I have started drawing out bit by bit my response to the site after the site visit. There will be more detailed studies/drawings to come later on but these are the images ive done so far.

This image aims to show the elements that aid the building up of the fact/fiction narrative. As the site contain just a couple of built elements on site, ive tried to reconstruct and map these out and show the state they are in now. The image needs more detail, which i will work on over the coming week. Just got to bring together all the research of the site study.


This second image tries to amplify the point of how we as individuals when immersed into a factual or fictional environment, are we active participants or impartial witnesses, are we just tools to carry the story forward however we perceive them or actively be a part of the story. Again needs more work.

Impartial witness

Working on with the criteria that i set out as to what was fact and fiction ive made this image to uncover the built elements of the site that used to exist and try and place them in either category.


Ive set out a draft for the cross crit. I dont like what it looks like at the moment but ill work on  it. I am trying to stick to 5 sheets, kind of like keep the presentation brief but to the point. Not very happy with what ive come up with so far. Itll be really good if you could give me some pointers or examples.

Cross Crit draft storyboard

Imagined World

And this is the answers to Toby’s questions. I havent been able to answer all of the just yet. As soon as i do, ill update it.

Tobys Questions

As for the portfolio/ exploration study im going to start work on it over the week.

All of the above images still need a lot more detail to it, just need to get all the research into one place and start drawing them in. Its just where i am at the moment.

2 thoughts on “

  1. ‘Elements’ drawing
    You say that this drawing shows the current state of the elements on site. But does your drawing reconstruct in some parts? Is the mill a reconstruction in this drawing? Is reconstruction a creation of fact or fiction?

    ‘Impartial Witness’
    I am not sure about the imagery here. What is behind your decision to include the hand with the cigarette? If this drawing is intended to explore the perception and creation of fact and fiction then perhaps it should be more explicit about how you are making those distinctions. I know that you made the sheet previously that showed how you are making these distinctions so what might be clearer and more useful here would be to show how those distinctions are being applied to your site. At the moment this drawing tells us little of the site and your interpretation of it. In your text you are beginning to progress thinking on how the fact / fiction distinction relates to the experience of a site but this argument would be much more successful if told through your engagement with the site, how your fact / fiction thesis interprets the site.

    The text annotation of the drawing is very clear in articulating your position. Your drawing seems to show two states for each building – reconstruction and a ‘ghosted’ image, but we don’t see the current state of these structures. If the structures are being fictionalized, as you say, in the space between ruin and word of mouth how could your drawing more successfully show the transition between these states? Would the ruined parts still fade?

    Each of these drawings suggest an important step – mapping the current state of the site, exploring perception of fact and fiction on the site, and finding a language to show the transitions of an object between fact and fiction. But I think that following the comments above you could tighten up exactly how each drawing is doing these things.

    5 sheets and project outline
    I think that the 5 sheets that you have selected and your answers to Toby’s questions refer disproportionately to the work done for your exploration study and don’t do justice to the great work that you have done in developing your fact / fiction thesis which began with your understanding of the Cardiff walk and has developed into your reading of the Marine Park site.

    I would suggest that you introduce the project from the angle of your enquiry into fact and fiction and make it clear that you have been developing your own definitions for these terms – explaining how you began by positioning yourself as the filter of fact and fiction and from there went on to define fact and fiction in relation to what can be seen, what has disappeared; what exists as proposal, word of mouth, etc. You could show your Janet Cardiff mapping to show how the enquiry began and 1 sheet on your brainwave research to show how this supports the project but the make the main focus your fact / fiction thesis and how you are using this to interpret the site. Include some of those great drawings from your last post. The drawing where you mapped your fact / fiction distinctions is important, as will the developed version of your recent drawings which show this being applied to the site. Where do the other drawings fit in the story of your project to date, such as the intriguing ‘what do you see series’ and the landscape plans?

    Where are you going to go from here? How does the museum-thinking we have done over the past week inform an intervention into your site?

    You have made great progress. We are really pleased with your level of productivity, the very interesting thesis that you are developing and some very nice drawings. Keep it up and enjoy the conversation on Tuesday!

  2. Thank you. Yes the images i agree are slightly if not very vague and struggle to bring across the point clearly. They were just quick iterations of the research/ideas that i had so i quickly wanted to put them on paper so that i had something as a base on which i could work from.

    I was a bit confused about approaching the cross crit sheets / Tobys questions, but thats all cleared up now. Cheers.

Leave a Reply