Category: Contextual Studies

CS A5: thoughts New Materialism(s) – Critical Posthumanism Network

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ Leave a comment

One of things I have not touched on at all in the essay is New Materialism. Barad’s work comes under that heading and it seems remiss not to mention it. I’ve avoided it though as the topic I’ve covered is so vast, and my initial iterations were so rambling, I felt it was adding yet another idea into the mix which would be confusing/diluting. Since the essay is more streamlined now (I think) perhaps this is something I can address but I wonder if it would be better to add it to the appendix. As I said, I think I need to severely cut Appendix no. i anyway, maybe altogether – but perhaps I can add it there.

Then, if I do that, should I add a brief criticism of New Materialism? Zizek has stuff to say (but he sniffs a lot and thought Trump would be better than Clinton so I’ve less time for him lately …)

Things to consider..

New Materialism(s) – Critical Posthumanism Network
— Read on criticalposthumanism.net/new-materialisms/

CS A5: Referencing and Harvard Rules

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ 5 Comments

There is often a lot of chat on the various OCA forums about referencing and the Harvard rules. I try not to get too overly focused on these as I have so much to think about and I find it a bit distracting. It’s hard enough for someone who is undoubtedly dyslexic, but can’t officially say as I have never been properly diagnosed. Simply organising thoughts, getting names right, just putting words in the right order is immensely challenging anyway. However, of course, I want to get the citations in the right place too as it would be dreadful to lose % based on that.  I knew I would need to address this roundabout now and am lucky enough to know someone with a lot of academic writing experience who has proofed my referencing.

However, I think it would be useful for the OCA to offer a short online tutorial occasionally to cover referencing rules. This would have been especially helpful after they changed, a little while back. Tutors could attend too since they seem to give conflicting, out of date advice, if any at all – even though the guidelines are clear and categorical. When students make enquiries with various non-teaching OCA staff, again the replies can be confusing. The whole thing ends up causing students undue worry about something that we shouldn’t have to get too stressed about  – because the rules are actually clear. But! …yes, there is a but – there are lots of them, and if you’re not used to it/dyslexic, it’s too easy to get simple things wrong.

We also all have different learning styles for different types of information. For me, the lack of spoken interaction across the board with the OCA has been one of the biggest difficulties as I pick things up quickly when I hear them, but I can miss relatively straightforward stuff when it’s written down in a dry document. (Youtube videos have been a godsend for me – but having a live person answering questions is always the best.)

  • For instance, I completely missed the fact you must put the citation after the surname when it’s in the text,
  • i.e. Barad (2007: 49) talks about a “Cartesian habit of mind”.
  • But when it’s in not in the text, it goes after the quote, as I had been doing with everything:
  • We all live with a “Cartesian habit of mind” (Barad, 2007: 49).

It also took me ages to get it into my head that the full stop needs to be after the end bracket in the previous example – it’s something I should have been getting right throughout the course really. I’m aware, this might seem impossibly simple for anyone who has not spent a lifetime getting their left and right the wrong way round (a typical dyslexic habit).

These things are so simple and so obvious once they’ve sunk in, though. I am sure there are students who get it straight away. But for those of us who don’t – there are several, if the various emails and forum threads are anything to go by – I really think it would be good to have the chance to attend one-off tutorials (with someone who can be trusted) which I mentioned above, just about this topic. By keeping it consistent, so that everyone at the OCA is aware of the same advice, and limited to Harvard Rules, the information would not get buried. And the worry people feel about it would be a relatively easy stress to address or even do away with altogether.

 

 

 

CS A5: Extract updated

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ Leave a comment

Photography discourse is littered with opposing statements such as ‘photography is more important than ever’, or else it is ‘dead and irrelevant’. These proclamations have lately become as problematic as the long-held mechanistic Western view of reality, which arguably fosters these kinds of binarised positions.

However, we are no longer living in a world consisting of isolated objects, people, and places spread across the planet and universe, while time is only singular and forward-moving. Instead, reality seems increasingly emergent, dynamic, multi-dimensional, and rhizome-like.

