Feedback as it arrives which may influence any further edits I am bound to make after some distance and before assessment. (I have already seen much I will adjust or hone).
- From someone whose clarity of thought I always envy:
Really interesting read. A few hyper-critical comments:
- Title: intriguing, draws in the reader – but for me the subtitle doesn’t add much
- Intro: describing the digital revolution as “1950 to date” distracted me… I accept there might be an argument for that claim but in isolation and without further justification it looks odd
- Page 6: personal opinion, but I think any discussion of Bourdieu’s theory of photography as a fundamentally bourgeois endeavour should recognise that whilst this was true of most of the medium’s existence, it is much less so in the democratised, pervasive and low-cost digital photography / social sharing era
- Page 10: you could explain Verfremdungseffekt for the casual reader (i.e. me) 🙂
- Pages 10-12: I’m not sure whether including your own work is considered appropriate for a Lit Review? It’s definitely encouraged for the final essay but the Lit Review is intended to draw from established sources (no offence!)
- Conclusion: “according to the latest scientific philosophy” should probably have a reference attached
2. More useful suggestions –
- 5 – re reality and bourgeoisie limited view of it: This is a really interesting idea and as I read it I am reminded of social media and the use of it to display ‘perfection’ in our lives, rather than ‘reality’ (if such things exist!)
- And likewise here – do I now think in twitter or facebook comments when I have an experience? I wonder how much social media has changed our experiences of life…
- 6 – Re the growing public ‘show’ of emotions: And how we have all embraced this diminishing of privacy in our own lives – willingly giving all to advertisers to use as they like!
- 7 – Re Sontag’s statement about images becoming art: Such as archive photographs becoming more elevated in importance with time?
- 9 – Love this link to physics! You may need a reference here? – I agree but it comes from lots of reading and was confirmed for my in the Systems theory book but Karen Barad’s description shifts the meaning slightly and I need to think about it more before I re-write this section.
- Include a Muholi image – good idea
3. approximation of what was said – you discuss 9 or so texts but you’ve probably read about 50 and my feeling was you have sold yourself short. I replied but I only have so many words and if I mentioned all those texts then I’d only be able to write one or two sentences about each book. And under these circumstances, I wonder if this assignment can only ever be a snapshot of where I am at the moment.
SJField - OCA Level Three Study Blog 