We Sell Boxes

Thoughts on my day to day experiences in undertaking research at RMIT University. [Steven Rhall]

[wesellboxes]

Jazzcat sez no.

[thedorseyshawexperience]

[the-absolute-funniest-posts]

solestruckshoes:

I could literally watch this for 60 years

[adrixu]

[wesellboxes]

Now that honours is over, I could use this as a 'pop culture' blog, full of reblogs?

[black-culture]

Thoughts on African American vernacular(@zellieimani)

[saltwaterwoman-deactivated20140]

Ditto with Aboriginal Australian English

[wesellboxes]

Feedback on a quote (by artist Richard Bell) from my supervisor had me thinking the same thing today. Do I tow the line and add '(sic)' or leave as is, potentially getting marked down?

[wesellboxes]

I think I have an Abstract

This exegesis details my research and project entitled The initiation of Steven Rhall. As Koori artist, I undertake a self reflective excursion detailing my development as researcher and practitioner.

Inspired by Terrence Rosenberg’s notion of ‘poetic research,’ I explore the idea of ‘Indigenous art’ and ‘hybridity in culture’ both in relation to my own practice and the wider Indigenous millieu. This enquiry is framed by the research question

'What does an enquiry framed by Rosenberg's poetic model of research reveal about my art practice and its relation to 'Indigenous Art'?

With discourse on Indigenous art and experience of Indigenous artist as foundation, I consider Indigenous methodologies, research and otherwise, in further exploration of self. Here I explore my own practice throughout the lens of Indigenous scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s ideas on the formation of identity.

Through this creative arts based research project, the work hybridity.psd is made reflecting a foray into experimental and performative process. Hybridity.psd and additional works Coconut Vine and Blak Metal (the decolonisation) are digitally based interactive works which exist at aboriginalartwebsite.com. These works, are made and contextualised, placing myself in the field of contemporary Indigenous art while positing that this space is fluid and has no boundary.

[wesellboxes]

[wesellboxes]

It's 7pm and about a week and a day away from the exegesis submission. Probably like my co-students, I've been preoccupied on that task to attend to this blog unless as part of what they do is blog to keep things moving, to help with the 'load'.

This is the reason I'm writing here now. I've usually written in my research diary, almost daily, but I think this post is a bit different in that it's just a way to try and get my head around things, to engage with this computer.

I've had concerns all along and I think it's a normal part of the honours journey – a bit of anxiety on bringing it all together. Like others around me though it's get a bit 'crunchy.'

Recently forming an outline after a few draft outlines I (and my supervisor) were happy with, I've been filling the gaps so to speak. It would be nice that the outlines had been filled with content but it hasn't until now.

Part of my plan was to lift words from related writings of this year into the draft. I've finished doing just that and while it's a relief to have essentially 'all the text' I was after there, I guess as expected it feels like a big mess... a fourteen thousand word mess.

This isn't a "what am I going to do" post (although I'm asking myself that question) but it's just a chance to take stock and breath a bit. Keep moving so I don't freeze up. I can do this and it'll be done one way or another.

To think about what I I have to do I'll just keep typing and see what happens - I mean here that is. So the abstract and intro are there, the abstract is too long and detailed but I think it should be editable Ok on the day. Same with the intro reflecting the adage of leaving it until last.

I've done well with one of my two main sections which is Indigenous Art. The large conversation that it is and that it is a Phd or more right there, I think I have spoken about the phenomenon in a way that is relevant to my larger project, supporting what follows and is a good base for contextualisation of making.

I'm sorta stuck with the creative arts research side of things. My last question mentions this and it's played a large part of the project but I'm finding it hard to consolidate, to pull it in to the writing - mostly because it's content I've written before for slightly different contexts. This is also why the word count is as high as it is. It's a bit overwhelming.

What I had planned and I still think I should do it tonight is print it out. I need to see another perspective on what is there. This will help me find a thread that pulls in the count and strengthens the piece.

[sgrhall]

Going mad in the Lab. 10 days to submission.

[wesellboxes]

Unexpectedly speaking to Judith Ryan, NGV's senior curator of Indigenous art, this morning had me scrambling for a pen and something to write on when discussing art in relation to my research.

[wesellboxes]

repeat much?!

