Reasons to take Photographs

Reading a paper Realism and the Photographic Image by Bob Rogers I came across this quote from a Kodak advertisement:-

... You wake up and suddenly it is hard to find
The memories you've left behind.
Reach back for the joys and sorrows.
Here comes the setting sun.
The seasons are passing one by one.
So gather moments while you may
Collect the dreams you dream today.
.... from a Kodak Commercial 1979

http://www.salondesrefuses.net
Link
Published in the GAZETTE DES BEAUX-ARTS, September 1981

MS Word Document - Adding a Version No

An important aspect of writing for a PhD is keeping track of the paper, particularly revisions and versions. To date I have been adding version numbers to my essays manually. As I am a bit lazy and very forgetful they are often not updated and chaos sets in. So I decided to explore the possibility of adding a "Version No" field to my headers along with the file name and date created which are already there. Typically there is not a default "Version No" field option in Word 2010. However, I Googled "Word 2010 revision number" and this revealed a number of helpful sources of info. The one I chose to follow was on the MPV website, an article titled -
"How can I get Word to automatically display the document version number in the Header & Footer?" by Dave Rado

Dave warns about using the obvious option -

If you use Versions (File + Versions) to store multiple versions of a document within a single file, then it will only be a matter of time before your document corrupts and you lose all your work. Avoid this feature like the plague - and like Fast Save and Master Documents, which are similarly broken – unless the document is of no importance to you. Taking backups won't necessarily help, because the corruption may creep up on you gradually, and by the time you realise you have a corruption you may have to go back to a very old file to get a clean document.

The article offers the alternative solution of creating a custom Document Property to store  the "Version No". You can find the full article here

Scrivner or MS Word? - Updated

I am 9 months into my PhD and I have to say I am progressing better than expected on some fronts. But, and there is always a but, I am not without issues! One of my worst failings is the organisation of my research literature and associated writing and notes. I am on  my 7th essay of around 6000 words and in the process have accumulated a mass of reprints and books not to mention Zotero entries.  Do I just accept that I am disorganised or do I try to do something about it before it becomes an irreversible problem?

I was reading a blog update email from The Thesis Whisperer (TTW), one of my favourite sources of inspiration and advice. The post was titled "How to write faster" and one of the paragraphs was about Scrivener, to quote from the website, Scrivener is:

Scrivener is a powerful content-generation tool for writers that allows you to concentrate on composing and structuring long and difficult documents. While it gives you complete control of the formatting, its focus is on helping you get to the end of that awkward first draft.

 Like TTW I have used Microsoft Word (MS Word) for ever and despite still struggling to find my way around version 2010 on occasions, I am fairly comfortable with it. So the thought of having to start all over again fills me with dread. These were TTW's thoughts when she changed over in January 2011:-

This week I started using ‘Scrivener’ for writing my research papers. It’s a word processing program which has been on the Mac for some years, but only now is being developed for the PC.

It took less than 5 minutes to start loving this program. In a single morning I had a decent draft of a paper, which can sometimes take me weeks. I wasn’t at all surprised to read in the bio of the developer that writing this software was part of his “struggle to put together a PhD thesis” because I think it fits research writing like a glove. 

Well those words are encouraging. However these are the comments from TTW's latest post, September 2013:-

Anyone who has been reading this blog for a while will know this is the key reason I am a huge Scrivener fan. Scrivener is a different kind of word processor that enables you to write ‘chunks’ and move them around easily (you can read more about Scrivener here and download a free trial here).

Although I prefer to use Scrivener, it is not always possible, or desirable, to use it end to end in a given writing project. I often find myself collaborating with other MS Word users (ie: 99% of the writing world) and there are certain things Word does well (in particular tables). Luckily translating my text from Scrivener to Word and back again is very easy.

Since the productivity boost from Scrivener is in the drafting process, I stay there as long as I can before switching to MS Word. I overcome some of the problems of MS Word by creating subheadings and assigning styles to them. Then I make a table of contents so these subheadings become clickable links at the start of my document. It’s not perfect, but it enables me to ‘teleport’ around the text more easily during the final editing process.

Time and experience has obviously influenced TTW's initial enthusiasm for Scrivener, it is interesting to note that she has now found a working model that combines the virtues of both Scrivener and MS Word. I have downloaded the demo version of Scrivener and I will give it a go. Watch this space for my feedback.

