Rotor Exhibition - Reflections on Discursive Documents, discussion Event #1

At the discussion event, hosted by Dr Liam Devlin on 2nd March, the artists Alex Baldea and Seba Kurtis were introduced with a short explanation of their work.

In thinking about ethics & politics - then drilling down into democracy, society and motives, the social discursive (discussion) actants are, in this case, photographs.

 I'm drawn to recall some of the writings of Gilles Deleuze and Filix Guattari, with " A Thousand Plateaus" in particular.

I cannot profess to have read the whole book, I haven't, - it's an enormous tome.

But of the parts that are often referred to, the ideas that Deleuze and Guattari had, which ostensibly is about "where we are situated in the world around us" (the worldview, if you like), can be split into 3 ares. They called these "Strata". If one thinks about layers for a moment, the world is made up of Inorganic (geological), Organic (biological) and Social (People, politics, society and everything that goes within it).

It is the third Strata (societal) that is of interest here of course. They initially write about human motivations (Freud) and labour (Marx), and position previous history in society as being a constant struggle to satisfy a combination of both.  The modern individual, being part of society, will eventually become "repressed and neurotic".

Eventually, through deeper and deeper analysis, (which is often influenced by what others think and do around you anyway, such as, in their case, other philosophers like Jaques Derrida, Jurgen Habermas and many others), they come to the essence of what they see (and here it is Deleuze in particular) as values in society, and how they emerge within a 'governed' state.  Deleuze talks about the pinnacle of 'practice' as a human being, being "Creativity" (not unlike Nietzche who felt it was 'Art') and states:

"Herein, perhaps, lies the secret: to bring into existence and not to judge. If it is so disgusting to judge, it is not because everything is of equal value, but on the contrary because what has value can be made or distinguished only by defying judgment. What expert judgment, in art, could ever bear on the work to come?" Deleuze (1980).(1)

Conclusions;

• Thinking about Photography as a document, as a record of fact, is no longer a valid activity.
• The idea that text and photography are one and the same emerged through the latter part of the 20th Century.
• There's much more research for me to do on this, but I think I have started to get a sufficient grasp of the subject to enable me to talk about it... Which is, of course, what Dr Devlin wants us to do! 

Post Annotation;

I also came across some work by aboriginal artist, Shevaun Wright (http://www.shevaunwright.com/), which is of particular interest in the 3rd planned discussion.

References:

Deleuze G, & Guattari, F. (1981) A thousand Plateaus, Translated by Massumi, B. (2004) Vol. 2 of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. 2 vols. 1972-1980. Trans. of Mille Plateaux.

(1) See Essays Critical and Clinical, p. 135.

Discourse, sociology & how we fit in the world! (Updated 27-03-2017).

Searching the internet for inspiration on Deleuze and Guattari, I stumbled on a useful web-site that also talks about Chantal Mouffe's and Ernesto Laclau's works and compares some ideas of these two pairs of philosophers.  This is important for me to examine ideas of various contemporary thinkers, in concerning the work we are doing for Dr Liam Devlin (the ROTOR exhibition of "Discursive Documents" at Huddersfield Gallery).

Starting with some thinking and analysis of the work of Giles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, (and their famous book "A Thousand Plateaus" (1981) Translated by Brian Massumi (1987), they talk about the ideas that the knowable world around us, can be conceived as consisting of three primary layers. These layers, or 'Strata' as they prefer to call them, are made up of;
A) the 'inorganic' (that is the geological foundation of the world itself), that is arguably un-movable and permanent and as such, consists of the minerals and elements of geology. Equally too, this foundational 'first' strata, can be considered as "set in stone" or can sometimes be referred to as 'concrete', (as an alternative expression that is sometimes used and often found in philosophical discourse).
B) The second layer above the inorganic layer is the 'organic' strata (that is, all the vegetable matter and animal matter; from single cell bacteria through to mammals and primates, and ultimately us as human beings).
C) And finally, the top layer of strata, which is of particular interest to Deleuze and Guattari in their philosophical analysis, which they refer to as the alloplastic (social) strata.

