Feedback:
What is working?
– The initial questions arising from your practice shows critical engagement
– Form of the publication and typography enact a critical understanding of the topic and the reference
– Layout works well and makes it easier for the reader to locate themselves within the text
-The format and layout of your writing was very interesting and fun to read. -There’s good evidence of clear analyzing your references. -Starting with the qustions is a very nice way to attract readers attentions.
-Your layout is interesting and relates well with your theme. I think the inverted text does a goog job of showing the screen’s dualistic mentioned in your theme in a visible way.
Its interesting to place the screen conversation in its context of 1996, and speculate on how screens are different now – and the touchscreen. This seems your main contribution – one id like to see expanded.
What is not working?
– The last para’s layout, on page two, seems a bit confusing to follow on first read, was it intentional?
– I think there can be more dialogue between your work and the references and also your new findings from the refereneces.
– I didn’t quit get the reason for the 5th page that texts are been mirrored.I think you succeeded with the textual presentation, but I kind of didn’t understand the contrasting black and white images at the end
Some of the visual experiments you do appear as one-off experiments – how could these be applied or expanded in more effective ways? Probably too much time is spent giving an overview of the conversation – I would focus on extrapolating from it.
How could the work be improved?
Not sure if this is the final form but it could be really interesting to see different transparencies of paper being used to create a conversation between the text and the format
– I think it will be more helpful to add some images to explain the mechanism of the screen and also add some of your studio works.
Perhaps it could be combined with the form of your studio work, for example using red and blue transparencies paper to make some parts visible or invisible.
There seems something about the physicality of the screen that is defining and relevant – the glass sheet. This is present in the conversation but interesting to think how its still relevant or different. See ‘touchscreen capture’ an essay by mark fisher for a critical exploration spinning off from screens and touch