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?)