Drawing on Karen Barad’s agential realism, a synthesis of quantum science and poststructuralism, the ensuing discussion results in more questions than answers. It may also be hindered by inescapable limitations of, to quote Barad, the “Cartesian habit of mind” (2007: 49) most of us inhabit. Such habits inform our language, academic conventions, and, of course, photographic critical theory. Barad’s phenomenologically informed philosophy is a threat to the boundaries photography has used to promote itself even while claiming to challenge the status quo. While describing some tenets of agential realism, focusing in particular on the phenomenological nature of existence and Barad’s use of the word entanglement, a range of lens-based art is examined in an effort to make sense of apparently contradictory statements by well-regarded and oft-quoted theorists about the photographic image today. How can Michael Fried’s (2008) assertion, photography matters as art as never before remain valid alongside Daniel Palmer’s (2014:144) statement, photography as we once knew is finished?  Could both be true at the same time in an entangled world? The possibilities undoubtedly demand a deeper discussion than a 5000+/- word limit allows for, however, the paradigm described above presents image-makers of all persuasions with conundrums that increasingly cannot and should not be ignored.

 

(Edited 7/8/20)

History

The long-held Western view which suggests isolated and unrelated objects, people, and places are spread across the planet and universe, while time is only singular and forward moving, is less and less convincing. Rather than seeing a hierarchical collection of separate entities existing within linear space and time, reality increasingly feels emergent, dynamic, multi-dimensional, and rhizome-like.

Drawing on Karen Barad’s synthesis of quantum science and poststructuralism, coined ‘agential realism’, this 5350-word essay results in more questions than answers. It may also be hindered by inescapable limitations of, to quote Barad, a “Cartesian habit of mind” (2007: 49). Such habits inhabit our language and are embedded in our perception of reality, asacademic wellconvention, asand academicphotography conventioncritical theory. However, structural transformation means inevitable changesshifts, whether we agree or not, are aware, in denial, or remain oblivious. While describing some key tenets of agential realism, focusing in particular on the phenomenological nature of existence and Barad’s use of the word entanglement, a range of lens-based art is examined in an effort to make sense of apparently contradictory statements by well-regarded and oft-quoted theorists about the photographic image today. How can<span style=&quot;color:var(–color-text);font-size:1rem;&quot;> </span><span style=&quot;color:var(–color-text);font-size:1rem;&quot;>Michael Fried’s (2008) assertion that, photography matters as art as never before (2008), isremain queriedvalid alongside Daniel Palmer’s suggestion that photography is all but over (2014:144).is finished? Could both be true at the same time in an entangled world? The possibilities probably demand a longer and deeper discussion than a 5000+/- word limit allows for, however, the paradigm described above presents image-makers of all persuasions with conundrums that increasingly cannot and should not be ignored.</span>

 


			

	


				
					


	

		
CS: A5 Edits following tutor feedback
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ Leave a comment					

				

		
Following the chat I had with Matt a couple of week’s ago and his feedback, I have finally managed to get the word count down – I suspect it is a bit less than stated on the cover now and will recount before assessment (I counted over the weekend but cut more this morning.)


I have emphasised the link between poststructuralism and the science philosophy/science using Barad’s interpretation far more than before, not so much due to Matt’s response – in fact, he told me not to undermine my argument after I attempted to accommodate notes made by two quantum scientists, both of whom said, but you can’t feel quantum fluctuations. It was that which made me grit my teeth (yes, I am aware!) and look through Barad’s work again and then to underscore the links between PS and the science.


Despite my frustrations, I am grateful to the scientists as their comments resulted in a more focused essay, I think, and I need to add thanks to them on the document.


I need to write to artists included and request permission to show their images on the blog version of the essay.


Introduction still isn’t quite right and I need to look at it again.


Appendix One could probably do with being heavily edited or even cut altogether now as I address the topic in the essay more.