UPDATE - 11th October 2013 - I downloaded the trial version of Scriviner with the intention of giving it a good try. Unfortunately after opening the programme and having a quick look around I closed it and have not opened it again. I decided rightly or wrongly that life is too short to start finding my way around a new piece of sofware on top of all my other pressing demands. I have reverted back to using Microsoft OneNote and expanding my knowledge of Zotero's ever expanding capabilities. Sorry Scriviner!

Photography - Lady Elizabeth Eastlake

I came across a wonderful monograph on photography which I thought I would share with you. Written by Elizabeth Eastlake in 1857 for the London Quarterly Review . Elizabeth Eastlake was a writer, critic and historian,  the wife of Sir Charles Eastlake the director of the National Gallery. The article paints a vivid picture of photography in its hey day, just 18 years after is announcement to the world in 1839. Here is an extract, I think you will find it fascinating...

Photography 

From the London Quarterly Review, April 1857,
pp. 442-68 

It is now more than fifteen years ago that
specimens of a new and mysterious art were first
exhibited to our wondering gaze. They consisted
of a few heads of elderly gentlemen executed in
a bistre-like colour upon paper. The heads were
not above an inch long, they were little more
than patches of broad light and shade, they
showed no attempt to idealise or soften the
harshnesses and accidents of a rather rugged
style of physiognomy--on the contrary, the eyes
were decidedly contracted, the mouths expanded,
and the lines and wrinkles intensified.
Nevertheless we examined them with the keenest
admiration, and felt that the spirit of Rembrandt
had revived. Before that time little was the
existence of a power, availing itself of the eye of
the sun both to discern and to execute, suspected
by the world--still less that it had long lain the
unclaimed and unnamed legacy of our own Sir
Humphry Davy. Since then photography has
become a household word and a household want;
is used alike by art and science, by love,
business, and justice; is found in the most
sumptuous saloon, and in the dingiest attic--in
the solitude of the Highland cottage, and in the
glare of the London gin-palace in the pocket of
the detective, in the cell of the convict, in the
folio of the painter and architect, among the
papers and patterns of the millowner and
manufacturer, and on the cold brave breast on the
battle-field.

The link to the article on www.photokaboom.com here

Practice-led PhD: What do the Examiners Expect?

This is a question which has troubled me since I started my PhD in January 2013. I have searched for advice on the subject of What do the Examiners Expect but with little success. I eventually came across an interesting paper by Dally et al, Assessing the exhibition and the exegesis in visual arts higher degrees: perspectives of examiners, which appears to offer fairly succinct advice on the subject (Dally et al., 2004).

The authors interviewed by means of in-depth telephone conversations, 15 Visual Arts examiners from 10 Australian higher education institutions. I get the impression that the authors were somewhat surprised to discovered that their sample of examiners appeared to be relatively consistent in the criteria they employ to judge a Visual Arts doctoral thesis.

There was a consensus that the exhibition was the most important element. Candidates should demonstrate a journey indicating the development and successful resolution of their research question, demonstrating exemplary technical skill as well as an ability to represent and communicate new, fresh, imaginative, innovative ideas. There was some disagreement as to whether these should be original ideas. The exhibition should clarify where the student is and where they have been. When asked what they considered to be an unacceptable standard the examiners where consistent in their opinion that a lack of research basis was one of the most frequent reasons for dissatisfaction.

Examiners felt that “the exegesis would position or contextualise the work within its field, explain the research process and/or clarify the contribution and significance of the project.” Examiners expected “the artwork to 'speak for itself' while at the same time anticipating that the exegesis would continue the conversation.” In conclusion, “examiners expected to see clear evidence of a relationship between the written and practical components, with the artwork primarily seen as the defining element in determining whether or not the degree should be awarded.”

The paper is available under a number of citations and titles, my reading is based on the HTML version, the title of which is quoted above and is available from the link below.

Reference

Dally, K., Holbrook, A., Graham, A. & Lawry, M. (2004) The processes and parameters of Fine Art PhD examination. International Journal of Educational Research, 41 (2), pp.136–162.

Link

http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/artdes_research/papers/wpades/vol3/kdfull.html

The First Death of Photography 1895

Searching my archives today I came across the book, Photography: Artistic and Scientific by Robert Johnson and Arthur Brunel Chatwood, Published 1895. I reproduce here an extract from the Introduction. There is something slightly timeless about the sentiment expressed even if the language and the grammar are a little dated.

