Category: Extended Written Project

BOW: A5 publication development

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ 2 Comments

It is interesting to think of the term ‘compost’ which Harraway uses to describe us – and how I described the following – “… the composited intra-active nature of the self/others and reality – with that in mind, this work by Alba Zari is an useful reference – https://www.lensculture.com/articles/alba-zari-the-y”.  Different usage, similar etymological paths, however.

Having thought about this over the last couple of days, I feel like I may have solved an issue I was having with the second half of the publication. It didn’t feel like the same work as the first half. I decided to make more of the composited intra-actions I had set up in the first half – and carry those through.

This is the latest iteration – BOWA5 (sizeA4) (1 July)

I am not sure if I will be able to have red on the inner cover pages but will inquire.

I need to put some kind of statement  – probably on the back cover. But have not written anything yet.

The extract for the essay is currenlty too dense and needs an edit – it is not appropriate for BOW but something from it should probably come into the publication statement too  –   the intra-active emergent nature of self, other, surrounding reality, and internal landscape is key. (Although  – I am loath to use any alienating language for the the BOW and will think carefully about that).

See – https://sjflevel3.photo.blog/2020/06/22/cs-a5-draft-extract/

I have not solved the inner middle pages that are currently covered in place holder text yet but working on it…

I have begun thinking about how to make some of the combinations in the publication dynamic for an online version – that part of the work is undoubtedly going to extend into SYP.

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.

Research: (repost) Bit by Bit, Mikhael Subotzky’s Destructive Collage Process Dismantles Depictions of White “Founding Fathers” | Magnum Photos

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ Leave a comment

This work could/should be referenced in the essay and when I do any last minute changes, it is worth including (I’d have to get rid of something quite significant to make room though). Subotzky’s words are so familiar to me – the need to confront his own privilege and complicity, the recognition that his inquiry is so relevant and current – and to keep going with his work, as well as the deescalated position of the camera in his process.

“The photographer discusses his creative process and the importance of breaking historical cycles of racism, violence, and oppression”
— Read on www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/bit-by-bit-mikhael-subotzkys-destructive-collage-process-dismantles-depictions-of-white-founding-fathers/

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

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. 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. 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. 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. As challenging as it has been, I have learnt a great deal, so it was worth it
  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. I have added and taken away image examples.
  8. The Conclusion is longer.

 

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.

CS A5: OCA Reflection form

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ Leave a comment

I’ll be handing in my essay to Matt early next week. Here are my reflection answers in the meantime.

Demonstration of subject-based knowledge and understanding

I have taken a major risk by focusing on Barad’s writing to underpin my argument. It is not the theory that is taught usually within photography although that is changing and Daniel Rubinstein who I quote is heavily influenced by a quantum view of reality and Fred Ritchin has a chapter on it – quoted in CS A5 and in A1 and 2. Barad’s view does draw on many of the people I have looked at during my time with the OCA, synthesising that with science. I know that my understanding and knowledge is hampered by having to tackle quantum science – and a relatively esoteric reading of it at that. The ideas are not brand new – I have been reading articles and essays trying to figure things out for some time now but understanding this stuff properly will take a great deal more than just reading some articles. However, I have learnt so much while writing this, that it was worth it. I did not know what was meant by performative at the beginning of this (a word frequently misused I have noticed) nor could I see why Barad suggested matter had been overlooked in favour of discourse, mistakenly thinking that it meant language was being undervalued by a Baradian view. (It’s not, it’s being equalised).

Demonstration of research skills

Every time I rewrite the essay my understanding is deepened. I’ve asked for feedback and my peers have helped by pointing out bits that made no sense to them whatsoever. That prompted me to revisit and unpick my own understanding, to go back to the source, rewrite and see if I’d done any better in explaining. Finally, when I really needed some help, I approached someone I knew would have some answers. I have sought out expert opinion (not always receiving answers) but the process is ongoing.

