WEEK 14: SUPERVISOR SESSION (W/ SHANE)
T E S T I N S T A L L A T I O N / R E V I E W
This photography project seeks to explore the complexity of personality and individuality, informed by fashion photography. The project is a re-interpretation of the Central European Gesamtkunstwerk – the unification of a singular concept presented through several art forms (Tate, n.d.). First, facets of the multi-layered self are revealed through the photograph printed onto the fabric of custom-made clothing, and later through the capturing of the subject wearing these unique clothes in a personally related surrounding. The location, lighting, mood, posing, and editing reflect further layers of their personality. All decisions when creating this body of work are to support the aim and follow the concept of showing several facets of a person. As a result, the portrayed person wears and is surrounded by a representation of their multi-layered self. And finally, also the form of installation relates to separate individuals joined to a group.
T H E R E P O R T / E X E G E S I S
Use correct quotation marks. “Someone saying something” 'Title of a book or so'. Or be consistent. Consistent »« it is.
- Do I need an extra figure list or simply reference the images in the bibliography? > Figure list and reference list.
- Reference list or bibliography? > Ask Alison. Alison: Whatever you prefer.
- Should my paragraph about Gesamtkunstwerk be in the description or rationale? Now it’s in both. > Both is correct. You need it in both as it's a central part of the project. Introduce it in the Description and then, in more detail, connect it to why you're doing it and its relation to the project in the Rationale.
- Size of images – the actual images or the prints with borders? > “Frame size” (paper size) which is the prints with borders (only specify the border if the ratio is unconventional).
- Paper – the actual paper or proposed paper (gamut and/or rag)? > Proposed paper.
- Are the descriptions too short? I believe I’m at the lower end of the word count which I guess is ok as I write more in other chapters. > Now it's too descriptive. Add more about the individual parts. How each of them drove the research/framework/narrative of the bigger project. What were you exploring in Michelle's part that was different from exploring in Matt's part and what you might talk about differently when you introduce Nikola's part. »Michelle's sought to identify/explore the nature of …, Qi's continued on from what I was looking at in Michelle's however in this instance I did … Nikola's culminated in …« Later when you discuss the projects, you go into more detail. The purpose of introducing each of them separately is to introduce what they were looking at rather than what the outcome was. »What was I exploring in those projects?« as opposed to »I decided to make three photographs of this size …«
Paragraph about the WHY
[Kwame Anthony Appiah article for the Times »What will future generations condemn us for«]
An interesting aspect about self-identity competing with authenticity. That we've moved past the authentic self (as it's a whole philosophy that sits behind the notions of authenticity/authentic self and how that relates to photography).
But don't use the word “opinion”. The meaning of the word has changed. It's used for something that can't be quantified »I believe«. Rather “in his view / his research suggests that authenticity is an outdated term” > and you have to critique that more robust/scholarly writing around that and then continue »I intentionally combine self-identity and the authentic self as a way of interrogating these conflicting views«.
The paragraph is a bit repetitive at the end.
- Image references of moodboards – I attached all the moodboards (sorry for the low quality) and you’ll see there are a lot of images. I’m just not sure if people want to see all of them. And also, not sure if I’ll be able to find all sources for the images. It will take me days to reference all of them. Not sure if I should waste my time on that (at the same time, I might find the solution to that once I lay out the document and see if it makes sense to add all the pages).
- Alison commented a while ago that Barthes is so old that I should relate his thinking to today. I assume the same applies to Goffman. Therefore, the paragraph about Varcoe and Bovone referencing the two dead white men. Is the paragraph too short? I reference Bovone at the beginning of the rationale, but Varcoe doesn’t appear anywhere else in my report (so far). > Not the best references. Both have been so influential that someone even writing about the authentic self and photographic self even today (last 5 years, some journal article) would be extending those ideas through their own analysis and critique or research project. Barthes: Geoffrey Batchen on Camera Lucida.
- I have 2 variations. Any preference? > »In what ways can a fashion informed photography project reveal the complex nature of the authentic self / self-identity …« Assume they can. Therefore, the question is »in what ways«. The research question has to be answerable, located within a field of inquiry, provide a means of investigation that goes beyond yes/no.
- Is my process description too long? I left out all the details but still my methodology is about 600 words more than it should be. Is it correct that it’s ok to write more than the official word count? > First paragraph maybe is not necessary. Yes, it's too long. Start the chapter with the Methodology (outline it and how you used it) and then use the discussion to unpack more of how you used the methodology. There you can fold more of the process into it.
- What do you think of my methodology?
PROGRAM STUDIO DOCUMENTATION
- It says to include “summary statement, images and documentation” … What's the documentation? Are the final images enough?
- How should I reference Soliloquy? It's 22 images which seems a bit much to reference individually. Especially, as the photographs don't have individual titles.