As Anthony addressed in his workshops on writing, an essential part of the writing process is the redrafting. I made sure to keep all of my drafts to track my progress and see how far I have come. In addition to this, if for some reason I lost my current draft I would be able to fall back on the earlier copies for reference. So in this blog post are all my drafts displayed here as JPEGS, between the drafts I will be detailing the process behind each change and the progression.
- This was written for the first practice run: I used the ideas I got from Shaun Hides talk and based my structure on opposing the ideology of Fred Ritchin and Stephen Mayes. As I had made an effort to read and listen to a lot of the material available from these two I felt confident to try and write a draft with the addition of the sources when appropriate.
- I received some good feedback from reading this draft out in the first practice run, however the general opinion was that I presented too fast and as a result, the content didn’t come across effectively. This meant I needed to cut down my word count and refine the content so I could deliver a slower presentation. It was addressed that my title was far too longwinded so that is another aspect I needed to work on; the title should be attention grabbing but it should also inform the viewer to a certain extent about what the presentation will be about.
- Overall I was really happy with the response from my first draft, however the feedback definitely gave me areas in which I could improve on.
- The first thing to do was to really consider the content of my paper and try and condense this into a short and appealing title.
- I also had some work on my introduction and my conclusion to do, as they were still a bit rough owing to the fact that I didn’t appear to really know the point of my argument.
- Anthony also mentioned that I should try and define the term photojournalism in the context of photography, using my own photographic knowledge to form this explanation.
- With feedback form Anthony saying that my title was still too long, I really worked on some further options. I really liked the format of using the word ‘Photojournalism’ first and then the remainder to describe the concept I would be investigating.
- I had received feedback from Anthony previously that identified my awareness of photojournalism historically was possibly a bit weak and I should develop this in order to strengthen my introduction; I read Photography: A Critical Introduction by Mary Warner Marien and other sources such as Walter Benjamin do achieve this.
- A key difference between these two drafts was the addition of my references and in-text citations, I was unsure at the time how to format these, having not consulted the Harvard Referencing guide so I created my own loose format of using a citation where I had summarised the author’s ideology and the full reference where I had quoted them directly.
- This draft hadn’t really dramatically changed from the previous one, just a few refinements and spelling errors when I read through it again and timed it.
- It was exactly the same as the previous draft, however I had begun to identify the mistakes with my references.
- I made quite a big change to my paper in the transition, I transformed the introduction to base it on questions raised by the texts I had been reading and the sources I had examined. The three foregrounding questions would work to secure the attention of the audience and get them thinking immediately about the concepts I would examine.
- I also developed into considering theories such as Marshall McLuhan and Walter Benjamin in relation to mass image culture and also Martha Rosler on truthful representation and the issues surrounding representation. This was drawing on from the Phonar content relating to the representation of a subject effectively and truthfully.
Draft Six (with comments from Kate Green)
- Kate Green is a previous student who both helped with the running of Phonar and came in to give us a talk about the symposium module and her experience. She very kindly agreed to read my draft and give me some feedback which I really appreciated, I gave her draft six as I felt I had particularly progressed since the previous draft so it would be a good point to get some fresh feedback.
- I really appreciated it and she gave me a lot of points to consider with my structure and how I had written the content for example I had unknowingly used the contrast created in Phonar between the photograph and the image and not fully explained it. In addition I was unaware of other ideology behind the term ‘image’ so this was a really useful experience for me.
- With the feedback from Kate I started making changes to the content and the structure, which can be seen below
- At the same time I was still thinking about titles I could use, going back and reading the content to really consider what it was I am investigating and how this could perhaps be summarised in the space of a few words.
- In working on my draft I uncovered a new section I hadn’t really considered before, and that was the representation of the subject and the responsibility held by the photographer. I subsequently made a new paragraph for this new content, hoping to add a new dimension to the paper.
- I received some feedback from Anthony on my symposium paper, he focused down on the new section I had added and gave me some names and concepts to research to supplement this. One of these was Abigail Solomon-Godeau’s essay ‘Inside/Out’ which discussed the approach and position of the photographer in relation to the subject they are photographing.
- This was an extremely relevant piece of text, and worked to fill a gap in my theorists/writers so I immediately added it into my paper however I was aware of how long it was getting so I tried to make some refinements by cutting some sentences and words out.
- I also made the effort to complete my list of references with an in-text citation in the actual body of the text referring to ideology and quotations used and the proper list of references at the end of the paper. The highlighted aspects referred to the references and citations that I wasn’t completely sure of and needed refining however this would come with time.
- This draft was accompanied with a presentation and was presented to Anthony on the 3rd of February as potential final draft; this was the initial date we had set out as a class to make sure that everyone had a piece of text.
- I had made a conscious effort to try and think of a title that would be interesting but accessible at the same time, this was my reasoning for referencing a popular film however it also related to the questions raised in the beginning of the introduction so it appeared to work for the time being.
- I attempted to refine the content with the attempt of achieving a ten minute presentation – I timed a reading of the paper which resulted in being very close to ten minutes so I was very happy.
- Not many changes were made in this draft apart from a few grammatical, spelling and structural changes with the addition of firming up the most of the citations and references. I had to email Matt Johnston about his SoundCloud recording of David Campbell as it was unclear from the website the exact date it had been published.
- Again not many changes were made apart from the completion of the referencing and citation process and an attempt to refine my paragraph structure.
- One defining change was swapping the word ‘modern’ in the title for the word ‘now’ as the previous word is filled with ambiguity.
- Following another apt with Anthony and an appointment with CAW (Centre for Academic Writing) it was addressed that I wasn’t effective in my structuring of paragraphs and that the flow of the paper wasn’t as natural as it could be. With this in mind I analysed the content and the point behind each paragraph and section and consequently made some quite significant changes to the order of the paper.
- I also consulted CAW about my referencing, I was reminded that my references need to be alphabetised, they only appear once and there were some certain formatting changes that needed to be made in my list of references and the citations.
- I continued to make refinements to my structure and the content, this draft was the one read out in the informal practice run. Unfortunately I stumbled a bit over my sentences, lost my place a few times and was put off when I realised my presentation wasn’t in the correct order, for this reason my presentation was over eleven minutes.
- I was really encouraged to go back and practice my paper with the view of getting the time down to ten minutes. In addition to this I believed there was still some work to be done with my phrasing and sentence structure to make the paper easier to read out loud.
- With the exception of one new citation I have completed the necessary formatting changes to my references and citations as advised to me by CAW.
- I read back through the paper with the updated presentation and made some small changes to the sentences which would make it easier to read and ultimately easier to listen to. This would be the draft I read out at the proper dress rehearsal for feedback from Anthony, Kate and Daniel in the build up to the symposium.
I made a few changes to the structure as suggested by Anthony and Kate and then gave it to my friend Gabi Jones who studies English and asked her to proof read the introduction as we had now passed the point of getting more feedback. This was my attempt in making sure the rewritten introduction was grammatically correct and made sense.
- I made all the changes suggested apart from the last few sentences, although from an English perspective, it appears I was contradicting myself, from a photographer’s perspective it made sense as it tracked event chronologically however I did appreciate her pointing this out as it really made me think about what the sentences were attempting to say.
After all the changes I saved and printed my completed draft which can be seen below: