Random Quotes
I found these while looking through an old notebook from last year some of which sit well with some of my informal discussion ideas.
From Shocking Life by Elsa Schiaparelli: "(and I confess I do love pubs because they are so human)"
I think this was from an advert, it's sort of cute: "I like conversations that last for hours and hours, full of jokes about singing bees and talking flowers. I like it when they take up whole mornings and fill up whole nights, when they mention books and cocktails, trumpets and kites. I like them when they talk about parties, talk about dreams, talk about cakes covered in cream. And all that they need is me and a friend and the talking to go on and never to end."
From Shocking Life by Elsa Schiaparelli: "(and I confess I do love pubs because they are so human)"
I think this was from an advert, it's sort of cute: "I like conversations that last for hours and hours, full of jokes about singing bees and talking flowers. I like it when they take up whole mornings and fill up whole nights, when they mention books and cocktails, trumpets and kites. I like them when they talk about parties, talk about dreams, talk about cakes covered in cream. And all that they need is me and a friend and the talking to go on and never to end."
A Few Links
For research...
Debate:
http://www.britishdebate.com/universities/resources/neidle.asp
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/behind_the_podium.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CreateDebate
http://www.createdebate.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric
http://captology.stanford.edu/
http://www.debating.org/dev/
http://www.debating.org/dev/rules-of-debating/
Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103509.html?nav=hcmodule&sid=ST2008050200016
http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter)
Dash MacDonald
http://www.show2008.rca.ac.uk/Default.aspx?ContentID=501707&GroupID=501053&
Onkar Kular
http://www.onkarkular.com/
Debate:
http://www.britishdebate.com/universities/resources/neidle.asp
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/behind_the_podium.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CreateDebate
http://www.createdebate.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric
http://captology.stanford.edu/
http://www.debating.org/dev/
http://www.debating.org/dev/rules-of-debating/
Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103509.html?nav=hcmodule&sid=ST2008050200016
http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter)
Dash MacDonald
http://www.show2008.rca.ac.uk/Default.aspx?ContentID=501707&GroupID=501053&
Onkar Kular
http://www.onkarkular.com/
Mapping and First Mentoring Session
So for the mentoring session we had to produce a map. I was feeling kind of nervous and tense about the whole thing. Like I know I needed the guidance and way of focusing but I felt like my project had barely progressed since the territories, and it hadn't. I think the joint project threw everyone though, so the mapping was a way of focusing again, which helped but going back I realised how much I had intended to do compared to what I had actually done. I'd produced nothing during the joint project because I was disheartened by that whole experience, which was made worse by the fact it was such a good brief, and being a total comic book geek, when I first read the brief I thought it would be a fun week. But anyways... back to the project.
The mapping brought some things to light that I'd been grappling with, like how to bring some theory into the whole project, using the things Mathilda had suggested but they just didn't really link so I ended up with a big gulf in between. I ended up grasping on this word "discourse" but it was not really working with everything else I was doing, so again, that contributed to the gap. It was total clucthing at straws on my side.
The map was for my first mentoring session, as I said before, with Matt, Fleur, Jake, Liam, Mo and Rio. It really helped a lot, because I'd been floundering, not really sure where to go next. I got pretty inspired by everything but scared as well. One of the things I have to do is start up a debating society, and Matt was suggesting creating like an alter ego or something. It's exactly the kind of thing I hate. I can barely present to the mentor group without freaking, so this going to be incredibly hard. It's good though, because I'll have to push myself right out of my comfort zone and to be honest, I'm not sure yet what I'll get out of it, but that's the point in it because oppurtunities for design and intervention will keep cropping up. Already there is the design of everything surronding the society [as long as I can get it off the ground] to work with.
I have an actual to do list now;
- Dash MacDonald - I need to look at his stuff, see if maybe I can get in contact with him.
- Look into people who train public speakers
- Find and visit established debating socities
- Explore rhetoric
- Rules and strcutures for debate
- Design a soap box
- Design my society
- Look at conviction and belief, designing it
- Read some "how to be a better public speaker" books or something similar
- Look at Barack Obama
- Visit Speaker's Corner [I guess a really good thing would to be actually to speak there.]
The mapping brought some things to light that I'd been grappling with, like how to bring some theory into the whole project, using the things Mathilda had suggested but they just didn't really link so I ended up with a big gulf in between. I ended up grasping on this word "discourse" but it was not really working with everything else I was doing, so again, that contributed to the gap. It was total clucthing at straws on my side.