The term alloplastic, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED, 2017) comes from the Greek word "allos", which is often used to combine with other words to form nouns and adjectives, with the sense of "otherness, different or differently". In this case, it is conjoined with the adjective, 'plastic', where "plastic" is used in the sense of moulding or shaping. Together, the word 'alloplastic', therefore means (particularly in a philosophical and psychoanalytic sense), 'relating to or involving alteration of the external environment to meet the needs of the individual' (or people as a collective, which here can be considered as the society). Therefore, in the case of Deleuze and Guattari, this 3rd stratum, the 'alloplastic strata', is in a sense, the idea of society moulding, sculpting and arguably manipulating the environment to better suit its' (their/our?) needs.

Deleuze and Guattari's analysis of society posits that "alloplastic strata" consists of at least two articulations of 'expression' and 'content'.

Within this dynamic, they state that the articulation of expression (- and that is the human speech), is 'linguistic' rather than genetic.  In other words, it is through linguistic variance and analysis (over time, or temporal) that expression is made or can be analysed, rather than through some deep-seated 'biological' (hence genetic) variance or analysis. (Which would, therefore, arguably, exist within the second organic strata, if it were).  

These linguistic expressions are built with signs (semiotics) or symbols, and so they can be recorded, understood, and transmitted, but just as importantly can be modified. When these forms of expression (or enunciation) are collected together, they create assemblages or "expression" as a whole.

Now, if we were to combine what Deleuze and Guattari call the mechinic assemblages (that is the physical things that we build and adapt by using tools and our own hands), they form what Deleuze and Guattari think of as the "content" of the 3rd "alloplastic" strata.

This 'content', has both form and substance. With much further philosophical deconstruction, analysis and reinterpretation, Deleuze and Guattari find similarities in their machinic assemblages of "content" with their linguistic interpretation of "expressions". Ultimately tools (and hence technology) therefore construct the 'alloplastic' strata, but those tools (and technology) are themselves constructed from alloplastic strata. This conveniently repositions the idea of 'technological determinism' and 'social determinism' as (again, arguably) being one and the same.

This radical construct or 'constructivist materialism' is the foundation on which Deleuze and Guattari go on to provide detailed commentary on society as a whole, and their interpretations of the social world that we live within. This is different from say 'social constructivism', which in brief is about how society (and hence as humans) make sense of the world.  To Deleuze and Guattari, they argue that it is necessary to understand how the world is 'literally' constructed.  That is, it is built 'literally' through text(s).

To underline what has already been deduced from the above, this linguistic interpretation cannot apply to the 1st & 2nd strata of 'Inorganic' and 'Organic' levels, as it resides entirely within a domain of the social or 'alloplastic strata'. However, and here is another of their critical positions, Deleuze & Guattari suggest that the 'form of content' is no longer a human adaptation of the world around them on its' own, but a modification through 'it' (the alloplastic strata) acting upon itself. (That is, through an alloplastic response to its' own environment).

Bringing Deleuze and Guattari's constructivist materialism to bear on the idea of discourse then, if photography can be considered as text, then it follows that discussion forms part of that text, and hence photographs can be 'discursive documents'.

Mouffe & LacLau
With the introduction above (based on the work of Deleuze and Guattari) in mind, we can now move on to comparing their work with that of the work of Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto LacLau.

In contrast to Deleuze & Guattari,  in Mouffe & LacLau's position on social constructivism, they believe in a slightly different representation of construct about society or "social life", and hence their position is that humans give meaning to the world directly, rather than through a mediation of text (as per D&G).

