Uncategorized

BODY OF WORK COURSEWORK: PART THREE SHOWING NOT TELLING

/ niki / Leave a comment

My notes:

Different levels of meaning: literal (Communication/facts/information), metaphor (beyond the first level of meaning: metonym, rhetoric, symbol, connotation, innuendo, euphemism).

  • Interesting that coursework says that showing something that cannot be seen is difficult to accomplish.
  • Note the suggestion that a reader is hoping for their imagination to be sparked and to be able to bring their personal interpretation to the work.
  • Also that joint input from author and reader is most satisfying.

Showing not telling helps to achieve this.

Editing ask yourself:

  • Will the image stand as a visual piece on its own?
  • Is the image adding anything new or emphasising the point I want it to?
  • Is it detracting or contradicting from the rest of the series?
  • Am I overlooking any less striking work because of aesthetic concerns that may be secondary to the impact the piece will have on final reading?

Sequencing consider:

  • Consider heightened suspense, change in direction or narrative and how the sequencing guides the viewers response

Image and text:

  • Barthes- anchor: the text is there to fix the meaning of an image, with little room for negotiation.
  • Barthes – relay: equal weighting to text and image

Q: How might I use some of these techniques to help convey my ideas to viewers? Showing not telling is essential to my BOW project, metaphor, rhetoric, symbol, and connotation are central to my work.

Q: Have you considered how you will use text in your project? Will this be through individual captions or are you planning a more extensive textual element? I will need to signpost the work for my viewers and will do so this times with simple with captions which will be antonyms to intrigue the viewer and allow for personal interpretation.

Next post: https://nkssite6.photo.blog/category/reflective-journal/personal-reflections/bow-reflections/bow-3-reflections-prior-to-starting/

BODY OF WORK COURSEWORK: PART TWO CHANCE

/ niki / Leave a comment

“Letting a thing come, rather than creating it … in order to gain access to all that is genuine, richer, more alive: to what is beyond my understanding.” (Gerhard Richter 1985, cited in Iversen (ed.), 2010:158). Trusting that not having a fixed plan can lead to greater discoveries.

The course work took me through street photography again but having learned much about this previously, I took the signposting to the “chance involved” but moved on.

Likewise, the course manual represented found photography which I have already research a few times so used it as an opportunity to refresh myself, and the highlighted point that mistakes can lead you forwards.

I was most interested in the section on accidental slips, in particular the work of David Bate “Bungled Memories”. Here using still life Bate captures broken domestic items, he signposts the unconscious messages given in the work through his captions:

The wrong idea A badly handled thought (Bate, 2022)

                               The wrong idea A badly handled thought (Bate, 2022)

His work Broken society similarly uses the captions to anchor meaning in his work:

A selfishness of a cooking dish               An glass without discipline glass (Bate, 2022)

As I am using text to signpost my current work I took a good look at his work and found that sometimes he signposts the unobvious representation in his work and sometimes just captions the obvious.

Questions are posed in the coursebook:

Are the artists using their creativity to make art out of worst-case scenarios? In many cases we won’t know if it was a worst-case scenario or simply a chance scenario. Paul Graham in his series American night admitted that his first image was overexposed was a mistake and he then reconceptualised it this is a positive use of a” mistake”. But mistakes are often just a by-product of experimentation. Alec Soth in an interview for the release of his online course Photographic Storytelling, talks about the importance of learning through experience and, acknowledging and overcoming the mistakes, that inevitably occur when photographing career. He shares specific examples of technical errors with Schuman:

(Schuman, 2019)

Soth says “Sometimes imperfections make something even better – which is one of the reasons why I still enjoy shooting on film”

(Schuman, 2019)

Of this photo he says “This is my favourite photo from the last five years. The way the subject and the reflections work together felt like magic”. He is honest in reflecting on the difficulties of accepting making mistakes, as well the positive aspects that this may bring.

Are they cheating? No just using opportunity and creativity if the chance outcome is not hidden from the viewers.