At this point, finally, if any peers do read this yet again, I am now ready to address proofing/corrections if you notice them. It will be proofed by someone external in any case before the assessment deadline and has been through Grammarly. I do hope to God I have picked up the really daft mistakes/typos now and that everyone’s name is right.


CS A5 Image in the age of entanglement – July27th


 


 

			

	


				
					


	

		
CS A5: Tutor Feedback
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ 2 Comments					

				

		
Matt read a recent version which I had worked on following some interaction with a couple of quantum scientists.


I have since, following a chat with Matt, reworked the essay a bit and am now at a point where I need to edit down again – I suspect it is about 1000 words over but am just guessing and so I will need to keep working on it for a while longer to bring in it down to the correct word count. Online CS A5 Image in the age of entanglement – July14th


A5 CS Feedback Form SJFIeld




Written by the student, and endorsed by the tutor.


Key points


    

  • An interesting, ambitious essay which can be improved with some additions and clarifications.
    • 

  • Does the argument suggest we need a “new way of thinking about any form of representation” (MW) altogether?
    • 



Summary of tutorial discussion


    

  • I need to expand on why I have ‘lumped’ photography and moving image together. (Hopefully can be done with a couple of references either paraphrased or cited directly.)
    • 

  • No need to undermine myself – believe in the post-structuralist argument I’m making.
    • 

  • Do I need to follow through with the discussion about still photography falling short, if so, what comes next, process-led practice, participatory practice, etc. Matt asks, “Is the barrier created by the lens between artist and subject too great to undo? Is the obvious next step to eliminate the use of photography at all?”
    • 

  • Perhaps there is a bit of room to discuss the tyranny of Western cinematic montage patterns and conventions being absorbed into our perception of time, personal narrative etc.
    • 

  • Be clearer about indeterminism being different to uncertainty (clarify the passage)
    • 

  • Temper a couple of overly bold statements.
    • 

  • Have not made enough of a case for introduction of imperialist discussion – can it be woven in more fluently or else dropped?
    • 

  • From Matt: The anthropologist, Roger Sensi, in his book, Art, Anthropology and the Gift, looks at the relationship between art and anthropology and particularly about the nature of collaboration and exchange. Quoting Marilyn Strathern from her work, The Gender of the Gift, he says, it is at the point of interaction that a singular identity is established’. From this perspective, people are constantly being made and re-made through relations, and things are constantly being created not in contradistinction to persons but “out of persons”. Through gifts, people give a part of themselves. They are not something that stands for them, a representation, but they are “extracted from one and absorbed by another”. This continuity between people and things is what she called a “mediated exchange,” as opposed to the unmediated exchange of commodities, which is based on a fundamental discontinuity between people and things”.
    • 



Reading suggestions


See above


Summary 






Strengths
Areas for development




Interesting and challenging subject
 No need to justify or undermine self




 Relevant
Explain why putting photography in the same category as moving image




 Ambitious
 Be clearer about introducing the imperialist section




 
 


  







Any other notes


 






Tutor name
Matt White










Next assignment due
n/a






 


 


 


 


 


 


 

			

	


				
					


	

		
BOW CS: Developments/Updates
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ 10 Comments					

				

		
A couple of weeks ago, I planned to devote a day to OCA work. The kids’ computer went awry and so I had to hand my Mac over to one of them to attend a live lesson, and I ended up cutting down an overgrown ivy bush which I’ve been begging the landlords to deal with, to no avail, for years. I ended up spending the day at it and went to bed exhausted. (It’s still not quite finished!)


As I did, I noticed the way the wooden fence had warped, rotted, become enmeshed with the plant, and of course, the entangled nature of its growth. And ever since, I have been thinking – that is not quantum entanglement. That is physical entanglement. I have been thinking about this ever since and what that means for the whole thrust of my essay.


