Sophie Ashdown

This is a late write-up about the zoom session I had in June with my research tutor, Gia. I wasn’t sure what to expect but I need not have worried.

As expected, Gia was lovely, engaging, understanding, and full of ideas.

We talked about how she would be supporting me through the process, and how best to contact her. Amazingly she said I could even contact her over the summer but I am trying hard not to have to do that.

She had reviewed the first draft of my research paper and we talked about my thoughts, ideas, and concerns going forward.

It was important to me that the draft research topic made sense and would be viable as the basis for the project. Gia agreed that it did, but also said that it is okay to change the wording of the research topic as much as is needed, as long as the rest of the paper supports it. That was a relief to me as I have rewritten it many times in my head! In fact I have already reworked it, and this is the current version (subject to change!):

Data as a raw material.  How contemporary data artists extend the Constructivist use of geometric forms by treating data itself as the modern equivalent of an industrial material, comparing specifically how Artist Nathalie Miebach and Data Journalist David McCandless incorporate the design elements of Constructivism in their artistic interpretations of data.

In my first draft I had written up the topic, abstract, and conclusion in paragraph format, and then created detailed bullet points for each of the sections I wanted to include in the paper, including some possible quotes. For example here is what I have for the section about Nathalie Miebach:

Thankfully Gia said it was fine that I didn’t have fully written out paragraphs for each section yet, which was a relief. Rather than just writing loads of words, I need to plan it out, then I will attack each section to flesh it out further, then go around again to do more, etc. until I have the finished version.

We also talked about the style of writing. I was concerned that I wouldn’t be “academic” enough but Gia reassured me that, especially for this type of course, the writing style does not need to be purely academic. She described writing in an “arts academic” style instead. The important thing is to ensure that I’m writing with “analysis” and not just description. I should demonstrate critical thinking and investigation of different ideas.

Gia had some practical tips for when I’m doing the writing:

• Don’t pre-edit my words, just keep writing as I’m thinking and considering. I can edit later.

• Don’t delete anything – often I could come back to an idea or it will spark something else

• If I’m in the flow of writing but I get stuck on a particular word, just write “TK” in that place and keep going so I don’t lose my train of thought. (Apparently there are almost no words in the english language have “TK” in them!) Then later on I can do a search for “TK” and go back to fix the places where I got stuck.

I think these are some very good tips!

We discussed how I wanted to get in touch with Nathalie Mieback and David McCandless to ask them some questions to include their answers in the paper. I need to think and consider what questions to ask but will do that soon. Gia suggested that I send them an introductory email first to gauge their response and ask one or two questions, then if they are willing I can send them further questions later.

Gia suggested some resources for me, and we talked about the different UAL libraries. I expect I will be spending some time there over the summer!

Overall it was a really useful and engaging session. Gia is very easy to talk to and I’m really happy that she is my research tutor.