Paul Dobbs

June 3, 2005

I. "MY SYNTHESIS PRODUCT SHOWS THAT..."

A. I can convey who I want to influence/affect concerning what (Subject, Audience, Purpose).

a) The content of Chapter 6 of my synthesis paper, the Sales Pitch, was what I presented at the ARLIS conference in Houston to convince CBIR developers, researchers, librarians, and image database developers that involving artists in the process of developing cbir applications would be an effective strategy. I know this presentation positively influenced researcher Abby Goodrum and my former colleague Nancy Allen, now the ARTstor director of museums relations. I respect both of them for their intellectual rigor and creativity. The fact that they were enthusiastic about my ideas and presentation is assuring.

b)The paper contains repetition and lots of philosophical musing that was more necessary for convincing me than my audience; that was okay for the paper, but I need to be careful to edit that stuff out, or at least reduce it, when I am on the next round of marketing the project.

B. I know what others have done before, either in the form of writing or action, that informs and connects with my project, and I know what others are doing now.

a) The paper nails down the relevant literature about artists’ searching behavior, and I think it makes a good stab at the philosophic and historical context for visual thinking (b) Given what I do understand, and given the time that has elapsed since my original research process, I think I could critically examine and absorb much more from technical articles, or at least the more technical of the information science articles. In particular, I could have examined , and still could now examine, what happened at the now defunct QBIC project in the art history department of UC Davis.

C. I have teased out my vision, so as to expand my view of issues associated with the project, expose possible new directions, clarify direction/scope within the larger set of issues, and decide the most important direction.

(a) My shifting/evolving focus “from technology to philosophy to facilitation” which I discuss both in the introduction and conclusion reflects my success toward this goal.
(b) Possible new directions and issues could easily arise from new discussions any of the people I will now contact—the professor at Simmons, Abby Goodrum and James Wang, the Mellen Foundation, MassArt faculty. I need to be vigilent and contantly reflecting in order to not miss what will be important.

D. I have identified the premises and propositions that my project depends on, and can state counter-propositions. I have taken stock of the thinking and research I need to do to counter those counter-propositions or to revise my own propositions.

(a) Yes, I think the main premises and propositions are spelled out clearly, especially the problem with the conventional definition of the semantic gap and the test pilot ideas. I presented and countered some of the propositions counter to my own, (e.g., verbal communication is more reliable than visual, browsing and images are really not very important to visual artists.

(b) From Joe Walter’s critique, I can see how I was unfortunately caught up in “trashing” verbal communication. I didn’t intend to do this, didn’t even intend to pit visual against verbal. I only wanted to point out that the visual is constantly de-valued by most people and is deserving of some “affirmative action” kind of attitude. Anyway, I know my future arguments will be truer and stronger if I can separate and remove any unnecessary ranting about this.

E. I have clear objectives with respect to product, both written and practice, and process, including personal development as a reflective practitioner. I have arranged my work in a sequence (with realistic deadlines) to realize these objectives.

(a) I think I had clear objectives around what the paper needed to contain and do, and what needed to happen to prepare and deliver the Houston presentation and post-presentation meeting.

(b) But now, although I have the concrete target of the visit to the Mellen foundation, and the objectives of preparing myself for that, the details of my objectives are really not spelled out. I think these details will be teased out as I pursue the preliminaries I list, but I need to remember to go after those details.

F. I have gained direct information, models, and experience not readily available from other sources.

(a) Yes, I think so. I believe that no one else is asking my questions in the CBIR context, and much of what I have gained from individuals (specifically related to my propositions) isn’t available in published articles or books.

G. I have clarified the overall progression or argument underlying my research and the written reports.

(a) I think so. I tried to build links between chapters, and re-tell and re-explain various points from slightly different perspectives. I think the argument unwinds evenly through both the broad scheme of “technology to philosophy to faciliation” and through the more detailed structure of the table of contents.

(b) I could have produced a clearer better product by now, if I had got beyond my writing/emotional blocks earlier, turned in some early drafts, and had more time for revisions, but that didn’t seem to be in the cards this semester. Also, as I discuss in the last chapter, as I got nearer to the end, the demons came out in greater strength.

H. My writing and other products Grab the attention of the readers/audience, Orient them, move them along in Steps, so they appreciate the Position I've led them to.

(a) I enjoyed, and achieved some success (more success anyway than if I had only kept trying to write in a vacuum) by trying to GOSP through the processes of (1) the mini presentation in class, the 2 presentations at the conference in Houston, and (3) the final CCT presentation. The challenge/fear of/instant reassurance from/excitement of a breathing audience makes GOSP a more immediate obvious objective than when you imagine the hypothetical reading audience.

(b) Joe Walters noted two stiffnesses/shortcomings in the paper, that I think constitute failed GOSP. First, the sense that something about the actual experience of using CBIR was held back from the reader Of course that was because I couldn’t convey that experience since I had never actually used a CBIR application (except for the minimal QBIC interface on the Hermitage Museum website). We agreed it would have been good to explain to the reader--that I really don’t know how it would work, since I’ve never had a chance to try it. Second, more examples of real or imagined searches would have Oriented the reader both to illustrate points in the literature review and during my sales pitch chapter.

I. I have facilitated new avenues of classroom, workplace, and public participation.

The development of more effective CBIR applications, that is, specifically in my case, more in tune with how images actually work, and reflecting what visual artists understand (about how images work) will facilitate such new avenues. I can only hope that my project will advance such development.

J. To feed into my future learning and other work, I have taken stock of what has been working well and what needs changing.

(a) In the paper, I record how information and ideas bounced among parties (between studio faculty and art historians) and how plans evolved (changing the order of the speakers in the panel presentation). (b) Although needing to write the paper forced me to do this previous “taking stock” it wasn’t a planned or very rigorous evaluation, and I think won’t happen again unless I plan carefully for it.

II. DEVELOPING AS A REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER, INCLUDING TAKING INITIATIVE IN AND THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS

1. I have integrated knowledge and perspectives from CCT and other courses into my own inquiry and engagement in social and/or educational change.

(a) I have brought techniques for facilitating collaboration (ORID in particular) into my engagement with the team-management of the MassArt library and (to a lesser extent) the MassArt college-wide strategic planning committee and also to the meeting process at the Beacon Hill Friends House, and during my teaching of the course AE501 History of Goals and Methods of Art Education at MassArt. I constantly explain the artmaking process (a behavior not surprisingly frequently supported in my work environment) with Dewey’s “the work of intelligence is understanding the dynamic relationship between what you do and what you undergo.” (from PHIL501). I am on the constant lookout for connections between artmaking processes and recent research in cognitive and neurological processes (from PSYCH650)

(b) I am so caught up in the moment that I often miss opportunities to apply what I know. Nina’s (and my own) critique of how I taught AE501(independent study project) revealed many missed opportunities to engage students in visual and performative modes, and to enable, encourage them to take charge earlier and more assertively of their learning. I am very much looking forward to doing this when I teach it the second time in fall 05.

2. I have also integrated into my own inquiry and engagement the processes, experiences, and struggles of previous courses.

(a) When remember the cyclical nature of reflective practice, I realize that it is certainly just as accurate to consider low moments as opportunities to easily analyze and adjust as to consider them “failures” and certainly more productive.

(b) I frequently just fall into ruts.

3. I have developed efficient ways to organize my time, research materials, computer access, bibliographies, etc.

(a) Yes, I suppose. I’ve bought and labeled color-coded files and file boxes. I’ve used library-site tools to build special bibliographies, etc., but (b) if I don’t do this routinely, it all falls apart, and my life and my roller-coastery states of awareness don’t really support the addition of new routines. I think that learning better to cope with emotional distractions must come before I can really reap the fuller benefits of organization.

4. I have experimented with new tools and experiences, even if not every one became part of my toolkit as a learner, teacher/facilitator of others, and reflective practitioner.

Yes, a lot of the exercises and frameworks Nina presented in the Creative Thinking course, some of which she is suggesting I should harness in the course I will be teaching again at MassART. And although I’ve got ORID down solidly, I want to look again at the ICA strategies I have only vaguely considered/tried to use to facilitate collaborative planning at the MassArt library.

5. I have paid attention to the emotional dimensions of undertaking my own project but have found ways to clear away distractions from other sources (present & past) and not get blocked, turning apparent obstacles into opportunities to move into unfamiliar or uncomfortable territory.

(a) I remember the moment clearly walking along the tube between the Science building and Wheatly and asking Peter if I could write into the Synthesis paper how my loyalty/enthusiasm for certain philosophic ideas was working as motivation, keeping my interest alive in the topic and finally enabling me to heed his advice to take the project in a new direction.