They borrow this ancient word known as 'hegemony' to articulate a kind of hierarchical view of society, where hegemony is the dominance or "leadership or rule through political, economic or military control of one state over others" (OED 2107). - In ancient Greece this idea of a particular city-state being dominant over other cities and/ or states, where the ruling city-state was known as the hegemon. This hegemonic rule and/or control has many examples and has been a subject of social commentary and analysis throughout history.

In their book, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (2003), Verso Books, London (2nd Edition), Mouffe and LacLau talk in terms of an alternative to the 'crisis' or 'collapse of what would have been a 'normal' historical development' (2003, p7). (- Whatever 'normal' historical development might be, I interpret this to mean non-revolutionary?).  The book is also seeking to propose 'change' in the context of a response to "The crisis of Marxism" (2003, p29).

In the 20th century work by the Italian, Antonio Gramsci (1891 -1937), he revised some of the notions of Marx and Engles (and of economic determinism), in favour of a more sophisticated construct of society, through a 'cultural hegemony'.  This was a theory in which Gramsci was influenced by a variety of thinkers, not only Marxists, but also other Italians, such as Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) amongst others, and even capitalists such as Henry Ford (of Ford Automobiles), together with Italian and other European histories.  Gramsci's Cultural Hegemony suggests that the state and the ruling Bourgeoise (and here, he means the capitalist elite), use cultural institutions to control and maintain power in capitalist societies.  Hence, the ruling classes could, in turn, influence the values of the larger society (i.e. culturally) so that the elite's views become the 'world-views' of society as a whole.

Again, more recent history and world events can be shown to support the notion that various types or forms of hegemony do exist (regardless of whether that is right or wrong), and it can be demonstrated that such 'hegemony' works through language.  In a capitalist society, there is a constant tension of division, not only between the financially powerful elite, but also within the 'non-elite', the 'providers' of labour (or working class as it has been known), that is exploited (through various means of hegemony) for the benefit of the elite.   It is here then, that we can properly turn to Mouffe and LacLau specifically, and their interpretation of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy.  In their book, of the same name, they state (on page 7), that;

 'Finally, with Gramsci, the term acquires a new type of centrality that transcends its tactical or strategic uses: 'hegemony' becomes the key concept in understanding the very unity existing in a concrete social formation." (Mouffe & LacLau, 2003).

In societal terms then, (and now we are drilling down to the heart of the matter in connection to 'social discourse' with respect to Dr Devlin's notions and exhibition), Laclau and Mouffe are interested in the idea that there is an absolute elite within society that governs, dictates and shapes the rest of society, and hence, it is not as a direct result of the ruling elite or 'hegemony'.

They go on to say, through various analysis of other contemporary thinkers and writers, and 19th / 20th Century events within Europe, in particular, Russia and Germany, (Mouffe & LacLau, 2003, p8-10) that nothing resides at the centre of a social hegemony, as a conclusion is reached where they cite Eduard Bernstein (1850 - 1932), who was viewing trade unions within a democratic society to be central for its' control and the centre being;

"according to Bernstein, it is the party. Thus, he speaks of the 'necessity of an organ of the class struggle which holds the entire class together in spite of its fragmentation through different employment, and that is the Social Democracy as a political party. In it, the special interest of the economic group is submerged in favour of the general interest of those who depend on income for their labour, of all the underprivileged.' 

However, they go on to point out that "if the working class appears increasingly divided in the
economic sphere, and if its unity is autonomously constructed at the political level, in what sense is this political unity a class unity?"

Through this and other comparisons (such as Rosa Luxemburg (1871–1919, Marxist Theorist), Mouffe and LacLau are able to show their argument is centred upon their theory that there is not a foundational centre within the social nor is there a "signifier of the transcendental" within society. (I'm not sure if by this they mean some religious focal point or God as a foundation, - indeed, they state the following "the effects of God's presence in the world are drastically reduced" on Page 29).  Nevertheless, without that central hub, they argue that our individual interpretations and therefore 'forms' of articulation and expression can both coexist and compete at the same time, in an infinitely variable structure. They refer to this as the "structural undecidability of the social".

