I’m so sorry but I couldn’t finish the grading today. I was in the Susan Leigh Star symposium all day and it was sort of intense and amazing, then open studios, and I’m just done. Look for responses from me tomorrow!!! I think I have finished responding to everyone who told me they will be doing their eating project for the final project. If I’m wrong about that email me, and you’ll be at the top of my list tomorrow morning.


Yay I’m done! I think. If I missed something, let me know asap!

So, I have established “tiers” in my grading–these artificial constructs make me feel more comfortable about being so behind.

First, a physical constraint: All paper submissions were graded first, because I could do that work on the plane/in transit. (Although Addie, I graded yours in Zion National Park, which should count for something.)

Then, everyone else: I’ve already graded and responded to everyone who is presenting tomorrow. The least I could do.

My next target group is the people presenting June 8. (done! Except for Carmella and Pegah whose videos I am struggling to play…and except for anyone who hasn’t turned it work yet.)

My last group is the people who have already presented earlier in the quarter.

If you are in this last group but are revising your eating project for your final and you want feedback sooner, please let me know. Happy to move you to the top of that list.

Now, you know the workings of my mind. Such as it is.

OK, this has shifted around even more since class yesterday. I’ll be updating ecommons asap, but for now, this is the final list:

June 2 (Final Project in process)

  1. ____Gina DeMatteo_____
  2. ____Gene Selkov__________
  3. ____Josh Jobrack___________________
  4. ____Rebeca Bonilla-Myers__________________
  5. _____Jeffrey Liston_________________
  6. _____Nick Yarborough________________
  7. _____Luie Powell_______________
  8. _____Bryn Owens_____

June 8 (Finished Final Project)*

  1. ____Corinne Warnshuis_________________
  2. ____Jake Saracino_____________
  3. ____Brian Lacey_________________
  4. _____Anders Ericsson_________________
  5. _____Julian Alexander__________________
  6. ____Emily Chao______________
  7. ___Sarah Jaffe________
  8. ____Carmella Crissman_________________
  9. _____Kyle Taylor______________
  10. _____Kaya Lampe______
  11. _____Kip Radt & Doug Smith________________
  12. Pegah Yazd

Plan to spend the whole two hours on Thu, and hopefully more like 2.5 hours next week.

in case pdf names confuse you:

Inka Schube, “A Different Kind of War Reporting” (E) = Nesbit_Obrist_von_Bismark_Schube.pdf (toward the end of the pdf)
Richard Meyer, “Home Delivery” (E) = meyer_homeDelivery.pdf
Martha Rosler, “Bringing the War Home: House Beautiful 1967-1972 new series 2004″ (E) = warHome2004.pdf

The show was great yesterday! Congratulations to everyone involved–so much fun!

Because we took time for Ramen & Beer yesterday, our Recipe Art discussion might bleed into May 17th’s meeting. But we’re more or less on track.

Papers to read for Tuesday are all uploaded on ecommons, in a folder called “papers for May 10.” Enjoy them!

Next week, we will hear from:

_Scott Spitz______________________
Ryan Tekulve____________________
Larissa Bates____________________
Sean Murphy_____________________
_Jonathan Garduno_____

(I’m so sorry for the rampant name misspelling in this post!!! My only excuse is that I was transcribing from handwritten sign up sheets. I think everything is right now????)

There are a number of ways to present a paper. Our quick format (5-10 minutes) restricts these options somewhat, but the basic approaches still stand:

  1. Give us a guided tour of your paper. Explain your topic, examples, thesis, why it matters to you. Maybe you have some visual accompaniment, like images or film clips.
  2. Read from your paper. This is less ideal in short format, but is the academic conference standard practice. Sometimes this can be great, but often it’s pretty dry. If you choose to do this: 1) Rehearse and 2) Time yourself.
  3. You can always do a mix, reading a few key passages but talking through the rest in a more informal way.

I’d like to post drafts from participants on Tuesday, so class members can read the papers ahead of time. Discussion will be greatly enriched by doing this. So if you are presenting, do send your draft on Tuesday.

Check out your classmate on the UCSC news website: http://news.ucsc.edu/2011/04/warnshuis.html!

I will be grading based on the current grade option choices I see on AIS. I think the deadline to decide on grade option was Friday, so I should be safe in using current grade options. If you are taking the class P/NP, I’ll give you feedback in this format:

P+ : Pass with distinction–excellent work
P : Good work! A strong passing mark
P- : Minimally passing/room for improvement

Each smaller project includes a draft workshop. The dates for the workshops are April 12, May 3, and May 24. We’ll take the last 45 min/hour of class for the workshop.

These workshops are meant to be quick and informal, giving you access to an extra pair of eyes to both inspire last minute changes and catch errors.

You will be in groups of 2-3, reading/critiquing 1-2 other projects.

Before exchanging/presenting projects, it can be helpful to tell your readers what kind of feedback you want, ie, proofreading, conceptual, contextual. It can be extremely helpful to have a draft of your artist statement available for your readers to review.

If you will be presenting, it might be smart to run through your presentation during the workshop. Or you could work on feedback on the project itself, if your presentation isn’t developed yet.

Optional ideas to structure your feedback:

What is this project about? What is the author’s intervention? (Can you summarize in 15 words?)

Which ideas need further development?

Which ideas are strong?

If this were your project, how would you expand into a larger final project?

Another optional text, mentioned in one of the interviews we read this week:

Nina Möntmann
(Under)Privileged Spaces: On Martha Rosler’s “If You Lived Here…”

Strictly optional, just in case you read the interview and wonder “where can I read this!!!??”