If these works are based on manipulations, do you think that conceptualisation happens to the same extent when the artists are upfront about the ‘mistakes’? Again, I take issue with the term mistakes, which I think is a “red herring”. But yes conceptualisation does take place when artists are deliberate and signpost them. Stephen Gill is a photographer adept at letting your curiosity lead you and finding ways of allowing chance and intention to work together- relinquishing authorship in some way. His work Buried (2005-6) was a collaboration between himself and the place and stepping back as the author. Gill took photographs of Hackney Wick and then buried them beneath the ground:

(Gill, 2022)
  • Would you be comfortable with covering up a technical fault in order to make the work have more impact or to give it more conceptual rigour? Yes, as other artists have shown the best work is often made from something that was not produced to plan or didn’t have a plan.

As I move into assignment 3 I will ask myself as suggested:

  • Is my work taking on a direction of its own? Am I ready to go with it?
  • Is the strategy I am currently developing the kind which is most suitable for the work?
  • Am I resisting a certain direction due to effort, a closed mind, or another reason?
  • Has chance intervened in your work to date and how might you allow for it a bit more?

References:

Bate, D. (2022) Bungled Memories. At: https://www.davidbate.net/bungled-memories (Accessed 08/09/2022).

Bate, D. (2022) Broken Society. At: https://www.davidbate.net/broken-society (Accessed 08/09/2022).

Boothroyd, S (2020) Body of Work. Barnsley: Open College of the Arts.

Gill, S. (2022) portfolio » Portfolio. At: https://www.stephengill.co.uk/portfolio/portfolio/nggallery/album-1-2/buried (Accessed 08/09/2022).

Schuman, A. (2019) Alec Soth on Learning From Failure • Magnum Photos. At: https://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/alec-soth-learning-from-failure/ (Accessed 08/09/2022)

Nextpost: https://nkssite6.photo.blog/category/body-of-work/coursework-body-of-work/part-three-showing-not-telling/coursework-notes/

CONTEXTUAL STUDIES ASSIGNMENT 2: REFLECTIONS ON FORMATIVE FEEDBACK

/ niki / Leave a comment

This was written feedback.

The overall feedback was that my title/research question needs firming up to ensure that it’s not too broad; but that it was useful work and generally reads well.

General advice given:

  • Write as if to a general reader, be analytical and concise, and get to the point fast.

Actions:

For Literature review and dissertation

  • Label files:PH6CTS -2 Literature review and include name (I think he means in the file name)
  • Redraft my dissertation planner in the light of Tutors comments
  • Add some examples of case studies and images to my historical account of semiotics
  • Integrate the practice of chosen photographers to my examples of semiotics and discourse analysis.
  • Tackle the effect of audience in the conclusion when bringing other strands together.
  • Emphasis the caveat that Saussurian linguistic semiotics needs further development for a proper understanding of the nature of visual signification
  • Include Pierce’s triangular model.
  • Read additional suggestions from Tutor.

For Dissertation proposal:

  • Reframe the title/questions
  • Redraft the planner including the effect of the audience on interpretation in the conclusion.
  • Omit the bibliography from the proposal document; it is only needed for the Literature review.

Comments on my evidence against learning outcomes:

LO1 undertaken research and study demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your area of specialisation and built a theoretical framework for your creative practice

  • Here I should evidence my research methodologies, semiotics leading to discourse analysis and case studies (Practise research) on artists.

LO2 synthesised and articulated your critical, contextual, and conceptual knowledge and understanding into a coherent critique of advanced academic standard

  • I’m getting there but needs firming up

LO3 applied your own criteria of judgement, reviewed, criticised and taken responsibility for your own work with minimum guidance

  • Good that I identified that Saussurian semiotics needs further development for a good understanding of visual signification.

LO4 selected and applied information management skills and used appropriate technology in the production of an accomplished critique with minimal supervision

  • Tutor gave some suggestions for further reading on affect/effect.

Next post: https://nkssite6.photo.blog/category/body-of-work/coursework-body-of-work/part-two-chance/

CONTEXTUAL STUDIES ASSIGNMENT 2: REFLECTIONS AGAINST LEARNING OUTCOMES

/ niki / Leave a comment

Though it seems to have taken me a long time, to complete the literature review in particular, I now have a more through understanding of the frameworks that I propose to use and a good understanding of my sources.