I have got better at keeping a track of my reading and used Zotero to help which was useful, along with the Notes app on my phone. I also post links constantly on my blogs so I don’t lose things, even if I don’t say very much when doing so. I’ve labelled those posts more clearly so they are easier to find. The bibliography is extensive (probably too long) and demonstrates a wide source of references.

I still lose things so there is room for improvement. 

Demonstration of critical and evaluation skills

There is evidence of analysis and critical thought – I talk about Barad and her detractors’ concerns about analogy and ‘brazenly’ make an analogy which I think is warranted because ultimately, the lines separating analogy from fact can be just as nebulous (given Barad’s theory) as any other lines. Ten days ago I asked for feedback and peers suggested the third section of my essay read like some interesting information rather than educated opinion and synthesis. Another peer read the following draft and suggested the ‘real me’ came out in the third section. So I am synthesising for sure when prompted to – sometimes it takes an extra nudge. In terms of criticising and evaluating my own work, I am able to take on board feedback but also reject it when unhelpful, or else take something from it and make it useful – sometimes feedback might simply help me see where I have failed to make something obvious and it requires more underlining. I have also applied the thinking I have learnt to my own BOW in the essay, in particular, my comments about an image of a cow’s eyes are very analytical. (An image I have not been comfortable with for lots of reasons, least of which is, I am not sure it’s a good photograph – and yes, I know the word ‘good’ is unhelpful).

 Communication

There is room for more clarity always – but that is a lifelong project for me (see my hair analogy in a peer feedback post). For this level, the positive aspects of my writing such as enthusiastic engagement hopefully counters any lack of clarity. It is probably also worth restating the following: Roberta M (my original OCA tutor) was very encouraging about writing experimentally – I wasn’t quite sure what she meant and now see that simply including “I” is viewed as experimental by some – oh, to go as far as Chris Kraus. I believe this is behind the curve but accept that is seen as a risk. However, the crux of the essay is the rejection of separation between subject and object and the sheer importance of that (in my opinion) cannot be underestimated. Every article and essay that I come across right now is crying out for society to acknowledge the connections between race, climate change, the pandemic and the economy, for instance. Intra-activeness has to be taken on board. Removal of self and “That’s nothing to do with me” has got to be challenged at every opportunity. To quote my late friend Mandy (see Appendix 4) again, …

Our “…way of viewing and understanding the world via logical, rational empiricist study – which encourages detachment and abstraction – is connected to our failure to finding new ways of understanding our world in a deepening social and ecological crisis” (Thatcher, 2016)

 

 

 

 

 

CS A5: Peer feedback

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ Leave a comment

This post has two dates below – indicating feedback for successive iterations of CS A5.

20/06/2020

With the agreement, the following feedback not anonymous as is usual when I post OCA peer feedback here.

From Rowan Lear (who I worked with on the Pic London project and who is doing a PhD exploring the intra-action between camera and human). I knew Rowan was not only aware of Barad’s writing but that ideas relevant to my own work informed a great deal of her thinking and practise. Following on from feedback from fellow students (see below 10/06/2020), I was really aware that some of my understanding was still muddled so I asked Rowan to take a look at the section on agential cutting. She sent me a generous email which has been extremely useful. For the most part, I have been looking at this work in isolation, reading and watching talks on the internet. But I have had no chance to discuss it, which is difficult because it is often through discussion, I am able to understand things – I suspect that sums up the biggest problem with distance studying with the OCA these last few years – there are solutions, such as peer hangouts and attending study visits – those have been invaluable. But the lack of regular tutor-led (knowledge-based leadership – not talks, but ’roundtable’ discussion from anyone actually)  has always been a cost in relation to the benefits, of which there are many. Saying all that, I am not sure who at the OCA is working along these lines – although have seen work and spoken to tutors who are investigating related themes.  Following are some edited points with a response from me, as usual.

