Monday Our group presentation wasn’t scheduled until 12pm the next day, but I thought it wise to head in and observe the other groups, especially as there were two other Dreamweaver groups. All in all, they were very well presented and there was lots of audience feedback and questions after each presentation. This was also information that I could relay to my group to let them know what to expect. Over the weekend we had all submitted our video pieces to Miriam for her to compile and curate. My effort was: Tuesday As agreed in our group, I was happy to read an introduction to our video response to the theme ‘Dreamweaver’. The introduction was: After reading this, we played the video: In comparison to the previous day’s presentations, the audience participation was incredibly muted. We were asked two questions by Theo relating to the presentation, both of which were answered by myself (largely because the others were uncomfortable speaking in front of an audience): Theo: Was the video designed to be individual responses or a running narrative? Me: The video was individual responses compiled together. Each video has its own narrative. Theo: Do you believe in the Crick-Mitchison theory of dreaming? Me: The point of the presentation was to offer an alternative to the previous lecture (Artist as a Dreamweaver). Personally I’m on the fence, leaning towards Freud. This theory appealed to us all and is an interesting concept. Wednesday Feedback from Theo regarding our group presentation was received last night: Overall, I was happy with a 68%. However, I didn’t think that as a presenter of new or alternative information, I/we were expected to give an opinion or ‘take sides’. Our video responses to the theory were based upon Reorganisational Theory, so my opinion or stance are somewhat irrelevant to the audience.
0 Comments
|
ArchivesCategories |