Reconfiguring my theoretical framework
After Adrian made it clear my interpretation of ontography being a phenomenological practice was decidedly wrong, I have spent the day slashing my first draft and trying to piece it together again. Instead of trying to let the theory dictate the structure of my exegesis, I have changed my tact to let my project instigate the discussion of the theory. I have held off from discussing my project in detail because I felt it was still coming together. It still is. But at least I have a rough idea as to what it will become – each k-film in the triptych. The first one is pretty much complete, I just need to swap the soundtrack over. The second one will be close to completion once I change the keywords and see what pattern it makes.
The next logical step was trying to work out my discussion points in regards to the theory I have learned. I felt frustrated by trying to see the entire exegesis in Scrivener so I drafted up a table briefly outlining each theorist I intend on using and how their particular theories relate to my k-films.
I now need to write to this, starting with how my project has become a product of the methodology I have chosen and how it represents (or fails to represent) the theories I have been investigating. I feel inclined to start from scratch but do not have the time to do so. I’ll salvage what I can from my first draft as it provides the raw building blocks to construct my claims with.
I know it is a long bow to draw, but I feel there is still some connection between phenomenology and ontography in the context of Seamon’s phenomenological approach. Seamon speaks of understanding place by viewing it through it’s own eyes, an empathetic approach to investigating placemaking. I argue that a true empathetic approach involves the extraction of our phenomenological and anthropocentric predisposition by applying an ontographic exploration of place. Ontography aspires to view the world from the perspective of the things that populate it. This includes both the material and immaterial aspects of existence, or the coming together of the two, as is the case with placemaking. To understand what the BOI is I am using an ontographic machine (Korsakow) to view the world through its eyes. Listing the various relationships that enables its existence, I am viewing it in both an empathetic manner (“kindly seeing”) described by Seamon, and an anti-phenomenologist way described by Bogost.