Here is my reflection against learning outcomes:

LO1 undertaken research and study demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your area of specialisation and built a theoretical framework for your creative practice

  • I have researched widely, there was much that I researched that wasn’t written in my literature review, but it helped me to articulate in my work.
  • Taking on feedback from assignment 1 I hope that I have kept my writing tighter this time and defined terms for the general reader as advised.
  • I am unsure whether I should have been more critical of the stances/theories of my sources, but I have demonstrated how they have developed and been criticised by others.

LO2 synthesised and articulated your critical, contextual, and conceptual knowledge and understanding into a coherent critique of advanced academic standard

  • I have concentrated my literature review around objects of enquiry or sources in two areas. Firstly, methods of finding meaning in photography, largely concentrating on Semiology. Secondly around affect and effect in photography. In my dissertation I plan to apply these opinions to the landscape photography of two photographers, Minor White, and Peter Blakemore, but I hoped I judged correctly that this only needs a light touch in the literature review.
  • I created this mind map to help me to to frame my dissertation title/question:
  • I believe I have contextualised my sources and their place in my enquiry.
  • I hope I have demonstrated the relevance of my texts to the focus of my enquiry and made links between most of them.

LO3 applied your own criteria of judgement, reviewed, criticised, and taken responsibility for your own work with minimum guidance

  • I have evaluated sources as I’ve read them and returned and reread them until I have understood them.
  • I had initial guidance from my tutor, but this may have been confused by guidance from another CS tutor running our CS monthly Study group – I have tried to take on guidance from both though this may have confused my path. It will be good to have depth feedback from my tutor now before I begin writing my dissertation.
  • I have indicated in my dissertation proposal, where I feel I need to expand my research, namely with more contextual reference from the landscape work of Minor White and John Blakemore. I have also queried whether I should expand my dissertation to include the effect of audience on interpretation of meaning in landscape images, but I suspect that this will widen my research when I should be narrowing and deepening my area of enquiry. I welcome further input from my tutor on this.

LO4 selected and applied information management skills and used appropriate technology in the production of an accomplished critique with minimal supervision

  • I have interwoven primary and secondary sources, which are a mixture of Books, Journals, essays, reviews, and interviews from both physical and virtual sources. I have not been particularly successful with using the UCA library, except with Jstor.org, and need to get further guidance on this to make the best of it – I seem to be purchasing many books myself. Going forward I may need to take out a paid subscription to academia.edu and Google Scholar. I have no problem ascertaining research to read, but sometimes I am thwarted sourcing it.
  • I use Paperpile for my referencing and am compiling various reference/research lists
  • I can still build on my information management skills.
  • I have used mind maps at every stage to organise my thoughts and next steps.

Next post: https://nkssite6.photo.blog/2022/08/21/contextual-studies-assignment-2-submission/

CONTEXTUAL STUDIES ASSIGNMENT 2: RESEARCH ROUND UP

/ niki / Leave a comment

Summary of research for assignment 2 Literature review and dissertation proposal

The breadth of my reading and some of the depth will be seen in my Literature review and dissertation proposal. I have made many notes whilst reading though I don’t intend to publish them here as I wrote them as working documents for myself with page and citation references.

I will give a brief overview of the items that I researched and made notes on for later use and to aid my general understanding.

On semiology

I began with Visual Methodologies (Rose, 2001), which was a revisit of chapter 2 “The Good Eye” (looking at pictures using compositional interpretation), and chapter 4 semiology: laying bare the prejudices beneath the smooth surface of the beautiful. I also read chapter 6 on discourse analysis i: text, intertextuality and context. I haven’t research Foucault which I know is a big area as I’m not convinced it is relevant to my area of enquiry. From here I read ‘Saussure versus Peirce: Models for a semiotics of Visual Art’ (Iverson, 1986) to begin my research on Peirce and them read more widely on Peirce and then continued on to expanding my previous reading of Barthes on semiotics.

Bate (2009) was useful for background and clarity on semiology and other areas of photographic theory and history on the language of photography. I used Chandler (2002) for some clarification on semiotics.