The map was for my first mentoring session, as I said before, with Matt, Fleur, Jake, Liam, Mo and Rio. It really helped a lot, because I'd been floundering, not really sure where to go next. I got pretty inspired by everything but scared as well. One of the things I have to do is start up a debating society, and Matt was suggesting creating like an alter ego or something. It's exactly the kind of thing I hate. I can barely present to the mentor group without freaking, so this going to be incredibly hard. It's good though, because I'll have to push myself right out of my comfort zone and to be honest, I'm not sure yet what I'll get out of it, but that's the point in it because oppurtunities for design and intervention will keep cropping up. Already there is the design of everything surronding the society [as long as I can get it off the ground] to work with.
I have an actual to do list now;
- Dash MacDonald - I need to look at his stuff, see if maybe I can get in contact with him.
- Look into people who train public speakers
- Find and visit established debating socities
- Explore rhetoric
- Rules and strcutures for debate
- Design a soap box
- Design my society
- Look at conviction and belief, designing it
- Read some "how to be a better public speaker" books or something similar
- Look at Barack Obama
- Visit Speaker's Corner [I guess a really good thing would to be actually to speak there.]
After chatting with Luke, Emily and Sophie in the studio today, one of the things that came out of that was the idea of debating societies and official debate where people are given a stance on an issue and then have to debate it, even if they don’t believe in what they are fighting for. It reminded me of the joint project we did with the third years last year where we had to take a stance on an issue [design should not be utopian] for my group, and create a convincing argument. This years joint project with the current second years also links into that as we had to convince people that we really believed in this superhero. The people who were most convincing were the ones most willing to set aside any kind of reservations and full immerse themselves in the world they’d created. Matt pointed out in my feedback that I should try and understand the debator and what makes someone good at debating; I guess from this it seems as though passion and conviction is a huge factor, or at the very least convincing people that you are passionate about what you’re fighting for.
This sort of lead me onto thinking about Barack Obama, and how he swept so many Americans, and the rest of the world, into a fever [a part of that was based on race, yes, but if you take that out of the equation and simply focus on him] He seems incredibly genuine and enthusiastic in his desire to bring about change. And of course he is very well educated and has an incredible power of rhetoric. His acceptance speech was amazing. If you compare that to his opponent, John McCain, he was simply peddling the same old issues as the Bush administration, and there was some consistently lackluster about the Republicans whole campaign as though even they didn’t really believe in what they were trying to sell. Even the addition of the always frightening and consistently psychotic Sarah Palin couldn’t hold a match to the passion Obama coaxed out of people. I want to look more extensively at Obama and the American Presidential debates, but I don’t want to restrict myself to current times, so I’m also going to try and study some other great debators.
Back to the studio discussion however, and the idea of joining the debating society at college came up. This was an idea I’d be vaguely considering so that’s definitely something I’m going to try and arrange. Except apparently we don’t have one at college, so I guess the closet might be the Political Society. The other idea was raised was something Rosario had mentioned to me about an artist who ran a workshop teaching children how to speak and act like politicians. By the end of the day, they were imitation the styles of the politicians almost to perfection. It would definitely be interesting to find out more about that.
One last point raised: I’m really struggling to vocalise my project in a coherent fashion. I try to start and then begin thinking about how little I’ve done, and how much I want to do, and my mind goes blank. Not a great start.
This sort of lead me onto thinking about Barack Obama, and how he swept so many Americans, and the rest of the world, into a fever [a part of that was based on race, yes, but if you take that out of the equation and simply focus on him] He seems incredibly genuine and enthusiastic in his desire to bring about change. And of course he is very well educated and has an incredible power of rhetoric. His acceptance speech was amazing. If you compare that to his opponent, John McCain, he was simply peddling the same old issues as the Bush administration, and there was some consistently lackluster about the Republicans whole campaign as though even they didn’t really believe in what they were trying to sell. Even the addition of the always frightening and consistently psychotic Sarah Palin couldn’t hold a match to the passion Obama coaxed out of people. I want to look more extensively at Obama and the American Presidential debates, but I don’t want to restrict myself to current times, so I’m also going to try and study some other great debators.
Back to the studio discussion however, and the idea of joining the debating society at college came up. This was an idea I’d be vaguely considering so that’s definitely something I’m going to try and arrange. Except apparently we don’t have one at college, so I guess the closet might be the Political Society. The other idea was raised was something Rosario had mentioned to me about an artist who ran a workshop teaching children how to speak and act like politicians. By the end of the day, they were imitation the styles of the politicians almost to perfection. It would definitely be interesting to find out more about that.
One last point raised: I’m really struggling to vocalise my project in a coherent fashion. I try to start and then begin thinking about how little I’ve done, and how much I want to do, and my mind goes blank. Not a great start.
Territories Feedback
Feedback from Territories.
So my feedback is currently somewhere on one of the 436 buses, making the ride between Lewisham and Paddington I think but this is what I’d written down from it.
Understand the debator, what makes a good debator, props used etc
"The Art of Over-Identification” [I think that’s what it said. I couldn’t read the writing very well]
Structuralists
Nowhere Foundation
Game Theory
Actor Network Theory
Nowhere Foundation
Places of informal debate - doesn’t need to involve alcohol [!]