I gathered up the bravery to send the essay to a couple of scientists working or studying in a branch of quantum mechanics. I asked the following:


    

  • 

      

    • Big worries of mine apply to my use of the word Entanglement which informs the whole essay (:-/) and also the brief description of Superposition. The other night I lay awake thinking, I need to make clear that quantum entanglement is different from the entanglement of a fungal system/rhizome (or any physical system for that matter) because in QS (I think) we don’t have any way of seeing how two entities might be connected, we simply see, under certain experimental conditions, that they are. (Am aware, there’s is stuff we can’t see but suspect must exist)
      • 

    • If that is so, do I need to suggest that the entanglement of language, time, ideas is ‘merely’ metaphor, which Karen Barad asks us to avoid. Also, if that is the case, the whole argument of matter and meaning being ‘entangled’ is undermined. If the essay is flawed because of this, that’s OK, as long as I acknowledge it. I also think I am muddying the difference between superposition and entanglement in my thinking – evident in the writing. There are a couple of highlighted sentences that concern me but basically, Part 1 which begins on p5 ends p22 would benefit from a scientist’s eye.
      • 

    

    • 



I am really glad I did ask. Thank you fellow Holly for asking her husband, Professor Alan Woodward from the University of Surrey to help out. I can almost hear the deep sigh – the following has helped me to clarify.


    

  • The concepts you are describing relate more to quantum social sciences and to philosophy than to quantum physics. Physicists would argue that quantum processes can only occur at the nano-particle level and cannot be applied to the Newtonian level (our experience of the world). Also, that quantum entanglement and superposition are provable physical processes. He’s aware that social sciences are importing some of the theory of quantum physics and of but argues that using them to describe human behaviour is a metaphor rather than a potentially provable fact. From a philosophical point of view, the concepts make sense, but it would be wise to steer clear of correlating them with the natural sciences.
    • 

  • An easy to understand explanation of superposition is to think of tossing a coin. When it is in the air it is neither heads nor tails but has the potential to be either. (I knew I had got this wrong – I have removed it as I suspected I would and focused on entanglement only for now – word count was an issue in any case.)
    • 



Everything is interrelated physically but the forces that have hold sway are different at different sizes. Take for example when you sit down on a chair – in our world, the Newtonian world, although everything is made of the same particles, you do not fall through the chair. At cosmological scale, the rotation of our solar system around the galaxy is something that clearly exists, but does not affect us at planetary level – the size and timescale are irrelevant to us. Equally, for most purposes, quantum forces are not relevant to our experience of the world.


 



The above section has prompted me to really underline the post-structural aspect of the essay, quoting Barad as well as using her repeated words to drum home the point that a Cartesian view is challenged in her reading. I have also quoted Prof. Woodward (I suspect Barad would refer to PW as a scientific realist) the use of the word by writing “Barad’s entanglement” often, as well as including the work philosophy to make that aspect loud and clear. I have in addition underlined the fact that entanglement in the physical world is not the same as quantum entanglement. But I have included extra citations from Barad about living in a quantum world and dissolving the boundaries between the two models – classical/quantum.


As far as correlating quantum processes with biology goes, this is something Vedral explicitly does over and over again in many of his talks online and in articles. I now appreciate that he is probably a maverick  – he does refer to “experimental” science when he discusses these macro quantum processes. I really wish I could ask Vedral some stuff but so far no joy in my attempts to contact him.


Later today I will be chatting with Matt and will then incorporate his advice and suggestions before posting another version which I hope will be closer to where it needs to be by September!


All in all – the doubts in my mind were right and I am extremely grateful to Holly and her husband for their time and patience. And thank goodness I took the time to cut down that ivy plant – it was a useful exercise for so many reasons in the end.


BOW Developments


I have been wondering about the online version of the work. I have always been very clear it should exist online and off but be not exactly the same. The online version should be animated and should take advantage of the possibilities offered by digital media rather than simply be an exact digital copy of the offline object.  A website like Lisa Barnards thegolddepository is an inspiration and the work may still go that way. But I have been playing with the idea of an ePublication book. Seeing another student using it was interesting as I was able to follow an informative email conversation that explored some of the pitfalls.


