3rd Meeting – Jason and Josh

by stronged

Very useful re-evaluating where I am situated with my research topic with these guys again. We focused on structuring our essays, using butcher’s paper to mark up each individual chapter and word count allocation.

Snapshot_1

The intro sets up my supposition, outlining that through interacting with a K-Film we create our own narrative and therefore sense of place. Placemaking closely resembles narrative construction – mythopoeisis. We systematically categorise each facet of a space with our impression of it. Our experience of the space leads us to create a poiesis that in turn defines the space as a place.

The first chapter will be aimed at breaking down what a place is. This will no doubt begin with what a space is, and how through experiencing a space relations are formed that transforms it into a place. When I branch into discussing the facets of a place I will hopefully bridge over into the next chapter: Multilinear documentary.

I will offer a brief summary of what an interactive documentary is, working off some of the material i used in my first semester lit review. I will then briefly touch on New Media and Korsakow films.

The next chapter will introduce my project and discuss it in more detail. What was involved and how the Korsakow Film works in more detail (the particular keywords I have used to establish the relationships between each facet).

The fourth chapter will discuss what the K-Film actually does. My hypothesis is that by interacting with the material presented in the project the user will form their own understanding of what the place is for them. Their own poiesis.

By that stage I hope a conclusion will fall into place. Aiming for 9,000 words. Worked out that each subheading will be roughly 300 words long. Not much room to play with – considering I have a habit of waffling on.

I still feel the main link I would like to pursue is between the narratological axis of temporal and spatial functions and how this relates to how we create places. Think it may be a bit to bite off though…I must work out from the project. Keep it simple Ed.

Josh did a really useful thing and jotted down everything I said whilst explaining my plan, which came up with this:

Snapshot_1

Both Jason and Josh expressed their confusion about the tendencies for this project to become “meta.” As the content is about the place the interactive platform will also be about placemaking. I’ll have to keep reminding myself that the focus is on the interactive documentary. How it functions and what are the consequences of this.

Josh suggested that because I have more of an interest in the reflective practice of research that I set myself exclusive “theory pomodoros” where I immerse myself in just reading and writing theory (i.e. the poetics of space).

I also found what Gemma mentioned yesterday in the lab very useful in regards to switching hats from being productive/creative, to be critical/analytical. She said that she writes in the night when her abilities to censor herself are quite low. Then edits in the morning when she sets herself the challenge to wade through the mass of material she’d written the night before. I like this division between morning and night. I have found that the intense immersion I put myself through in order to feel credible enough to put pen to paper places me in the position of not being able to view the work objectively. Only time and distractions help to refocus me into viewing the work more objectively. Perhaps this morning/night technique will help.

Advertisements