CRITICAL REFLECTIVE SUMMARY

Throughout draft assignment five I have refined my writing to:

• Make it less dense.
• Linked short paragraphs to increase the flow e.g., page 8 paragraph 2, page 9 Paragraph 2, and page 14 paragraph 2.
• Revised to read for a reader coming it cold.
• Ensured that critical terms are defined at least once for each one.
• I have used the academic phrasebook but could revisit.
• I have added description, denotation to most images, e.g. page 10 and page 13.
• Write in the third person.
• Added in suggested extra reading.

Where I have refined I have particularly concentrated on ‘reverse engineering’, which I think I took to quite well and to change it from more of a literature review style using quotes to support a point, rather than quoting and then explaining the quote. For example:

Page 7, 2^nd and third paragraphs

Page 15, 2^nd paragraph

Page 16, last paragraph

I have tried to increase my use of PEEL, Point, Evidence/Example, Explanation, Link, but more work may be needed on this.

I am unsure whether I have included sufficient on context as determinant of meaning.

Specifically, I have :

• Added Hall’s description of representation.
• Some modern examples e.g. Page 5 paragraph 1
• Referenced Benjamin’s reference to Brecht – p6.
• Added images to support my mention of Alfred Stieglitz’s equivalents – p7.
• Taken out the leading questions on page 11.

I have not found the place to dovetail some realist documentary ideas as a contrast to White, but I may return to this with a fresh eye. The same stands for including a reference to Shore’s categories. I refreshed my research on both but haven’t so far found where to use them.

I have reordered my writing in some places; the conclusion is probably the most revised in terms of ordering and rationalisation, and next chapter three.