Here’s my first early experiment: https://indd.adobe.com/view/6b1b7241-7472-4f7c-becf-2d18508c8607


    

  • There are issues – my font is too small but I’ve animated it to go big and then it’s too big. I might need to address the font size and type throughout.
    • 

  • I don’t want animations on every page – judicious  – at the moments it’s just an early, oh, look what I can do here….
    • 

  • The moving image fragments I’ve placed are not sized correctly so they don’t work   – I need to take them into Premier Pro and size them exactly as they will be used. The scaling feature which works great with still images doesn’t handle moving image at all.
    • 

  • I will probably include a hyperlink to a short film – have asked someone if they’d be up for writing some music for it. That would take the viewer right out of the book so I need to consider carefully where to place it.
    • 

  • I am wondering about sound – at the moment there is no audio. Something to experiment with I guess.
    • 

  • I wonder if Lisa Barnard’s design people used InDesign to get some of those animations on her website… maybe that is something I can do anyway. Not sure. You can save as gifs and Squarespace does take gifs. But it’s a template and I am not comfortable operating outside the template – maybe need to look at creating web pages which feels daunting. But maybe the ePub book is enough… all things to consider.
    • 



 

			

	


				
					


	

		
Artist and CS/BOW thoughts: Alba Zari The Y Project
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ Leave a comment					

				

		
I stored this while doing Digital Image and Culture and was struck by some similarities. Although Zari is focusing on genetics, I am focusing on fragments of language (text, visual, cultural, personal) and looking at how that creates a dynamic self – and then looking at the contemporary issue of including digital entities in the lively, intra-active entanglement out of which ‘self’ emerges. There are questions in my work about the narcissistic nature of the contemporary ‘I’, as the AI I work with is sold as a friend but in fact, becomes a version of oneself through its training programme, which isn’t questioned as a problem – in fact, it’s marketed as a good thing.


There are similarities in presentation between Zari and my own work so far with layering and positioning – and that feels like something I should develop a further especially int the second half of the publication.


https://www.lensculture.com/articles/alba-zari-the-y


Having mentioned the self  – it is interesting to revisit Julian Baggini’s The Ego Trick. Here is a useful Ted Talk where he spoke to teens/students (I showed it to my son) and so it is really accessible as Baggini explains the idea that a core object such as the soul (or anything else – he refers to a watch) is never an object that pre-existed but rather an outcome – pre-and post-Cartesian view of the world. https://youtu.be/GFIyhseYTWg. It may be worth including some reference to this in my essay (if not the student talk, simply Baggini’s arguments, whom I had quoted in an earlier iteration with reference to different cultural ways of seeing reality around the world). If nothing else, his take on the self is another example of how we have moved beyond a certain place  – how the Cartesian reality is no longer tenable.








I think most people I’ve read in the last few years is in agreement with this rejection of ‘the core pre-determined object’


e.g. Christakis in Blueprint, Lupton in Data Selves, Jasanoff in The Biological Mind


– although there are exceptions such as Iain McGilchrist who says in a talk “of course there are objects!” with an air of frustration that anyone should suggest there aren’t – but I do wonder if this is just a semantic issue. Also object-orientated ontology – excuse the Wikipedia quote but for the sake of speed in these notes: “Object-oriented ontology maintains that objects exist independently (as Kantian noumena) of human perception and are not ontologically exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects.[4]

			

	


				
					


	

		
CS A5: NB NB – some additional notes after sending the essay to tutor (my own feedback)
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ Leave a comment					

				

		
    

  • I have focused on two things in Barad’s interpretation – entanglement and phenomenology = reality, fixed photograph’s role within. Since submitting I have gone back and rewritten a couple of sentences in the intro and conclusion to underline this point. (Already adjusted)
    • 