[wesellboxes]

[wesellboxes]

From today's research diary that lives in Evernote (sharing the odd entry here).

[wesellboxes]

Responding to feedback from my peers about the draft intro I shared in class today.

One of the main things is to really help the reader into the writing by not being too brief in mentioning certain key concepts or factors of the exegesis. I talk about Rosenberg and also what he calls 'poetic research.' This can't be passed over casually and should be expanded upon, detailing what is meant by the term. 

Given that I (through the rest of the intro and paper) reframe and discuss 'poetic research' as art based research, this is also where I need to bring in 'art based research' too also allowing for the reader thinking there is a distinction between them. 

I had written 'Indigenous art' in inverted commas which itself needs explanation. Unlike the previous example this will not be done explicitly but through the text surrounding the term's introduction, in that it involves  contestation concerning what is or may not be Indigenous art. 

There wasn't a consensus but explaining what I have entitled the project The initiation of Steven Rhall should occur at some stage (which obviously didn't happen in this introduction). Part of me can see this happening in the body of the writing rather than the intro but I'm not sure why. It seems to big a discussion for the intro but perhaps too small to form part of the body. Perhaps reservations about it going in the body is not having any idea as to where it would fit. Given though this is the title of the project and it envelops the works and surrounding process, maybe it should take a good part of the intro? With it's layers of meaning perhaps it is even a fitting starting point of conversation with my audience, taking or leading them into the writing.

This has me thinking about what Ben mentioned about sequence and why did I see Rosenberg coming first in the theory chapter (or section of chapters)? When asked, I acknowledged some need to take the reader through in what would be a chronological  retelling of the 'journey' of my enquiry this year and the main reason I could think of was to not get confused (and therefore confuse the reader) by writing it all out in any other way.

Ben suggesting that ideas of Indigenous art should come first rather than last as this would follow on neatly from the first chapter which is a bit of an autobiographical, context building exercise. 

The shut up and write session has concluded!

[baseballdads]

[wesellboxes]

YEP

[humansofnewyork]

"If you could give one piece of advice to a large group of people, what would it be?" "When a wave comes, go deep." "I think I’m going to need an explanation for that one." "There’s three things you can do when life sends a wave at you. You can run from it, but then it’s going to catch up and knock you down. You can also fall back on your ego and try to stand your ground, but then it’s still going to clobber you. Or you can use it as an opportunity to go deep, and transform yourself to match the circumstances. And that’s how you get through the wave.”

[wesellboxes]

YEP

[wesellboxes]

Dear (research) diary

Dear (research) diary,

Today was a good day overall with a mixture of tasks done. In terms of hours 'working' I.e. leaving the house (9.00) and getting home now (22.22) the ratio of work to time could have been better but that's something to talk about later.

Learning through this diary that a good sleep, which for me is early to bed/rise, helps me feel not only better in the morning but I think there's something psychologically beneficial to getting into it with all the other proletariates (and I say that in a good way). I feel a bit loser-ish if say I even work late but have to start the day at 11am - I feel behind the 8 ball.

As I have also learnt, my best writing is done first thing in the morning (even before emails etc). This was shown today with 800 words done over 5 pomodoro. Speaking of this writing, it was something that I feel happened in a scenario that would have been less likely in the past. You see, I'm feeling relatively stuck with the structure of the exegesis - what are the sections? What to write about? Where to start? But knowing that the morning was my best opportunity and I feel pretty behind, I had to push something out!

So to do this, I looked for a section where I had my best chance. A section where I felt that it was pretty much going to be in the piece – so I started there. The 800 is a good stint but it seemed that I wrote a lot for the point I was making. This worries me a bit as it suggests al the other points need that much time also. SMH

A new thing to reflect on here is the 'making' that I've been doing. Making is research too as per all the stuff I've read, even today in this blog post by a PhD student (mental note - cite this blog post in my writing). Research through practice, theory led practice, practice led theory - what ever way you do it, it's all good. I really haven't made much at all this year probably because I have been more concerned about the 'academic' side of things a lot. "What is your question?!" "What theories are you referring to?!" bla bla bla. All the written research this year I have put a lot of time into. The academic was barely featured in the BA, so in a way I guess it has been a bit of catching up, or not even that - learning how to research full stop. .