  • Can you have a dumbed-down one or two-sentences at the beginning of each section? I have included something like this as a glossary in the Appendix. For the sake of word count I think it’s best left there, but maybe I should highlight it in the introduction text. 
  • You seem to skip the **things do not exist prior to their interaction** – existence is relational and skipped straight to ‘the observer’  – I have gone back and reread sections by Barad and also Carlo Rovelli who writes in a much more accessible way. I have rewritten this section and removed the observer comments – although touch on it later. 
  • We are missing the significance of Barad’s ideas stemming from quantum field theory. (Tt’s in the intro but I have underlined it again here) I suggest a close re-reading of Barad’s MTUHW, pages 175 to 179, and writing a short paragraph to summarise what it all means for agency – there are a good 4-6 strong points you could draw out, which I think will help you make sense of the cut for her. I have looked at this section again and rewritten, clarifying it for myself as I did  – It is much clearer, I think, although a bit repetitive perhaps and I have focused on one or two points rather than 4-6. I am slightly over with words right now so may go back to this section and shrink it, but because this way of seeing can be so challenging, I think a bit of repetition is probably helpful – drumming in the idea from the various positions is probably needed to shift the assumptions we make. (I am also reminded of Michael Belshaw’s comments about drumming an idea home in some UVC feedback – No 6 on this blog post). 
  • Later, when you talk about indeterminacy, there’s a real conflation between uncertainty and indeterminacy – again something I struggle with – I’d suggest re-reading Barad 115-118 to really work out the difference in qft terms This has been very helpful – the conflation is typical, it exists in popular culture as Barad explains at length at the beginning of the book, and I was very grateful to be reminded to look at this again. Now I am left with the problem that the examples I chose were really being at looked at through an uncertainty lens and I wasn’t sure they were appropriate anymore. But I have left them and adapted the text to try and steer it from the right direction. 

There was also some useful writing advice and comments which came from the place of a “diffracted practice”  – I took diffraction out of the essay, there is not enough space to include it even though it is really important. I suspect my own ability to practice diffractively as I write is compromised by the fact I straddle both paradigms, Cartesian and post-Cartesian – which is what the essay is about effectively. That is the transitional world we (I) live in. I also need to be clearer about so-called empty space. I think that came about through sloppy writing/thinking. Have clipped and thinned. I am extremely grateful to Rowan for the comments –  the essay is much-improved thanks to her clarity and suggestions to go back and look at sections again. 

Some additional extremely helpful comments from ex OCA people

The conclusion, which I think starts somewhere in Chapter 3. This is clearly where your passion for the subject(s) becomes apparent. I have actually since restructured the essay. I no longer have an intro, three chapters, and conclusion. I have an intro, Part 1 and Part 2, and conclusion. I think this is better for 5000 words and might resolve some of this. And yes, it might be read as a polemic (again see Michael Belshaw’s discussion re UVC Feedback – link in feedback above), perhaps due to the foreshortening of ‘distance’ between the academic and her subject becoming very clearly evident. I have written a short opening that I hope introduces this aspect immediately.  I looked again at the “Introduction”, as it related to the “Conclusion” and didn’t feel a strong line (entangled or otherwise) that connected them. This is a job on my list – go through the opening and conclusion – make sure the ties are there (I know they are but I’ve not made it evident enough, clearly – I need to pick them out and make them visible) What I felt about the Introduction was a concern expressed about the “flaccidity” of photography, how, on the one hand it was yearning to break free from the strictures of its origins – analogue, chemical, unique(ery), repressed etc. And on the other hand how photography has rid itself of those strictures by becoming so universal, so enmeshed in everything, so entangled – where it is so complex that no one understands anything about it anymore. And because of that no one seems to care.

As for the content, I initially wondered about the strategy of Chapter 1, me too but probably for different reasons – for me, the risk of it seeming like nomenclature or quite pedestrian was at the forefront of my mind but I couldn’t see any other way to approach it. Now, as I go through each section, I think I have conflated all of the concepts but that I think is because they are so interwoven it’s very difficult not to but on reading it a few times, AND coming to terms with the first person singular commentary I felt it worked very well. It is a brave and risky approach – Roberta M (my original OCA tutor) was very encouraging about writing experimentally – I wasn’t quite sure what she meant and now see that simply including I is viewed as experimental by some. I believe this is behind the curve but accept that is seen as risky –  and again your tutor will have something to say about this strategy I’m sure – but that level of personal involvement with the narrative worked.

