First Semester Assessments back – Feedback from Adrian

by stronged



Main points:

Basically, I need to learn to dwell on things a bit more. I feel like I must know everything but in fact it’s time to cull a few topics and narrow down with a couple of key theorists. I must reverse my habit of writing inter-nodally. As in, instead of linking quotes together to create my structure I must focus upon one idea, write to it best I can so it is clearly understood, then see where the next step is after that. Structuring out my essays with a sequence of quotes is clearly not working. Adrian felt it was like watching a film with jump cuts, and no explanation or voice over that links them together.

I have always struggled with establishing how much I should elaborate upon concepts. Certain times particular concepts are popular knowledge, whilst at other times they are quite esoteric or specific to a field of interest. I would have thought there are circumstances when you can rattle off terms with the assurance that your readers will know exactly what you mean. I have seen it been done in many academic manuscripts where a simple nod to the origin of a concept is enough, before continuing on with the discussion.

Apparently Honours is not the time when one can use academic shorthand. I will definitely take my time fleshing out particular concepts in my own words before proceeding onto further topics. It is quite liberating, in a way, when more of a value is placed upon my own voice rather than stressing about fulfilling a citation quota. I will not worry too much about accumulating as many citations as I have in the past, instead, articulate the concepts in my own words before turning to what the specialists have noted before me.

Now I must figure out what to salvage from my last essay and what to let go of. A time to kill my darlings.


I was pretty lax with my terminology this time around, so I was somewhat expecting a severe lashing. Again, I need to be more consistent with my terminology and elaborate on my definitions of particular concepts. Major adjustments include:

  • De-emphasise my flat ontology claims, push more of a focus upon Ontography – even Carpentry (if I’m short on my word count)
  • Understand that the experience of the work is very different to what the work is about (an ongoing struggle I have with creative academic work!)
  • Let go of the phenomenological points in my piece – apparently this is contradictory to Materialism. It was naively hopeful of me to read Bogost’s work as locating the essence of things, when in fact his bone of contention is to treat everything on face value; the is’ness of it. I fear this will take a huge chunk out of my piece as so much of my interest was wrapped up in the phenomenological aspects of things.


Once more, a complete reshaping of my project once again. I feel every time I meet with Adrian I fall back to the drawing board. Building an archive of living memories has been dropped due to the ethics approval necessary for the project to go ahead. Adrian has been pushing using Korsakow as an ontographic machine. I still desire to make something that is a bit more engaging than documenting inaminate objects. We spoke of tying in the poetics of place, therefore enabling more scope for me to create something provocative. I am still toying with the idea of using Korsakow as a tool for deconstruction. For example, chopping up a conversation and throwing it into Korsakow to reassemble. Or chopping up the telling of a fable or short story and see what comes of it within the Korsakow system. Both are not particularly “cinematic”, but will hopefully reveal the facets of the Korsakow system in an interesting way.

I will continue documenting places as per Adrian’s brief. See what occurs when I translate a hard-assemblage of a physical place into a soft-assemblage K-Film. I feel there is some give and take, where both systems are not necessarily linear nor nonlinear.