Look into pub politics/debate
So my feedback is currently somewhere on one of the 436 buses, making the ride between Lewisham and Paddington I think but this is what I’d written down from it.
Understand the debator, what makes a good debator, props used etc
"The Art of Over-Identification” [I think that’s what it said. I couldn’t read the writing very well]
Structuralists
Nowhere Foundation
Game Theory
Actor Network Theory
Nowhere Foundation
Places of informal debate - doesn’t need to involve alcohol [!]
Look into pub politics/debate
A little recap...
Pecha Kucha Presentation
From the pecha kucha presentation my focus was on the project “Being Instinctive” and trying to explore the perceptions of human instinct. Something that had additionally risen from my work on this project was the idea of discussion and debate, of sparking conversation between people on subjects that they may not know much about but still have judgements and opinions on. The moment I realised I was interested in this was while I was discussing people’s perceptions of instincts, which I spent much of one day doing; talking to people in the studio and friends and family on the phone. Initially it was informal discussion, followed by a series of questions, which in themselves stimulated discussion between various people in the studio. It was while talking to Miriam, with Stacey joining in that I really became aware of my interest in this area. This got pushed to the side for the moment, as I was trying to draw my work on instinct to a close in time for the pecha kucha presentation. It resurfaced again during the drawing week as I attempted to divide my focus between the ideas of instinct and discussion but struggled to find an interesting area where these ideas meshed.
I was torn between one idea, discussion, which I was really engaged and interested in but found hard to explain, and the other idea, instinct, which I thought would possibly make a better area for a final year project. It was holding me back from fully exploring either concept in any kind of meaningful way, making the whole experience of the week of drawing unpleasant and frustrating. Eventually, after getting to the point of ripping up some of my own drawings, I realised that I had to make a decision on which direction I was going to explore. I chose instinct but after a tutorial with Matt, realised that it was pretty much a dead end direction and that my real interest lay in discussion and debate
Before Sunrise
Since I watched this movie a few years ago, there’s one quote that has already stuck with me:
“I believe if there's any kind of God it wouldn't be in any of us. not you or me but just this little space in between. If there's any kind of magic in this world it must be in the attempt of understanding someone, sharing something. I know, it's almost impossible to succeed but who cares really? The answer must be in the attempt.”
During the drawing week, while attempting to explore discussion, one of the things that continued to surface in my mind was this idea in the quote of “the space between you and me”. The movie as a whole served and still serves as a source of inspiration, a kind of leaping off point. Of course, it’s entirely scripted, but it’s very well done and the conversation seems to flow naturally as the two central characters move through the city. It really focuses more on discussion than debate, but the two can evolve very easily into each other, which perhaps raises a question of when a discussion becomes a debate and vice versa. I have been using the two terms in a sort of slightly vague way without really knowing entirely the difference and perhaps as a short exercise need to find a way of defining and pining them down.
With Before Sunrise, and perhaps the sequel as well, despite raising the above points, also led me to think about how time and place can effect discussion. I don’t particularly mean time in the sense of here and now, November 2008, 10am or whatever, though that would of course have an impact, but more the sense of how long a discussion might last, how long that ‘space between’ is going to exist. The effect this can have on levels of intimacy between people seems to be important, and whether people knew each other before the discussion they might be having. The point with the film, I suppose, in relation to this is that the two central characters didn’t know the other existed before that night and believe originally that this will be the only time they have together. Therefore, the amount of thoughts, feelings and memories seems to increase in proportion with the decreasing amount of time they have with each other. From a perhaps more cynical angle, this could be seen as a result of the fact they are in a way ‘stuck’ with each other and have a need to keep conversation going, which seems to have more of a connection to real life. This is just a general point, and possibly a rather sweeping statement but sometimes it seems these situations can create an area of false intimacy. Or perhaps it's simply that everyone wishes to be understood on some level, to have their views and thoughts aired and as with pub based conversations, the introduction of alcohol can encourage this. A slightly obscure reference but it leads me to think about a character in Stargate Atlantis, and when there was a possibility the city and it's inhabitants would be destroyed in a week or two, he decided to record all his ideas and thoughts to be sent home in case they might be of use to someone.
But this is all musings on the side. Continuing with exploring discussion and debate I was interested in the idea of formal debate on serious subjects set in informal locations such as cafes and pubs. It plays with this idea of "setting the world to rights." I think some of most interesting ideas can arise from casual conversation which is a large part of why I'm interested in this topic; the things that come out of conversation between individuals, the area that is created between them, where they each bring their own experiences, ideas, prejudices, theories into one time and place which then becomes unique.