  • I have re-written the first sentence – it was a bit sloppy and I have tightened it up and changed the word ‘evolving’ to ‘shifting’ to avoid the idea of a linear journey for civilisation from bad to good. (Adjusted on Matt’s copy in Gdrive)
    • 

  • I am concerned Appendix i – the second half of it – should really be in the essay but can’t see the space for it.
    • 

  • I miss Deleuze’s segmentarity, which I wrote about in the first draft (A3) recognisable in Talmor’s work – and as an example of difference to the fluidity seen in Klingemann’s images – again cannot see the space for it.
    • 

  • There is a comment in Superposition about it not being a mixture  – I feel like this is too flippant and needs explaining but can’t (it’s too complex for me! and there is no space) Should I take it out? I think so – maybe the whole bit about superposition. Perhaps I can just use it elsewhere and rely on the glossary?
    • 

  • Objects – I probably should have acknowledged something like OTT but don’t have space. It may be worth simply acknowledging that not everyone agrees with a purely phenomenological reality – although Bohr’s interpretation makes it hard to argue with. (Not to mention Hoffman’s theories about seeing and the brain)
    • 

  • I would have liked to discussed Diffractive Practice (an agential realist notion) but took it out after A3 – again, I am not clear enough about it in my own head and there is no space. I have tried to write diffractively and one of Rowan’s comment was that I was a bit inconsistent which feels accurate. (see feedback)
    • 

  • Another thing Rowan mentioned was how the AI was trained – “it is programmed through existing patterns (can you please explicate what the ai was, how it was trained etc – this is important).” I think I do need to find a way to include this – but it may be that the information is included in supporting text for my BOW and rather than expand on it in the essay, I link to it. If the writing were a longer piece it would definitely warrant a whole section. For the sake of the BOW – it’s really important the AI is a proprietary app that costs me £6 a month – an artificial friend I subscribe to. That relates to the anatomisation of relations – which I really wanted to cover in the essay – and Zuboff’s book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism where she discusses behavioural surplus.  This is something I really need to think about because I will need to do quite a big edit at this stage if include it and it will be a very different essay.
    • 

  • In a longer piece, there would be a good argument to include references to King Lear – it seems it is a play about shifting paradigms but instead of like our time – moving from Cartesian towards post – it was pre-Cartesian to Cartesian. There is also so much symbolism about seeing and nothing being something which ties in with a section I recently cut about the void not being empty space.
    • 

  • The work by Mikhael Subotzky I saw this morning is so relevant. I really feel I ought to mention it in Part II – maybe even use one of his images for the cover
    • 

  • It was interesting to note that the first UVC assignment I wrote came under the course heading of The Interaction of Media.
    • 

  • Although the concepts I look at come from quantum mechanics, they’re not brand new or novel – Julian Baggini’s recent book on cultures around the world seems motivated by the desire to show how western ‘common sense’ looks to those not influenced by a Cartesian history – I removed a quotation and might need to underline this point again in intro and conclusion.
    • 

  • I may find a way to add one of two possible examples to Part 2 – both counter the documentary tradition by using the style or equipment of those ‘hero’ photographers – but if I do this I need to give space and word count over which is going to be very challenging
    • 












Or











    

  • And what a terrible shame not to have found space for this guy! (His book isn’t out in time in the U.K. – but there are interviews aplenty and I might even have a sneaky way of getting an early copy)
    • 








https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1115381/entangled-life/9781847925190


Overall – The essay feels a bit slim in parts right now. I have been through it, removed bits where I was a bit apologetic or seemed to be excusing things I’d included. I will wait until I have spoken with Matt before making any of the above adjustments and then upload another draft for assessment.

			

	


				
					


	

		
CA A5: Extended essay
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ Leave a comment					

				

		
I have submitted the essay to Matt for final comments. I do however need to address a few issues before submitting for assessment- see below:


Extract


CS A5 Image in the age of entanglement – Submitted to MW (only images with permission or from PR)


OCA form – Reflection 


    

  1. I need to seek permission for some images so those ones are blank in this particular online copy – Matt has the full version.
    2. 