I like the mix of sources, Azoulay is a favourite for me at the moment as you probably know, and I’m surprised not to see Zuboff, (there is no space for her but I did want to talk about the anatomisation of human behaviour (surplus) and the non-inevitably of digital culture destroying civilisation) but then that would have opened up another narrative strand – exactly – ! But I think those contemporary and (seemingly ancient) oft quoted theorists like Benjamin, Sontag et al works well.

I do wonder if you could pare back one or two of the ideas, a couple less strands might provide some additional space to explore some of the other threads more fully? Having said that, the tenet of the essay is held together, in my view, as you don’t seem to lose control of where the essay is destined – just starting the conclusion a bit early ha ha! I think I have done this following Rowan’s advice anyway although sure there can be more cuts. Yesterday, I had my actual very difficult hair cut  – and I was thinking my writing is a bit like my hair – lots of different textures, really difficult to manage, requires proper skill and experience to tame it – spent my whole life trying to fight a losing battle with it. Each time I focus the essay down, cut out strands, thin it out, it feels like I’ve lost so much but in fact, I’m just making it less prone to being really knotty and unmanageable. There is probably more to cut and thin but I am nevertheless about to send it to Matt (hopefully Monday after proofread) and will revisit again before assessment no doubt. 

10/06/2020

Re: CS A5 Draft 3 The photograph and photography in the age of entanglement (No Pictures)  (Since writing this, the sections on agential realism, intr-action and indeterminism are much more in keeping now (I think!) with Barad)

I have written another draft of my essay and sent it to one group of students for comment – will edit following this and send to a wider group and Matt. (Have until September to keep writing if necessary but really need as much time as possible for BOW now).

  • I hoped to simplify some of the concepts as much as possible, made doable as I became more familiar with them – the previous version was very dense and needed to be a bit ‘easier’
  • I also needed to add more examples as well as some of my own from BOW – which was and still is in development
  • I had absorbed something about phenomenology vs. object while reading another students’ tutor feedback which I hadn’t picked up on before and also continued to delve into Derrida – although I have not actually mentioned him in the essay (word count), that reading has given me a deeper understanding of the way language can fail.
  • Emma P sent me a terrific book called On the Verge of Photography co-edited by someone I’d already quoted  – Daniel Rubenstein is focused on the same issues as I am, although probably without the strong feminist angle, so he’s a good person to read.
  • I needed to cut 1000 or so words from CS A4 – which I could only do after I’d added a load of words by which time there were 2000 words to cut.

Following are my notes from the this morning’s chat as well as copy and pasted feedback from emails. I always keep this feedback anonymous. I am very grateful for it but I don’t want people to worry about having their comments recorded here. (Will add if/when more arrives). It’s now at the right word count but I will need to check and shave again before submission, for sure.

General verbal feedback

  • The same question I have been asked before came up – is this too advanced for the level? Is that OK? What do the tutor’s say? Should I temper my intellectual ambitions and aim for something less difficult. In answer – I am not doing this course for the OCA tutors or anyone else, I am doing it for myself and trying to figure out why I grew up to see myself and the world as I do and why that view has not always been that positive. (I’ve done enough therapy for one lifetime and this is a more productive way of exploring at this time). Now I am making work about those questions and their implications, what I can do about it, what’s at stake: and I cannot stress how much this ties in with my BOW  – which is something that has emerged as I work on it. The way we perceive and see is fundamental: the way women are seen and what we see in ourselves as a consequence. And most importantly, the potential for a revolution given where we are, the loosening of and subsequent threat to old societal structures, the emergence of new ones. To be asked again and again – are you sure it’s ok to be smart, to tackle difficult topics, to aim above your level, to really utilise your brain – are you sure that’s OK???? In the current climate of civilisation breakdown and renewal – where women (along with a whole bunch of other people) are being undermined and their rights eroded, yes, I am sure. Or where trust in education and science is under threat, yes, I am sure. And if anyone doesn’t like, it… I need not say more.