So, basically I’ve been just exploring debate a little; visited the House of Commons, cafe’s, pubs. The studio is obviously a place of rich discussion and easily accessible. My big problem at the moment is I need a more effective system of mapping what is going on, a clearer focus and I need to be immersing myself more completely in debate. Probably the greatest, most deeply frustrating weakness I have is inaction, and I need to be producing a hell of a lot more, starting from now.
From the pecha kucha presentation my focus was on the project “Being Instinctive” and trying to explore the perceptions of human instinct. Something that had additionally risen from my work on this project was the idea of discussion and debate, of sparking conversation between people on subjects that they may not know much about but still have judgements and opinions on. The moment I realised I was interested in this was while I was discussing people’s perceptions of instincts, which I spent much of one day doing; talking to people in the studio and friends and family on the phone. Initially it was informal discussion, followed by a series of questions, which in themselves stimulated discussion between various people in the studio. It was while talking to Miriam, with Stacey joining in that I really became aware of my interest in this area. This got pushed to the side for the moment, as I was trying to draw my work on instinct to a close in time for the pecha kucha presentation. It resurfaced again during the drawing week as I attempted to divide my focus between the ideas of instinct and discussion but struggled to find an interesting area where these ideas meshed.
I was torn between one idea, discussion, which I was really engaged and interested in but found hard to explain, and the other idea, instinct, which I thought would possibly make a better area for a final year project. It was holding me back from fully exploring either concept in any kind of meaningful way, making the whole experience of the week of drawing unpleasant and frustrating. Eventually, after getting to the point of ripping up some of my own drawings, I realised that I had to make a decision on which direction I was going to explore. I chose instinct but after a tutorial with Matt, realised that it was pretty much a dead end direction and that my real interest lay in discussion and debate
Before Sunrise
Since I watched this movie a few years ago, there’s one quote that has already stuck with me:
“I believe if there's any kind of God it wouldn't be in any of us. not you or me but just this little space in between. If there's any kind of magic in this world it must be in the attempt of understanding someone, sharing something. I know, it's almost impossible to succeed but who cares really? The answer must be in the attempt.”
During the drawing week, while attempting to explore discussion, one of the things that continued to surface in my mind was this idea in the quote of “the space between you and me”. The movie as a whole served and still serves as a source of inspiration, a kind of leaping off point. Of course, it’s entirely scripted, but it’s very well done and the conversation seems to flow naturally as the two central characters move through the city. It really focuses more on discussion than debate, but the two can evolve very easily into each other, which perhaps raises a question of when a discussion becomes a debate and vice versa. I have been using the two terms in a sort of slightly vague way without really knowing entirely the difference and perhaps as a short exercise need to find a way of defining and pining them down.
With Before Sunrise, and perhaps the sequel as well, despite raising the above points, also led me to think about how time and place can effect discussion. I don’t particularly mean time in the sense of here and now, November 2008, 10am or whatever, though that would of course have an impact, but more the sense of how long a discussion might last, how long that ‘space between’ is going to exist. The effect this can have on levels of intimacy between people seems to be important, and whether people knew each other before the discussion they might be having. The point with the film, I suppose, in relation to this is that the two central characters didn’t know the other existed before that night and believe originally that this will be the only time they have together. Therefore, the amount of thoughts, feelings and memories seems to increase in proportion with the decreasing amount of time they have with each other. From a perhaps more cynical angle, this could be seen as a result of the fact they are in a way ‘stuck’ with each other and have a need to keep conversation going, which seems to have more of a connection to real life. This is just a general point, and possibly a rather sweeping statement but sometimes it seems these situations can create an area of false intimacy. Or perhaps it's simply that everyone wishes to be understood on some level, to have their views and thoughts aired and as with pub based conversations, the introduction of alcohol can encourage this. A slightly obscure reference but it leads me to think about a character in Stargate Atlantis, and when there was a possibility the city and it's inhabitants would be destroyed in a week or two, he decided to record all his ideas and thoughts to be sent home in case they might be of use to someone.
But this is all musings on the side. Continuing with exploring discussion and debate I was interested in the idea of formal debate on serious subjects set in informal locations such as cafes and pubs. It plays with this idea of "setting the world to rights." I think some of most interesting ideas can arise from casual conversation which is a large part of why I'm interested in this topic; the things that come out of conversation between individuals, the area that is created between them, where they each bring their own experiences, ideas, prejudices, theories into one time and place which then becomes unique.
So, basically I’ve been just exploring debate a little; visited the House of Commons, cafe’s, pubs. The studio is obviously a place of rich discussion and easily accessible. My big problem at the moment is I need a more effective system of mapping what is going on, a clearer focus and I need to be immersing myself more completely in debate. Probably the greatest, most deeply frustrating weakness I have is inaction, and I need to be producing a hell of a lot more, starting from now.
Presentation slides
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