Much of the work (by M&L) is clearly influenced by other French and continental philosophers of their time, and in particular, that by Jaques Derrida. He used the notion of 'deconstruction' as a way to re-articulate all the elements of society around us.  Ultimately, when rebuilding the deconstructed, he was able to conclude that in the thinking about culture, it is possible to regard everything linguistically, and therefore as text, which compares favourably with Deleuze and Guattari.

Mouffe and LacLau do use Derrida's idea of text since an interpretation of text contains a discourse. Indeed when interpreting any important text, by using Derrida's deconstructionist method, the initial reading tends to provide the writer's 'dominant' message contained within it. However, when a second or subsequent reading of the same text is made, an individual is able to critique or argue against the writer's original intent or message.  By defining and comparing 'what is missing' in the text with regards to a particular subject or thesis,  a new interpretation can be formulated, within which the exclusions or repressions or just the neglected issues or connections are more clearly articulated.

 It is through these ideas of text containing a discourse, that we can apply a deconstructionist approach to photography as documents or texts.  Therefore, LacLau and Mouffe's notions also apply equally to the ideas of Dr Devlin, in as much as photographs are "discursive documents".


References;

"alloplastic, adj.". OED Online. March 2017. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/240406?redirectedFrom=alloplastic (accessed March 27, 2017).

Deleuze, G.; Guattari, F., (1980),  A Thousand Plateaus Trans. Massumi, B;(1993). A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

Laclau, Ernest; Mouffe, Chantal (2001). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (Second ed.). London: Verso. pp.  7-34, 40–59, 125–144.

https://struggleswithphilosophy.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/a-brief-critique-of-laclau-and-mouffes-discourse-analysis/

Group dynamics in action! Reflections of a Group meeting on Weds 22nd Feb.

On the actions arising from the last meeting we had on 15 February, I made sure afterwards that our discussions were sufficiently documented in order to clearly articulate the need for evidence based research, the need to individually contribute a summary of our work so far (and I suggested that we should each produce two "slides" to visually represent this), and have a record (within those slides) of our decision making; This was decided and divided into the group responsibilities of 'Event Research', 'Web Research & Design', 'Event execution, documenting and Archiving'.

I purposefully showed a sense of frustration at this meeting this week, that there seems to be a lack of action.

In particular my main concern at the moment being the progress of the design of the website. As there are two group members responsible for this activity, I was initially worried, but am now pleased, in fact delighted that one of them has not only stepped up and created a strong visual example of suitable a website, but they also provided a good presentation of it which helped the group as a whole engage in productive debate as to suitability.

Notwithstanding this strong presentation, my fears that the web design may become a real issue for us is still present, as it relies upon the two team participants to not only work together successfully, but also help to drive and position other members of the team as well. Whilst I am able to provide a level of maturity in support of their endeavours, (as is always the case within a group), certain people appear to work harder than others.  From my own point of view I am conscious that I need to continue to put pressure on the development of not only the research evidence, but also the finished outcomes, or at least considered outcomes of this task.  This remains a concern as it seems that the two individuals have a slight clash of personalities. That's something we (I) must manage through.

As we will be making a pitch to Dr Devlin next week, it seems appropriate that a rehearsal of the presentation takes place a couple of days beforehand. In the absence of some of the requested information required to construct a coherent slide show from the group (as mentioned above), I felt that this meeting might create even greater worries for some team members through the lack of tangible material...   It is always difficult to explain the need to create 'more' than the 'end' outcome, in order to distil the best parts from their work, and it is very evident that some of the group feel that this process is "wasting their time".   I recognise that this is merely a difference in opinion and in different ways of working, but many years of managing large bids and proposals for projects have shown me that this approach tends to produce far better results than 'just coming up with something the night before!'

However, we are where we are, and in reflection we can only do, what we can do with what we've got!

Initial Conclusions

• In hindsight, there probably is sufficient material now to go forward and create a suitable presentation, albeit, limited. 
• I call this the "Turkish Slipper" approach, as like a Turkish slipper, it almost always turns up at the end!  I don't like this, it's unprofessional, untidy, laissez-faire and poorly considered. So my own personality type is at odds with this approach too.  
• I'm still very cautious though, as likewise, being over confident, hubris is a terrible thing.  I must help the team stay vigilant in trying to create a professional and polished outcome.   I don't like being unprepared, and as there is a focus on me to hold the team together, I'm not sure just how much frustration I can show without upsetting some of the more sensitive team members. This is always difficult to gauge, but if the team want me to lead them properly, I have already said that at times I will make myself un-popular... 
• It's all about negotiation and communication styles ultimately.

Discursive Documents - Exhibition Opening; Reflections of the first event

The discursive documents exhibition held at Huddersfield art gallery, Princess Alexandra walk, Huddersfield opened its doors this evening to a curated framework of three exhibitions.
Gallery space provides interaction with artefacts that encourage viewers to discuss and debate both the artists work and the issues that have been highlighted by their work.

There are three sets of two artists (six in total).
The first pair of artists explore the difficulties faced by individuals and families who are seeking asylum and safety after fleeing various threats to their lives, persecution and war from around the Middle East and North Africa. The artists engaged in this exploration are Seba Kurtis and Alex Beldea. These two photographers have adopted very different approaches to presenting the challenge that refugees and migrants face when attempting to find a safe refuge within the continent of Europe and the United Kingdom.

The second pair of artists is Richard Mulhearn and Richard Higginbottom. Both of these photographers will present their work that explores how the 'quotidian' or everyday gestures can relate to photography and vice versa. They are interested in the unspoken conventions that humans tend to conform to and gesture.

And the final pair of artists are more sculptural and visual media users. They are Sara Eyers and Leila Sailor, who provide an exhibition that explores the representations of objectification of femininity and fashion.

The show was opened by Dr Liam Devlin who introduced the agenda for the evening.  This included an overview of the curatorial framework of the exhibition together with a short contemporary performance dance piece, organised by Gerry Turvey.

The whole show is set up to 'situate' art spaces to interrogate and instigate debate.

How people respond to Artworks is through various discussions, however, in this case, the interpretation can also be made through movement, which Gerry Turvey's team of dancers were able to articulate through gesture. They created a piece in response to each artistic point, and each dance piece provided a snippet of reflection against the artworks presented.
The dancers moved around the gallery space a great deal and so, the audience were requested to position themselves in between the dancers and the artworks. However, it was necessary for the public to also move continually so that the dance was unencumbered.
The curatorial framework of the exhibition really is set up to explore the fascinating and ever-shifting subject of blank spaces, which in a way this gallery space is.
Photographic practices and ideas of social agency discuss the idea that photographs and cameras are now everywhere; they are ubiquitous.
In Dr Liam Devlin's words, "we have cameras now where we don't think we even have cameras. We carry around smartphones, for example, which are perfectly adequate, and yet highly sophisticated and complex tools in themselves for the recording not only of photographic records but also audio and video files.
The photograph has become embedded into our society, in ways that we don't always fully appreciate. They are used in almost every aspect of life including documenting events, to constructions of identity. For example Snapchat amongst other applications, giving immediate access to photography and global communications. Photographs now circumvent the globe in virtually unquantifiable amounts. This is why the understanding of photography has expanded beyond recognition.
A lot of the critiques of photography in the 1970s, attacked perhaps, that photography needed to record only "events of reality". It challenged its authority to speak of this. At the time this was very useful, but having said that, it is necessary to understand that photographs still operate pretty much as visual documents. They are therefore immensely important in how we structure and in some ways limit the way that we see the world and this in itself raises the question "what is seeable". What is invisible?... What is not photographed and what is not photographable.
Equally we need to consider what can be said, what is sayable; audible, and so this becomes intensely powerful, because it is political.
The aesthetics of photography are fundamental to politics (with a small p), as arguably, any photograph is a political act.