Comments 1:

Some incredibly clear and specific feedback – at this stage, this level of detail is very useful and I am immensely grateful for it. It’s exactly what is needed now. (Before this point, this kind of feedback for the way I work isn’t that useful for me, as I am still feeling my way through things – in earlier drafts, I need general impressions that give me space to keep exploring whether it’s academic or practical – and there is little point in being specific as I will still be all over the place for a while.)
Intro – really clear, IMHO much better use of quotations.

Love the cat cartoon!

P2 ‘echt’ is a bit obscure? Does it need a footnote? I love this word, it’s perfect for what I mean but I was unsure about using it in an academic essay even though I am very much about challenging stale (masculine) academic tropes  – may replace but will see. 

P4 good intro to this section, helps open it up for a more general reader.

P5 If you need to lose words, I would cut down the paragraph on the BoW example. We are required to link our research to our own work,  this may not be the place to do it  but as I read it again, the concept of something solid emerging from interaction with humans and non-humans – and the intra-action emerging from what we talk about as ‘virtual’ makes it pretty salient

P7 parentheses on what you think, needed? – Maybe not (but perhaps only because there is not the word count left to explain how the work became diluted by adding – in my opinion – more detail, but it is something I really noticed and was rather disappointed by. Sultan’s project actually made me cry when I first looked at it, and again in several further viewings online. I then felt quite confused when I bought the book because I did not have the same reaction at all. 

P9 ‘montage’ still doesn’t mean cut in French  It means put together, put up, assembly of parts, putting together of things. It is used for collage and editing not because of the cutting but because of the assemblage. Caesura is Latin not French (it’s césure in French). I would rewrite this – or remove the reference to montage – because it sounds like you don’t know what you are talking about – which isn’t the case – and because (I think) the cutting action is what is important here (as opposed to the reassembling in many different ways). This is a pure language slippage issue – will revisit – to avoid doubts

P9 ‘some examples…’ feels a bit stuck in.

Just out of interest (and because other people seem to have said otherwise) what was your tutor’s response to including references to your BoW in the CS? See workshops by Ariadne re L3 BOW and CS  – yes, we should include our own work unless it makes no sense to (but how odd to research something unrelated to your BOW and what a lost opportunity that would be.) 

Agential cut – bit on the cut is clear and well exampled but the ‘agency’ is less so. I also wonder if agency needs to come before cut. I found myself wondering about the agential part all the way through the examples. Can you add a more specific example? I know you say it’s beyond the scope but it also feels like it needs to be well explained.

I find the move from agential cut to indeterminism interesting, it sparks thinking in the reader. I might comment on this – the paradox is worth thinking about. The cut as an attempt to control? This ability to engage with what you are saying shows that this has come a long way from the first drafts. It is clearer and I can begin to focus on the ideas. Yes – it has come along way from the time I lay on the sofa watching Karen Barad talks, thinking, ‘shit, I’ve taken on way too much here… I have no idea where to start’. 

P15 is the key to automatic writing in Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams? Or in the desire to have unfettered access to the unconscious? (blowing up explosion sound) 

P16 You don’t mention these figures in the text? (happens in a few places, best check through otherwise they can be a bit unexpected) (yes I do – will make clearer somehow)

Whole of ch1 is a really good blend of definition and example.

P20-21 first couple of paragraphs still a bit difficult to understand. Have a look at whether the sentences run naturally from one thought to another. – Will do

I struggle to see how the end of ch 1 leads to ch 2. Perhaps it needs a bridging sentence or two? Easily solved

P23 ‘neither of whom…’ seems unnecessarily judgmental. I think there would be another way to show the change from representational to the projects you reference. I think it’s ok to judge not very interesting work as not very interesting, (Bloody hell – enough people who don’t get mine judge it in the same way!) but I take your point. 

P24 ‘This upset’ – more academic language needed.

