The change from tutor feedback to a mixed model of tutor and peer feedback is a new development for me which appears in the 3.2 unit.

I presented work to my peers using the Context and Audience Forum but also sent my work using the 3.1/3.2 group email. It is worth pointing out that the peer group consists mostly of students at different levels of the 3.1 unit. This is because there are currently very few of us working on the 3.2 unit so to only ask my 3.2 peer group would have limited potential responses. This means that the feedback is returned to me from students at very different levels in their own learning journies. I received feedback from four students. I write my notes on this feedback based upon the particular part of my work they wished to comment upon rather than who that student is.

Firstly, some comments on my research. A peer gave feedback saying of my research, “Very well written and your depths of research is astounding”. This is difficult to put into context. Is my research seen as well written and at good depth based on the place this fellow student is at in her own studies? I have just received limited feedback on my 3.1 submission from assessment and get little sense from assessors on the quality or otherwise of my research other than to say that I, “engaged very well with varied research, visual and academic”. Continuing with my peer feedback a helpful comment on my research was in terms of how I wrote it down, “cosmetically: I would probably work with some more paragraphs, thinking about reader friendliness” This is easier feedback for me to react to and to attempt to make changes to my work based upon such a comment. Another piece of feedback was that my research is “interesting and clearly relevant” and that my commentary included disagreements and uncertainties. This was good to think about. I do try and make my work accessible and readable. Lastly on research I received feedback on my ideas around ‘thin places’. This was interesting to me as student mentioned being trapped between two worlds and of need to mourn and of a possible reluctance to stop mourning.

My creative works received feedback. Some comment on my creative works exploring liminal space which I described as “stressful and uncomfortable” and an understanding of my idea of using red and white. My idea of the red was almost of a river of blood. Mt idea of the white was as empty space. Another student commented that the bench perched at the “edge of nothingness” and of the feeling of peering into the unknown. However, another student commented that the bench could be seen as something linked with idea of taking a rest and enjoying a view which was in contradiction to my thoughts of stressful and uncomfortable. More thoughts on the bench were that it very static. Does it fit as a symbol into that fluid and confusing liminal space? A view that the test pieces I showed here were “powerful” and needed very little narrative. One comment which was interesting was on the monotone images. These were described as reminding a student of dreams or nightmares, “I feel memories of death should not be in colour, even if they start that way, the colour will surely fade?” This is very interesting feedback. I wonder if we record memory in colour? Another comment on this work was of abstract image conveying emotional pain but that adding people to my images changes this pain to be more personal and mixes the therapeutic and photographic sides of grief and of photography.

Some works for me to look at, Richard Mosse’s work using infra-red, Burtynsky’s overhead shots of developmental edges for example where forest cut for palm oil plantations, Sally Mann’s proud Flesh, Stephen DiRado and his pictures of his father and his dementia journey. Lastly, there were a couple of links around liminal space a student looked out for me:

https://www.verywellmind.com/the-impact-of-liminal-space-on-your-mental-health-5204371

https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/what-is-liminal-space/

I received feedback on the practicalities of my studies. My dissertation outline plan included thoughts on the question and reasons behind my written work. A student asked if my reasoning behind my work should be as personal or should it be “impersonal, intellectual and learned?” There was also a query on how achievable the first 2,000 words of my dissertation by the end of May. More feedback on my dissertation was on whether photography a tool to forget or to remember and maybe answer that it a tool to aid understanding? “A lens with which to examine the situation, perhaps a way of achieving comprehension from behind an emotional shield.” Am not sure I accept that the camera is a shield not idea raised in this feedback that “time heals”.

In summary, very useful feedback but at the same time it took me a long time to try and make sense of it and to write this summary. I booked a small meeting with my tutor to supplement the peer feedback which helped me a lot and firmed up my understanding. That idea is something I think I will repeat in future months where I receive peer feedback.