On documentary versus artistic expression in Landscape photography

I began with Benjamin (1931) and Clarkson (2019) recommended by my tutor which were useful on the tension between art and photography. Bull (2010) as well as giving me background on the meaning of photographs also gave good commentary on photography as art. I explored more on Szarkowski on expression on photography, beginning with Mirrors and Windows (1978) which led to more book purchases and have much more material to use.

The area that I read much on but haven’t included in my Literature review were photographers, Minor White and John Blakemore. Bunnell (Cronan, 2014) and Badger (1977) suggested by my tutor were good starting places, and led to more research and material for future use. This I will use in my dissertation to give context to emotional expression and plurality of meaning in photography, equivalence, and metaphor.

I revisited Berger’s texts for background on looking and seeing (Berger, 1980, 1972), personal interpretation and aesthetics for attention, but didn’t include in my work at this stage. Another area of research that I touched on but have left for now is the affect of audience on the meaning of photographs.

The full list of texts that I have read are listed in my literature review and my dissertation proposal.

References:

Badger, G. (1977) ‘Introduction’ In: British Image 3: John Blakemore: Exhibition. London: Arts Council. pp.7–10.

Bate, D. (2009) Photography: The Key Concepts. New York: Berg publishers.

Benjamin, W. (1931) in his Little History of Photography, Die literarische Welt, (Gesammelte Schriften, II), 368–385.

Berger, J. Blomberg, S, Fox, C, Dibb, M, Hollis, R (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.

Berger, J. (1980) USES OF PHOTOGRAPHY. [Email sent to Sontag, S. 1980]. At: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxqbHMxMDZpbnRyb3RvZG9jc3R1ZGllc3xneDo0ZjVlYmEyZjk1YWUyNjdl (Accessed 23/04/2022).

Chandler, D. and Dr, D. C. (2002) Semiotics: The Basics. (London): Routledge.

Clarkson, G. (2019) Documentary evidence and artistic expression. At: https://www.oca.ac.uk/weareoca/education/documentary-evidence-and-artistic-expression/?cn-reloaded=1 (Accessed 04/04/2022).

Cronan, T. (2014) ‘Aperture Magazine Anthology: The Minor White Years, 1952–1976, by Peter C. Bunnell’ In: History of Photography 38 (2) pp.204–206.

Iverson, M. (1986) ‘Saussure versus Peirce: Models for a semiotics of Visual Art’ In: Rees, A.L. and Borzello, F. (eds.) The New Art History. London: Camden Press. pp.82–94.

Rose, G. (2001) ‘Visual Methodologies. An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials’ In: PDF At: https://www.miguelangelmartinez.net/IMG/pdf/2001_Rose_Visual_Methodologies_book.pdf (Accessed 17/08/2021).

Szarkowski, J. (1978) Mirrors and Windows: American Photography Since 1960. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

Next post: https://nkssite6.photo.blog/2022/06/05/contextual-studies-assignment-2-draft-literature-proposal/

CONTEXTUAL STUDIES: RELEVANT NOTES FROM STUDY MEETINGS AND HANGOUTS

/ niki / Leave a comment

CS NOTES from hangouts and prep ass 23.3.22

WHERE I AM AT WITH MY BOW:

Intentions:

  • to share the effect of the landscape on me.
  • To communicate the harmony and mutual relationships in the ancient woodlands
  • To express my feeling about community through the landscape of the ancient woodlands
  • To represent something of myself in the landscape

CS ACTIONS:

  1. Understand what is required in the lit review
  2. Decide what the key points are that I want to review in the contextual literature (feedback notes) – a core premise or theme and a visual methodology to analyse.
  3. Send Garry a summary of the key points I want to review in the contextual literature

USEFUL POINTS FROM CS STUDY SESSIONS:

29.7.21 L2 to 3:

How to Write Better Essays by Bryan Greetham

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucreative-ebooks/detail.action?docID=296364

Critical Thinking Skills by Stella Cottrell

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucreative-ebooks/detail.action?docID=6234915

https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess/articles

Critical lens section 2: Skillset Resource https://learn.oca.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=257#section-2

Good Writing Practice  and Research Methods resource

29.11.21 L3

  • Research helps you to work out where your works fits into the photographic world
  • Talk about your ideas, challenges, methodology (approach) We articulate better visually when we articulate in writing and vice versa, the two aid each other. Articulation is needed to open the next door.
  • Consider-redefine-reconsider-redefine
  • Diary key words and how one leads to another
  • Document your journey done prep, do journey, then reflect
  • Pinpoint academic areas that I need help with and vocalise on forums

31.1.22 L3

In the Lit review and dissertation proposal, what is the normal number of photographers to use?