P29 ch 3 good first paragraph intro (look at this for ch2 intro)

Do you define the difference between ‘the photograph’ and ‘photography’? Why separate them?  Maybe a hangover from emulating the rhythm of the title my own alludes to – “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”  = “The photograph and photography in the age of entanglement.” However, the separation between noun and verb does feel significant – although I will need to think about it. 

P31 ‘prompts furious…’ feels like it needs to be evidenced. See current positions re the pulling down of statues  – actually, I cut a reference which explained this further but could possibly add a footnote with a link to comedian talking about stealing artefacts and putting them in museums…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY&feature=youtu.be

Ch 3 does read less like the evolution of an idea and more like the digest of literature – like Doug said.

P31 last sentence – check tense

P32 You need to bring the argument to film – it jumps at the moment

Conclusion – very good.

Comments 2:

Again, very helpful and much appreciated.

  • A citation that excludes the author’s name should appear immediately after the author where is mentioned in the text.  If the name is included then it should be at the end of the quote with the full stop after the final bracket. (see p4 of UCA Harvard Referencing Guide) Thanks, makes sense!
  • I have not checked if you have cited everybody in the Bibliography.  I have queried a few times with Ariadne Xenou whether everything should be in the bibliography and she is adamant that only authors that you cite should be there.  Anybody else that you have read but not cited should be in ‘References’.  Oh, this bloody conversation! I believe we must just have a bibliography and all listed there. (thank you!) 
  • I have a feeling that I still don’t understand ‘agential cut’ or agential more broadly.  Maybe I should just reread that section of the definitions again. It’s hard  – really hard. Will keep trying!
  • I did feel that this was easier to read than I recall from the previous version.  But my gut feeling is that something has been lost.  I came away feeling that this was not as good academically compared with the last version.  BUT, I have not been back to compare directly so it is a gut feeling only nothing substantiated. You’re right – it had lost something, I have been through and added some stuff back after the very brutal cut. But I can’t help wondering is there is also a sense of loss about the photograph as it was here  – after reading a much clearer version (maybe reading too much but it was something that struck me) 
  • Also, I felt that it had reverted in places to more like a Lit Review.  … Previous notes recorded identify this in section 3 – will relook
  • I don’t think I would add more images and I certainly would not in the conclusion. (No not the conclusion bu maybe Ch 3?)  A conclusion pulls it all together and should not introduce anything new.  Having said that I suppose an argument could be made for an image that pulls all the arguments together, but I would be careful.
  • Other comments are included in your pdf as comments and usually associated with highlighted text.
  • I think you should now write an Abstract.  Probably 120 to 150 words.  (Cant recall what the CS notes say on this – up to 500 for the record)  The reason I say this is that you need to pull together the essence of the essay and your thinking into a couple of sentences.  It will also help any reader (me) with an anchor from where they can start.  This is more succinct than the introduction or a preface – just a peg in the ground in three or four sentences.  I do feel ready to write this – could not have done so before!
  • Not sure I like the different colour text in the image captions – just a Word thing (they’re automatically blue, I changed to red, but worth considering, maybe just slightly greyer?) 

 

CS A5 research: White Supremacism and the Earth System – INSURGE intelligence – Medium

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ 2 Comments

Been searching for a quotation to include that sums up the systemic changes I’m discussing in my essay. Found it here!

The US is on the brink of becoming a racist failed state. It is no accident that this terrible moment arrives in the midst of a global pandemic; an escalating economic crisis; an oil sector meltdown…
— Read on medium.com/insurge-intelligence/white-supremacism-and-the-earth-system-fa14e0ea6147

CS A5: Research, Fungi’s Lessons for Adapting to Life on a Damaged Planet | Literary Hub

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ Leave a comment

Merlin Sheldrake’s new book Entangled Life looks at the complex world of fungi, its adaptive ability, and its interconnectedness with all other forms of life.
— Read on lithub.com/fungis-lessons-for-adapting-to-life-on-a-damaged-planet/

This book won’t be published in time for CS assessment deadline but this interview will have something useful, no doubt.