-real (endowing the mental object with a material or verbal form).

Scarry ably described then, what became second nature in my work.

The Critical Review Journal CRJ (this blog)

As I’d shown my updated reference post and this later conjured interest in the CRJ. I was able to show a couple of relevant posts and by navigating to the bottom of the page, demonstrate the organisation:

  • Tag Cloud
  • Category selector and
  • Free text search

Next came the test, to retrieve a Portfolio from a prior module. That worked smoothly and was a testament to the preparations made. The search was a genuine thing as the Portfolio was then displayed and discussed. What followed was a connected piece on the next steps of project development. This at the time was a screen share of a prepared PDF on my computer desktop. Since the 1-2-1 the PDF has been posted here:

Group-Leader-Critique

Bibliography

Kandinsky, W. (no date) Concerning the Spiritual in Art. Edited by M. Sadlier.

Scarry, E. (1987) The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New York, London: Oxford University Press-23 978-0-19-504996-1.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.