Research Methods 1

The path through Unit 1 has been well sign posted, with specific waypoints marked with seminars and ‘crits’. As I have progressed through it I have attempted to develop my work in readiness for these stages, but frustratingly because of personal time constraints I have always found myself behind the point I wished to be at despite devoting a very significant amount of time to the tasks. This has meant that I feel my overall final outputs, for all parts of the unit, have suffered from a lack of feedback from my peers and tutors as I have been unable to show work at more advanced stages.

With the form element of the brief I deliberately didn’t look at historical work in an attempt to avoid being influenced. Despite this approach others have already tried most, if not all, the experiments I have worked on. It was probably naïve, considering my relatively broad knowledge of the field, to think I could have achieved this. Looking sooner at other experiments might have shown me places that I could have filled in some blanks.

Initially I also avoided my usual software tools in order to work in a different way. This yielded some interesting pieces; for example, when I intersected coloured squares of thin card, shown in my object book and produced results that I would have struggled to imagine using software. These, along with the cubes and their shadows, stand out compared to some of the computer-based outputs. I also used this part of the brief to teach myself the basics of the Processing programming language. This led me to develop a series of animations that show the full set of unique combinations that can be derived from a set number of things e.g. Planes, lines and points. Despite knowing that many others have done the same or similar experiments, technology has allowed me to go through many more iterations than traditional techniques could.

Despite a lack of original approaches at a minimum the form experiments have left me avenues that I wish to explore further and a set of starting points for further development. Therefore the benefits of experimenting outside of my professional work have been spelled out clearly.

My approach to the contextual part of the unit was to focusing on reference materials such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, rather than opinion and theoretical texts as this is my preferred approach to gaining initial knowledge on a subject. Now, at the end of the unit I feel in a better position to approach the more esoteric analyses.

Amongst the various descriptions of my form I quickly identified a few areas that I wished to pursue further relating to cultural and language uses. However, I struggled to find an interesting output for them. Thinking about what was an interesting question to ask took too much time. By the time I settled on the icon/pictogram work as part of my final output I didn’t have much time left to develop it, as far I’d have liked too as it forms a smaller part of the whole than I’d have liked. Though it was not my intention to find an “answer”, it was undertaken to allow me explore icon/pictogram history and practice the skills that are necessary for their creation. I believe I was marginally successful.

The outputs of my work took two forms: books and web pages. I have never produced a whole book before, and had limited experience with print so this experience was invaluable, but I lacked the feedback for prototypes at later stages. In terms of web pages I took the opportunity to practice techniques and technologies I rarely find time too in my professional life. Again a lack of feedback to prototypes means alternative possibilities with my arrangements have been missed.

I see it as missed opportunity that I was unable to link my form and output work. In hindsight I can see several routes now, such as using shapes generated in my animations to inspire my approach to my icons, which may have had an impact on what I have submitted.