Reflection: The dissertation option

I have recently completed my final assignment for CS, and although I will only receive the results of assessment in March 2020, my tutor Russell has given me very positive feedback in the conclusion of our discussions and tutor report. The final tutor report from Robert, my tutor for BoW, has also commended the improvement in my writing skills. This combined with further complimentary peer feedback has left me emboldened to keep a divergent thought process towards A2 and consider writing a paper as an option for my publication in SYP.

There are two potential directions I could consider here; either I could write a follow-on piece, expanding on an area from my dissertation for CS, or I could write a stand alone piece for BoW. The second option seems a more natural fit. After writing an introduction and evaluation for my portfolio, one thing I acknowledged on reflection at the end of A5 was the loss of all the contextual background which enriched the various stages of conceptual development. This was due to the need in part one of SYP and subsequently in A1 to write about myself and the work for a public audience. The feedback garnered also suggested to cut out the ‘art bollocks’ and as Miranda Gavin says: ‘avoid any French philosophers with names beginning with B!’. This was important at the time as it is not the purpose of BoW to illustrate critical theory. However I would be potentially interested in writing an academic piece, articulating how my BoW is inspired by spatial understanding in the Japanese concept of Ma.

My BoW synthesises classic texts In Praise of Shadows (Tanizaki, 1933/2001) with Language of Vision (Kepes, 1944/2012). As my concept progressed I integrated contemporary critical theory on site-specificity and levels of participation, together with Physical Space, Image Space, Psychical Space (Campany, 2018), which supports how I read the gaps and intervals between images through Ma. So there is a substantial amount of theory that can be used to support a point of discussion I could put forward in a new paper. Since my CS is a divergence from BoW, treated as a scholarly exercise into an area of photography that has influenced me greatly, a new paper would be a mirroring of how globalisation has inspired my practice, reflecting on what CS was discussing in Korean photography, while also being more directly connected to BoW.

A further incentive to this would be to use this opportunity to introduce myself to the academic community, as this is an area I would be interested in exploring as a career development. At the moment, the safest and most concise way forward for SYP is to develop the offer of a mini-residency in April from Hauss Studio in Malmö, which includes an event to discuss my work with an audience. Since I have a professional background, the general learnings of an exhibition are not so new. Therefore a paper could be a more insightful pursuit, and one that challenges my area of development outlined at the beginning of L3, criticality.

What remains to be considered at this stage is how writing another paper would be resolved as a final publication and on what level does it need to reach an audience?


Bishop, C (2006) ‘The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents’. In: Artforum International, 44(6), pp 178-183

Campany, D (2018) ‘Physical Space, Image Space, Psychical Space’ In: At: (Accessed on 04.12.18)

Kepes, G (1944/2012) Language of Vision. USA: Literary Licensing, LLC.

Kwon, M (1997) ‘One Place after Another: Notes on Site Specificity’. In: October, Vol.80(1), pp 85-110

Tanizaki, J (1933/2001) In Praise of Shadows. London: Vintage.