Introduction.

The strides that photography is made during the last few years, due to the patient and earnest work of a large body of experimentalists, have not been an unmixed blessing; the production sensitive plates and other materials at cheap rates, and the possibility which exist today of buying everything ready prepared, having induced thousands to take up photography as an amusement, not as “hobby.” The result has been that the quality of the work produced has deteriorated. We do not say that the photographs are no t[sic] produced today far excelling those of the wet collodion period, but we do say that if the whole of the plates exposed in any recent year could be collected, the average quality of the results, whether from the technical or the artistic standpoint, would be found much lower than that of 20 years ago.

In the days of wet collodion, only those who were prepared to take great trouble, to exercise much thought, and to do serious work, were attracted by photography. The enormous amount of impedimenta that it was necessary to carry about deterred the half-hearted; the trouble of preparing plates caused every effort to be put forth to make each plate serve a useful purpose, and the fact that the negatives were developed on the spot, gave every opportunity for correcting by a second exposure, the errors of a first.

“Some years ago,” says a contemporary magazine, “when amateur photography was in its infancy here, as well as in other countries, a soulless corporation extensively advertised a camera which only required a button to be pressed and pictures were made. The idea soon took root that there was nothing in photography, when it merely required the pressing of a button. It was apparent that any fool could do that. And when these cameras where purchased and tried, the result convinced the owner of the fact, not only that any fool could do it, but that he was a fool a good many sizes larger for doing it. The feeling of disgust and disappointment was created, and there is little doubt but that photography was taken up by thousands and dropped again when it was found out how it had been misrepresented to them....

...Photography is considered by very many as an art, and photographers, consequently, as artists; nothing could be further from the truth. Photography is purely an interesting science; it records with greater or less fidelity the scenes and incidents presented to it; and this record is governed by scientific and mechanical principles alone.

Art consists of the representation of a conception formed in the mind of the artist in such a way as to be appreciable to other minds. And the photographer becomes an artist only in so far as his work shows that he has the mind of an artist.

I particularly like these two final paragraphs, they sum up quite concisely the paradox of photography which persists even to this day, technology v aesthetics. The change from the wet collodion process to dry plates was the first technological turn in photography. Similar sentiments have been expressed when other technological turns have influenced the popularity of photography, namely the introduction of the Kodak Brownie, 35mm photography and of course the biggest technological turn of them all the digitisation of photography. On each occasion the cognoscenti have thrown their hands in the air and claimed that the end of photography is nigh.

You can view the book on line here

 

How to Notate or Mark-up a Book

I started a new book at the weekend and it is so interesting and relevant that I found myself marking up virtually every word. This morning I stopped my self and thought, there has to be a better way to do this. Then I thought, in 4 years of study know-one had ever shown me how to mark-up or notate a book correctly or efficiently, may be a better word. So the inevitable Google lead me to this short and to the point article on A Wordsmith's Studies blog, How to Notate a Book, I hope the author will forgive me for re-posting the article in full...

How to Notate a Book

 When skimming a book, you are looking for answers to the questions of what kind of book is it? what is it about? what is the structure of the book?  Make note of the answers to these questions on the contents page or possibly the title page.

When you go back and re-read the book (if you believe it is worth re-reading), here are some suggestions for note-making:

1. Underline or circle major points and important or forceful statements.
2. Use vertical lines at the margin to emphasize something you’ve already underlined or to mark a passage too long to be underlined.
3. Use a star, asterisk, or other doodle at the margin to emphasize the 10-12 most important passages in the book.  If you either bookmark the page or fold down the corner of the page where you’ve made the mark, you’ll be able to take the book off the shelf and flip right to it.
4. Write numbers in the margin to show a sequence of points in the author’s argument.
5. Write the numbers of other pages in the margin to show elsewhere in the book the author makes the same points or places he contradicts himself.
6. Write your thoughts in the margins: questions, answers; a summary of what the author is saying; the sequence of major points in the book.
7. Use the endpapers at the back to make an index of the author’s points in order of appearance.
8. When you’ve finished reading the book and making your index on the back endpapers, then outline the book’s structure in the front endpapers.

After you’ve finished reading the book, if you decide to move on and compare that book to others you are reading, then you probably will need to make those notes on separate paper.

–adapted from How to Read a Book

I make no apologies for reposting the article referred to in the first chapter Skimming a Book which is also a useful reference.