(b) Clearing away emotional distractions has been extremely difficult. I have learned just how much a victim of ups and downs I am. I’ve always suspected this, but the evidence is undeniable now. This is a really important lesson for me. As I mentioned in the synthesis paper concluding chapter, I am trying to learn to wait through negative feelings before trying to push myself to work on something intellectually challenging.

6. I have developed peer and other horizontal relationships. I have sought support and advice from peers, and have given support and advice to them when asked for.

There was collegial moral support to and from peers in CCT, and from colleagues at MassArt and in ARLIS and the poets in the Jamaica Pond Poetry Cooperative--providing encouragement and helping each other with technical questions--but maybe perhaps because my topic was so specialized, there was little substantial topical support. I certainly feel warmly toward my CCT peers (I particularly remember their generous participation as readers/actors in a skit I created in a class of Nina’s) but except for Luanne Witkowski, I’m not sure that I developed any lasting “peer and other horizontal relationships.” Maybe that’s not true. It’s too early in the morning to make a call on that one.

7. I have taken the lead, not dragged my feet, in dialogue with my advisor and other readers. I didn't wait for the them to tell me how to solve an expository problem, what must be read and covered in a literature review, or what was meant by some comment I didn't understand. I didn't put off giving my writing to my advisor and other readers or avoid talking to them because I thought that they didn't see things the same way as I do.

I did not put off giving my writing to my advisor and other readers or avoid talking to them because I thought that they didn’t see things the same way as I do. I did put off my giving my writing to my advisor and reader, but that was because I put off doing my writing, certainly not because I thought they didn’t see things my way. Maybe I was blocked about writing was related to avoid subjecting my ideas to criticism, but I really don’t think so. I am enthusiastic about growing my writing through critique, whether it is poetry or expository.

8. I have revised seriously, which involved responding to the comments of others. I came to see this not as bowing down to the views of others, but taking them in and working them into my own reflective inquiry until I could convey more powerfully to others what I'm about (which may have changed as a result of the reflective inquiry).

See 7 above.

9. I have inquired and negotiated about formal standards, but gone on to develop and internalize my own criteria for doing work—criteria other than jumping through hoops set by the professor so I get a good grade.

(a) I am a bit of a lunatic about grades--I just don’t want to hear anything about mine or anyone else’s, and I am blessed that the CCT program has permitted me to ignore them, and that the University successfully hides them from view by not sending them in the US mail. When a friend in graduate school recently boasted about his cumulative grade, I went into a total adolescent tirade that a dear friend had to bear for several minutes, “How could he think so little of himself and us and his teachers as to draw attention to that barbaric custom?” I ranted. Anyway, obviously, those hoops have no attraction for me. Yes, formal standards were useful as practical foils against my powerful internal (but fortunately not rigid) personal criteria for work. I couldn’t have done any CCT work without them. My personal criteria are (1) discovering hidden connections and ironies (even if small) and (2) presenting them with grace and humor (even if quietly). Often I was up against emotional and time constraints all the time, and I feel bunches of my work measure poorly against my criteria, but ultimately in each class, there were some papers and presentations that succeeded. Work that clearly met my personal criteria well included the poetry I wrote and the poetry chapbook I published for Ben Schwendener’s course, surely my synthesis project in total (not in in any particular detail, except perhaps being able to legitimately place in close proximity the Wittgenstein duck-rabbit, the viaduct, and Marx Brothers photo), a group dramatic presentation of the character of art educator Walter Smith in Nina’s Creative Thinking class, and the paper I wrote for Joe Walters about lexical access being the cognitive/neurological locus for poetry (or at least trope). Not coursework, but clearly a part of CCT in my mind is my correspondence with poet Robert Pinksy about William James’s idea that the self of selves is located at the epiglottis. (Janet Ford Smith led us to his passage in James.) I so loved the apparent absurdity and stark truth of what I believe is James’s earnest endeavor to anatomically locate the soul! And Robert Pinksy immediately saw the connection I made to his own (apparently) absurd assertion that poetry is the most physical of art forms since it issues forth physically from the “center of the body”—the epiglottis again.

10. I have approached the CCT synthesis course and the CCT program as works-in-progress, which means that, instead of harboring criticisms to submit after the fact, I have found opportunities to affirm what is working well and to suggest directions for further development.

The thought of harboring criticisms against such a noble endeavor! I am a biased here, but serious in my appreciation. I hope to stay connected and more proactively find opportunities to “affirm . . . and suggest . . .”