On 18/05/2020 I attended a L3 study hangout which was very useful in establishing where I am personally with my studies.
We talked a bit about how my own synthesis with practical and theoretical work was going, especially with regards to lockdown due to the pandemic. This was very helpful for me as it gave me a chance to explain to others how I perceive my theory work to be taking a more prominent role in my studies now. I was able to realise this is partly because of where I am now in terms of both Body of Work and Contextual Studies and partly because a side effect of lockdown is that it allows more for theory based work rather than practical.
We also talked about literature reviews and how they relate to our plans and the extended written projects. This was especially interesting for me because my emphasis on certain aspects of regeneration has changed now from managed decline and displacement to the role of the arts in regeneration. Therefore I was concerned whether my literature review would still be valid or whether I should rewrite it. I received a very thought-provoking response. I was posed the question does the literature review still retain valid elements for yourself that shows something of a progression in your thoughts? I feel on reflection that this is the case; parts of my original literature review still informs my plan and some of my extended written project. It also displays how my thought process has changed. There was another suggestion and that was I could rewrite the literature review but of course keep the original. As well as this I should leave a note in my evaluation or learning log why I had rewritten the literature review and how my thought process had changed. Doing this would make it explicit why my emphasis on different aspects of regeneration had changed from my original literature review to my extended written project. In terms of updating the literature review, I’m not worried about this taking up too much time because I’ve been reading relevant literature for the extended written project and making notes might even help this process.
We also talked about how the extended written project shouldn’t be a dictation of how the body of work operates. Instead the two should be synthetical where there are overlapping elements but the extended written project informs the body of work in so far as it has relevance. Ariadne made a good point that the theory and practice aren’t the same thing in different mediums. Specifically it isn’t really the case that two separate ideas mirror each other exactly. Amano used a powerful metaphor that Body of Work and Contextual Studies were like two trees: standing near each other but different types. When these trees branches began to intertwine, there was a start to synthesis between the theory and practice.
It had taken me some time to work this out for myself via the course notes but it was good to have this reaffirmed and to see others approaching theory and practice the same way.