The finalising of my portfolio for BoW in A5 ended up being a pretty simple task. Because of my intention to dovetail SYP, I was able to use A1 in the final module to help me decide what kind of direction I wanted the work to pursue. In creating the proposal document with the intention of professional feedback, I believed that presenting the concept worked best over process. I still have the process photographs if needed in a certain kind of publication, but as a portfolio I believe a method of ‘show not tell’ works best, leaving the viewer with space to ask questions rather than offer answers. Having this crossover between the two modules also helped me resolve an introduction text, artist statement and biography that is concise for a public audience.
The amount of theory I have considered and researched has not been dismissed, however writing an introduction to the work, together with feedback and tutor input, gave me an opportunity to reflect on what it was that got me inspired to go down this conceptual route. I also spent considerably more time writing up the evaluation for A5, as the reflection took me through many earlier learning log posts. This idea of looking back and looking forward worked well with the overlap in the two modules, as it provides a certain amount of completion and satisfaction with the amount of work, both photography and theory undertaken, and the quality of outcome.
Using my feedback network to get various levels of input gave me a sense of closure to BoW. For sure I can make more examples of notations, formations and interventions. And it is something I can try to find time to add to as a way of continuing my practice. But with the potential directions my final publication may take, such as a residency, event or video, I would essentially be making double work for myself. Now that time is more precious I have to prioritise the work ahead rather than lingering on the edit.
Considering feedback and getting various points of view also reminds me that it is not possible to please everyone. Some work was liked more than others and for sure that can influence an edit, but ultimately it is my work under my name, so there must be a sense of contentment for myself as all feedback is subjective. For instance the bike interventions were the weakest in the eyes of my tutor for SYP, and yet my tutor for CS was first drawn to the same photographs. The fact that different people are drawn to different uses of the concept tells me there is a greater scope of opportunity to further explore rather than making the encounters in future work predictable. It also reinforces why I wanted to include the three levels of engagement, presenting a way of seeing that becomes interdependent and flexible to work with depending on the space and time I occupy.
I very much enjoyed researching Kazimir Malevich on the advice of my tutor, even if at this late stage it didn’t impact much on the end result of the portfolio. It was a nice exercise and again brought a sense of conclusion to my research, particularly in companion with the write-ups I did for Lee Ufan and Agnes Martin earlier in the module. Writing research posts, both self-initiated and recommend by my tutor were some of the most enjoyable experiences I had in BoW and I feel that in having this frequent challenge it has helped my writing skills as well.
And so with that I will await my final tutor report from Robert and look forward to concluding any outstanding points.