The notion of an aesthetic aspect of the political debate is not a founding rationale for the documentary practice in particular; that is, socially concerned photography, but initially, photography relied on their imposed voracity.

However, there is now a much greater opportunity for photographic images to be used in a much more explicit, and yet a much more refined way, as a reflexive articulation of an idea, or point of view; Rather than an old and "only" claim which was, 'to represent reality'.

Therefore this exhibition is a call to arms if you like, to bring together practitioners and audiences together to discuss, and to test. It is a formulation of a photographic discourse that frames the photograph as an object of debate. And as "Discursive Documents".

Reflections on the Rotor event meeting held on Wednesday, 15 February.

I felt reasonably energised after the previous meeting on the on 8 February, and bearing in mind the exhibition opening night was only one day away, I was keen to make sure that the whole group were aware of their expectations and responsibilities, but sufficiently relaxed not to worry too much!

Unfortunately, as is always the case with a larger group of people, a sizeable number were unable to attend this meeting prior to the event opening night. Sometimes, this might be a good thing in reflection, because those who do attend, seem to bond together just a little bit more. Anyway, a number of decisions were made, which I think again in reflection, were right and proper.

One of the main decisions has been to remove the artificial segregation between group A and group B, as it is clear that we will all need to support each other, in various ways by working on our individual strengths within the team to help it move forward.

My biggest concern at the moment is a lack of what appears to be, an understanding within the group of the grading criteria, with respect to the necessary academic rigour that we need to apply to our practical tasks and obligations. This is particularly evident in the production of the website, as it is now two weeks since the original meeting that we had, and there is a lack of designs and critical reflection having been documented in order to help the group select the most appropriate format for the website.

It seems that my request for some group members to create evidence of their decision-making and research is falling on deaf ears. Whilst I am conscious that this could affect potential marks for the group activity, I'm also conscious that with the correct back filling (that is supplementing any lack of work through the absence of those team members who are appearing to choose not to engage), we can, try to resolve these shortfalls. (I recall after the meeting, saying something like "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink to Dr Bailey)...  However, this puts greater pressure on those members of the team that are conscientious, and wanting to try hard to achieve the best of their ability.

This is a classic example of group dynamics operating, and it appears that this exercise, and these interactive situations, we are no different to any other group. Part of my role is to recognise this, understand blockers and shortfalls, and put plans in place to circumvent, or at least alleviate potential problems, as we move forward.

Nevertheless, as is always the case, various people have their own unique and individual issues to deal with which must always take priority for themselves. So, with a group size of 12 people (that we now have), there is sufficient resource to level out peaks and troughs of productivity demands and requirements.

Further thoughts;

I'm delighted that there was a large number of students that attended the opening event on Thursday, and our previous meeting of the 15th helped to prepare and make sure everyone knew what was expected of them.

Conclusions:

• The group is beginning to gel together.
• There are clearer and more defined roles and responsibilities which helps people to focus on what is expected of them.
• We still have another two weeks to go before we present our ideas back to our client, and so I think it is vital that at our next meeting on 22 February there is clear evidence (from an academic standpoint) to show and to articulate that we have not only researched our ideas, but have collectively selected and chosen the most appropriate recommendations for Dr Devlin.
• We have replayed our own interpretation of the explanation given to us by our client Dr Devlin in a number of different ways within the group. I have been able to document this to a sufficient level to be able to provide him with the confidence that I think he is seeking from us.

Bringing order to chaos, part two.

Following the last meeting after the BBC lecture, at least we were able to start to flesh out roles and responsibilities of each of the individual students. Thankfully, we were able to do this with the help of Dr Bailey, as I'm still finding my own feet within the group and gaining their trust before making the stronger move forward to try and lead them.