Ariadne: Less is more, with analysis, we are not here to provide lists but contextual analysis, ask how many do you need to contextualise your work? Think why are they there, and why have you chosen them, use 4-5 maximum. The Lit review should be a clear, in-depth review of my literature, to contextualise my thoughts; you will read more than you’ll summarise in your lit review. The lit review should be the backbone of my contextual framework, texts that my argument can’t do without, interrelationship, extrapolation – be brutal to get depth.

  • No problem with moving away from your Lit review with your works, it shows development, but explain why you moved away from it.
  • Don’t assume your narrative is evident in the evidence you share.

28.2.22 L3

Consider why what I’m working on/researching fascinates me

Follow tracks before they grow cold

28.3.22

Discussions on literature reviews

  • It’s an abstract concept which should not be rigid, it should allow you to change direction, it’s just a step in the research
  • Though it might not seem immediately relevant it is about the journey rather than the output
  • Treat it as a theoretical framework to return to
  • It is relevant to everything we do including BOW – could theoretically do one for BOW
  • Helps you to synthesis things that are relevant and not so relevant and to synthesis them
  • Helps you to find and make links in your own work

Q to those who’ve finished it: How has the lit review developed in your dissertation drafts?

  • It gives a structure
  • Keeps you on track

Q: How can you work out what is relevant in your research?

  • Tutor guidance – so I should seek this now
  • Look at potential sources
  • Abstracts, summaries, tables of contents, introductions

Best if the literature review has some uniformity:

  • Relate the sources to each other
  • Firstly, discuss them source by source but then connect them together to make a theoretical framework

25.4.22

Q: How to decide what to cut out from your work to meet a word count.

  • Be concise- eradicate the imprecise
  • Take out repetition
  • Move some info to footnotes
  • Be especially precise in introductions and conclusions, Only 5-6 sentences each. The first and the  last sentences are particularly important and should echo each other

Remember the literature review can morph, as long as you explain your reasoning. Later Q: so how would I rewrite? Completely? Or as a comment on?

My question: How do I stop researching and write my literature review?

A: The literature review is the framework to form my argument – to form the context. In order to avoid self plagurism need to reformulate later.

  • Ask what do I really need for this?
  • What would I need to include if explaining to someone else
  • Keep to the essentials – it is important to analysis to the full potential
  • Analyse the most important blocks I need – 4-5 sources only

My question: If the literature review is to form the theoretical framework for my argument do I only use theorists/philosophers?  Ie; not those who critique the work of my chosen photographers? A:

  • Ask how important is their work to the topic?
  • Do they argue about the photographers work or the central arguments?
  • If semiology is important it would be daft not to include Barthes

Next Post: https://nkssite6.photo.blog/2022/06/05/contextual-studies-assignment-2-research-round-up/

CONTEXTUAL STUDIES: UPDATE

/ niki / Leave a comment

31.3.22

So it been a while, I’ve been working on my BOW assignment 2 which is now submitted. I probably should have been working on my literature review at the same time, however I have needed to get a direction in my head for that before I could move on. Now I’ve got that direction, I’ve the confidence to start on my dissertation proposal and literature review.

Preparations

  • I have pulled together much of the advice and information that I have gathered on writing a literature review into one document. This has helped to focus my mind on what is required and how to be effective,
  • I have collated ideas, that I’ve gained from various peer groups that I engage with.
  • I have revisited the feedback given by my Tutor form CS assignment 2 and noted suggestions made for CS part 2. Stimulated by this I have begun research in some of those areas.
  • I have collected together research that I’ve not yet used, which will feed into my literature review and my dissertation proposal, some may also inform my BOW.

