I’ve been thinking about the disjunction between proposal v1 and the studio work.
To some extent this was a kind of ebb and flow between reading/theory and studio practice that occurred in terms 1 and 2. The research paper has gone some way to integrating thinking with practice, so any disjunction between proposal and making should no longer exist to the same extent.
In more general terms the format of the proposal is a constraint that I need to work within to some extent. I am thinking of this as a kind of improvisation within constraints, where the constraints; aims, objectives etc are something that can be changed as part of the process. I’m now thinking about getting that process working practically.
There is also the issue of the relationship between the project and my practice as a whole. I can imagine a scenario where the project evolves gradually over time via a series of updates. A sort of dynamic equilibrium. What has actually happened is that the interaction between the project and my practice in Unit 1 has created significant changes which have necessitated rewrites in the project, quite abrupt changes. This could be because I was using the project as a vehicle to change my practice so the two have retroacted on each other. What does need to happen for Unit 2 practically I think is more of a dynamic equilibrium pointing towards the final show.