I am pleased that my preparatory work in documenting roles and responsibilities for the team last week has been met with positive feedback. The team have appointed me as the group facilitator and project lead, but I have been quick to try to correct team members from calling me boss! I am merely the hands that provide coordination, and I'm keen to ensure that there is no hierarchical behaviour in this collaborative group. Nevertheless, I think everybody recognises the need for a spokesman, and I'm happy to have adopted this role too.

So now we have clear terms of engagement, together with a better understanding of expectations from what I have started to call "our client" Dr Devlin, I have started to write a short statement which reflects those understandings back to him, in our own language. I think this two-way communication between ourselves as a delivery team, and our client, makes for a much better foundation to work forward with.

Within this memorandum of understanding (MOU), I have also articulated some boundaries on the work that the students are expecting to do. Whilst these boundaries are still loose and somewhat flexible, they do set some conscious limits within the relationship, so that our client does not start to grow his own expectations out of proportion with what the team is capable of delivering, within the timescales. This is a typical project management tool and is often referred to as an MOU, whereas a more detailed and specific planning document tends to be referred to as a Statement of Work (SOW).

I need to be careful not to introduce too many project management jargon terms that people both within the group and outside may not fully understand, but I do have the advantage of calling on my experience to help the team activities stay focused, as well as maintaining a positive mental attitude.

As the first opening event is due to take place on Thursday, 16 February, I intend to informally present the MOU to Dr Devlin for him to read at his own leisure. He will have too many things on the opening night to discuss this I suspect, so I will try to engage in further discussion with him the following week to confirm his expectations meet our own.

Creating order through chaos...

We are now into the beginning of week three of our module for innovation and entrepreneurialism, and I am finding the exercise (option two of the module) very stimulating. Working with a group is always interesting to me, as I enjoy watching the interactions, and psychology of individuals coming through.

The group to which I am attached has been tasked to set up a website, in response to an existing exhibition that is about to launch the Huddersfield Gallery, Huddersfield in early February. This does not leave us much time to set up and develop what I assume to be a public facing website.

Thankfully we had the opportunity to speak with the curator of the exhibition, Dr Liam Devlin, who is one of the tutors, I believe the course leader, for the photographic department of the School of Art, Design and Architecture. We were therefore able to ask a number of questions appertaining to the exhibition and to seek clarification.

I found it interesting that prior to the meeting with Dr Devlin, I had already prepared 10 separate questions to ask him about his view of success, academic scenarios, sequences of events, the closing event, how we might expand the show, who would we be asking to generate debate, funding and approval, marketing and promotion, a list of stakeholders, and how do we engage with additional agencies, et cetera. I was therefore surprised to say the least, that my peers in a team of around 12 other students had not prepared much, if anything, in the way of questions!

Nevertheless, I appreciate that I have had many examples of similar commercial engagements in my personal past, and so I felt it's appropriate for me to help to steer the group in how it is beginning to form into a collective team.

Now that we have had our initial contact meeting with Dr Devlin, I have started to make sure that the various meetings that we have already engaged with our properly minuted. I have also transcribed the interview with Dr Devlin in its entirety, and created a Microsoft office 365 SharePoint for all the students, both in group A, those who are building the website: and group B, who are responsible for creating the final event, and archiving the outcomes. The SharePoint facilities that the University is able to provide are a really useful tool that I am able to use for complete collaboration.

Whilst I am conscious that the group is still not in a cohesive state, I am always mindful that it takes time for the individuals to establish some sort of rapport with one another, together with the mature working relationship. This always takes time, and patience, thankfully I have in bucketfuls!

As a democratic way for each of the students to take their own responsibility for certain actions, I have started to develop a list of roles and responsibilities which I will present to the group at our next meeting on Wednesday, 1 February.

Following that meeting, together perhaps with input from the lecture that we have that day with the BBC, we can start to develop a stronger team structure and organise ourselves more proactively?