Reflection

I now feel in a good position to begin putting together my ideas so that I might in turn send as my tutor suggested key points that I want to review in my contextual literature and move myself towards ta core premise or theme and a visual methodology to analyse in my work.

21.4.22

Back again and ready to re-immerse. I have been reading and researching, both paths I have found and texts suggested by my CS Tutor, who I contacted a few weeks ago with a summary of key points that I want to review in my contextual literature.

I have expanded my reading and investigated my area of interest further, made notes as I have gone along. Whilst reading I reflected on:

•       Documentary and artistic expression in Landscape photography

•       Landscape genre as a genre

  • Tension between effect- express, and affect -emotional responses

•       Possible title: Mirrors & windows in the Landscape photography of Minor White and John Blakemore. However I think I need to reform this as a question.

My reading covered:

  • Practitioners who express or inspire emotional responses in their work:  John Blakemore and Minor White.
  • Methodology: Semiotics (Rose, Saussure, Pierce- most relevant to images)
  • Rose “The good eye”- how contemporary image makers work against that interpretation

Rose: Discourse analysis but I don’t see the relevance to my work at the moment

I have decided to exclude the more contemporary work of the Inside the Outside collective, to narrow down my focus, however this means that I can use these inspirations in my BOW work.

From this I have organised my research notes and made links. I now have enough research to begin writing my literature review and have narrowed down the focus of my proposed dissertation yet have still to completely define my question foor enquiry/title. This is where I am currently on key issues and debates:

  • The tension between effect (social/cultural) and affect (emotional/personal responses) in landscape photography
  • Mirrors (reflection of the artist/expression) and windows (knowing the world better/reality).

I recapped on my research on White and Blakemore to define my premise and form a title with a question and read dissertation advice especially on defining titles.

To form my tentative dissertation title, I then created a mind map to help brainstorm ideas and keywords and make related ideas, focus on the Key issues and debates and to find the main questions I intend to talk to.

Mind map:

The tentative title that I will work to at this stage is:

Does the camera have a good capacity to express an artist’s own thoughts, and emotional response to the landscape; Discuss with reference to the work of Minor White and John Blakemore.

My primary visual methodology is semiology, supplemented by compositional analylsis; I have yet to decide whether to also use Rose’s discourse analysis 1, more research is required.

25.4.22

Advice that I’ll use:

My Tutor:

  • Paragraph on each piece of major literature and how it links to my premise/title:
  • Relate the sources to each other and connect to make a theoretical framework

Ariadne at L3 study session:

I asked: How do I stop researching and write my literature review?

A: The literature review is the framework to form my argument – to form the context. In order to avoid self plagiarism need to reformulate later.

  • Ask what do I really need for this?
  • What would I need to include if explaining to someone else
  • Keep to the essentials – it is important to analysis to the full potential
  • Analyse the most important blocks I need – 4-5 sources only
  • That the writers should be significant theorists that argue about the photographers work I Other advice:
  • am using in CS, or my central arguments.

Other advice:

  • methodology: approach how I intend to go about my work
  • Objects of enquiry are elements I’ll examine to answer these question (texts, artists)
  • Content and conclusion of author
  • Relevance of text to my rationale
  • Critically compare approaches and conclusions of others, their consent and disagreement, how their work was received by critics
  • Indicate what I plan to explore further
  • How this relates to my BOW – reasons for choosing
  • Set my subject in the broad historical/social context with parameters

30.4.22

I need to stop researching now and write my literature review. I have determined my Core premise or theme and the main questions I want to address as well as the key points/theorists that I want to review in my contextual literature

One point I am unclear on is whether I include in the literature review commentary on the work of White and Blakemore whose landscape work I will use to contextualise the debate I the eventual dissertation.

22.5.22

The literature review and the dissertation proposal are now finished and just have to update my blog before posting to my tutor.

I only gave the briefest mention of Minor White and John Blakemore and commentators on their work in my Literature review, but have included them in my dissertation proposal. I hope that this was the right approach.

Next post: https://nkssite6.photo.blog/2022/06/05/contextual-studies-relevant-notes-from-study-meetings-and-hangouts/