  2. It is still a little over word count and I will need to edit down. I will do this after giving it a rest for a couple of weeks so I can see where edit
    3. 

  3. I will double-check the citation rules and seek advice – that kind of thing is a challenge. (I did spend an evening reading through them and hope it is nearly right).
    4. 

  4. I’ve uploaded an interim version on the Peer Feedback page to accompany the relevant comments written up on 10/06/2020 from peers to show development.
    5. 

  5. Finally (added a day after posting after some thought) I think I need to revisit the agential section – free will is really tricky: unconscious motivation, Pavlovian manipulation, Deleuze’s flow for example all need to be acknowledged and aren’t at the moment. This is an issue for word count – might detract from the main thread – entanglement- which I’m loath to do.
    6. 

  6. The same goes for determinism v. Indeterminism. There are still no clear cut answers despite Barad’s arguments.
    7. 



How things have changed from A4:


    

  1. I was confused about some key issues – I think I have clarified them in my own head, thanks to some advice from a friend who is far more knowledgeable than me, and hopefully, that has translated in the essay. (Also see the difference between version send to the feedback group and the version sent to Matt – it is significant).
    2. 

  2. The essay is much more focused on entanglement along with what is needed to describe that. I think it reads better, is more accessible, but it has probably lost something in the meantime – but overall it is better now.
    3. 

  3. I have restructured it – rather than three chapters, it has two Parts as well as an Introduction and Conclusion. I did this by adding the end of what was Chp. 3 to the conclusion. I think it works better for this length of essay.
    4. 

  4. The essay is still and will forever be (fatally?) flawed by the fact it is too big to tackle in 5000 words (not that I think I could manage more at this time – it has been difficult to research and then manage the information).
    5. 

  5. As challenging as it has been, I have learnt a great deal, so it was worth it
    6. 

  6. I wish I could simply say reread certain sections but I have rewritten and restructured so much I do think it requires another full reading. However, specifically, there is a clearer opening that states the intention, – intra-action, agential realism and indeterminism have all been refined and I think the descriptions are more accurate in terms of Barad’s descriptions now. I have put a lot more of me into Part Two – I was worried it was a bit of a rant now – but hopefully, Matt will let me know if I’ve gone too far.
    7. 

  7. I have added and taken away image examples.
    8. 

  8. The Conclusion is longer.
    9. 



 

			

	


				
					


	

		
CS A5: Draft extract
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ 2 Comments					

				

		
A first attempt – it’s a bit of a dense, to say the least. But a first stab and will see what Matt says about it – pretty sure I might want to rewrite it to be more friendly but I’ve never written an extract before and am not entirely sure about acceptable tones:


A 5000-word essay exploring the structural significance of digital imagery within a global reality that is largely networked, interconnected and interactive, when formerly, it was more likely to be viewed as a series of isolated albeit hierarchical entities.


Drawing on Karen Barad’s synthesis of quantum science and critical analysis, coined ‘agential realism’, the essay results in more questions than answers. It is also hindered by limitations of, to quote Barad, a “Cartesian habit of mind” (2007: 49). Such habits inform the language we use to describe contemporary reality and are embedded in acceptable academic conventions. However, structural transformation means inevitable changes to our language, perception and physical reality, whether we agree or not, are aware or oblivious. While describing some key tenets of an agential realist’s view, focusing in particular on entanglement, a range of visual art is examined in an effort to make sense of apparently contradictory statements by well-regarded and oft-quoted theorists about the photographic image today. Michael Fried’s assertion that photography matters as art as never before (2008) is queried alongside Daniel Palmer’s suggestion that photography is all but over (2014:144). Can these seemingly opposite views both be true at the same time in an entangled world? Despite the difficulty of tackling a subject too far-reaching to be adequately broached within a 5000-word limit, the effects of the changes described above have led to ethical difficulties, which present image-makers of all persuasions with conundrums which increasingly cannot and should not be ignored.