Mid Point review – reflection

Apart from the direct feedback on my work the clear benefit for me was needing to spend time engaging with everyones work and preparing comments, hearing others comments. It felt encouraging in terms of a broad sense of community as much as anything.

It did feel overall a place for positive comments – if you wanted to raise doubts the other person couldn’t reply so there seems to be an ethical question here.  Perhaps many doubts are really questions so I guess that would be how you would approach it-open questions. Postive comments are good to have but good negative comments are more likely to generate the energy for change.  It’s easier to be positive than negative!

I became aware of my own strategy in presenting the video when looking at the whole range of presentations – I tried to extract a clear narrative for clarity but that left some emerging strands of activity and reading unaccounted for.   I now wish I had provided a complete overview at the risk of  being incomprehensible or incoherent in the time available.  There is always the blog for those who want to explore further.  I also feel that presenting process is as important as presenting content. Possibly also atmosphere by which I mean a broad sense of attitude and feeling around a practice which is not directly stated but which comes across.  I think some presentations were good at atmosphere.  Being analytical but also having an atmosphere is a question of balance perhaps.

Outside the formal presentation how do I create and maintain ‘atmosphere’ as a factor within my practice?  Is this a kind of mental architectural space, or is that notion of space a kind of memory loci – walking through a space and remembering things.   Creating architectural spaces for certain kinds of  thought.  Architectural simulation packages.  Virtual reality – including audio.  3D audio is a great way of generating a sense of space and atmosphere.

Possible collaboration with an architect or architectural practice?