Group feeback:
The group presentation was rather well structured and organised as a whole, however there was so significant overlap and redundant sections between the individual contributions.
Despite the relatively clear technical background, it was felt that the proposed project lacked some artistic depth. The proposed meaning and aim of the work wasn't clear at all, and there seemed to be some confusion over the (working) title.
Individual feedback:
The presentation consisted in a poorly structured and uncontextualised list of references in the form of art works or practitioners. Although each of them was rather clearly presented, seemed relevant and related to a common theme, the connections between them were not made obvious and there was no real critical analysis and identification of a specific research stream.
The paper is not structured beyond the list of reference material, mirroring the subject matter of the presentation.
The technical diagrams of the proposed installation often don't communicate properly: they need simplification and better labelling. They should conform more closely to agreed conventions of technical drawing.
Presentation remarks: No student number is present on the paper that has been submitted. The paper isn't bound.
Mark: 50
Tutors: Olivier Ruellet & Andrew Moller
Comments on Feedback:
I do feel this is a far overall mark as the time we have had to develop this idea has been lacking. The group has taken longer than expected to come together and decide on a final idea which is still decidedly ropey! Hopefully over the next month this 'idea' will flourish into a justifiable piece of artwork ideal for Kinetica.
No comments:
Post a Comment