The point I was getting to was in looking recently at the structure of an exegesis, the structure traditionally follows a theory component, then a methodological component explaing your making. Then, you contextualise you making. So doing the making today after all the more traditional research, it felt to contextualise the making was more possible than before. I also felt it was/is easier to pull new ideas and threads out of the making 'this relates to this', 'this refers to that'. Anyway…

My lunch break went on longer than expected even talking to the owner of the place I ate at a bit. This inspired a blog post on my main blog. Fun and relevant to where I live, it did make the lunck break go for way longer than the usual hour I allow myself.

Time to wrap this up. I'm on my second beer (I allow 2 beers max) and I'm learning that unlike Josh, it's harder for me to write. I need it though (to adjust my equilibrium) as there were some crazy guys (one of which had a head brace on) at Footscray station who I felt threatened by. My first run through Footscray station. Truly a local, maybe.

[wesellboxes]

Recording audio as part of research | spaces

The tiredness I spoke about yesterday which came after eating dinner didn't as expected, dissipate so I kept on with the relatively light task of looking at a semester one piece of writing while listening back to the conversation I recorded of Adrian giving me feedback on it. I was shown again here, the benefit of reflection. While this reflection was about my writing and it's ideas, the same benefits apply to photographic works and others made in the past.

All this ties in with the exegesis in that the later part of the writing includes reflecting about the work made. This adds to substantiating the making of the works.

In listening to the recording of Adrian, it confirmed to me that making a recording and reflection through listening a great thing to do whenever possible.

In the past I have taken notes and it all made sense at the time but given my shocking memory I not only forget the nuances of the feedback but also have trouble remembering the context of my notes.

This leads to me recording Neal giving me feedback on the draft today and the idea of record people without their knowledge. It's better to be upfront.

This approach is also supported by the potential opportunities that might come out of the audio, for example, a great idea it might be to quote someone down the track which effectively reveals that you had recorded them. You might be within your rights to have recorded them but it could result in a range of problems I don't want to start thinking about.

A few years ago I recorded some of the speakers at a forum. They were on a panel and I was one of at least 100 delegates. This scenario is where not asking is Ok in my opinion. Using that audio and quoting someone is something I'm unsure about. In my draft I've quoted a speaker of that forum. "Should I run it past them?" is one thought I'm having. Added to this situation is with the speaker being Indigenous, what might be the cultural protocol comes into question. If anything, this is more reason to maybe ask their permission. What comes into this also is the context I use the quote.

If it's decided to be included I should also provide at least a couple of paragraphs either side so the speaker can make an informed decision.

The quote in question has always stuck with me. It's a bit ambiguous and that's why I think it is useful to include in my conversation – it opens up questions I can talk about.

Today: I felt weirdly optimistic and spritely this morning after going to bed at 1am. This was even the case despite being a bit off and on since 6am. Maybe it was because I got what I thought was some reasonable ideas out on paper just before I turned off the light. So while I may have had a 'happy' sleep, it was maybe a bit broken from having the brain ticking a lot just before sleeping. I felt much more clear last night on the ideas I had than today. When I got the chance to speak to Neal about them, my lack of clarity was frustrating. What made it worse is that I guess I started doubting myself, thinking in being happy last night was possibly a bit delusional. Despite these, to use an analogy, mood swings I really should be happy that I was getting words out, flowing onto that paper… If I didn't do that then (when I had the chance, the moment) where would I be today?

After getting another bit of food coma after lunch today, I left to go home - calling it quits in the Lab for the day. My mind was swamped with a heaviness with part of it attributed to the bit of stress surrounding the approaching deadline. While I could have forced myself to work there, it would have been a real task. Added to this was the space I usually work in was having a workshop in it at some stage, breaking any momentum I might have started to build. I decided to go home for a break then to the Studio in Footscray.

Working reasonably solid with Simon here about a week ago showed that it's a space that can be conducive to some good work sessions. Ed is at the workshop and I haven't heard from Simon since Grand Final eve (he's a big footy fan). I'm tempted to maybe strike up more sessions here in the studio with one of the guys. I say one because it might be a bit cramped with three. I'd need another seat too. A reluctance this time is that it worked well before because Ed was up at the bush. You don't want to leave a brother out.

Tonight it's just me though and I plan to do some making-working and this is the place and computer to do it on. Let's see how we go.