Midterm Critique
MidTerm Citique/Presentation
The critique provided by Rees, Morry, and, name Emily Moss.
Rees- His enthusiasm as our professor during class leading up to the midterm critique has been well orchestrated, informative, and useful. When I started the semester, my thesis concept was that of great proportion. In class teachings by Rees, assigned readings, and supplementary videos has allowed me to grasp my thesis concept and focus; "Rees is in my head!"
Moray- Had a grasp the dynamic relationship between acting participants and director mid way through the presentation. Though I was not artiqulate with this aspect it was present in the visuals
Emily Moss - She was fairly light on her critique as a guest.
The Good:
-presented in a direct and formative way within the allocated 10 min with time for questions and feed back
-Better focus and scope of thesis
-Replaced thesis project name "ProjectX" with "HLADEKA"
The Bad:
-There are a details that need to be resolved as to the process of HLADEKA, the user and audience and the actor/director relastionship
-Need to practice difficult names such as "Sergeyevich Stanislavski" (dislecsia is a bitch)
-Broke the rule: "Never respond to a retorhical question except with "Ah, very interesting point" directed back to the askie") by responding to a rhetorical question. Though she brought up a point that is indeed part of the in my head on a psychological level it did not support the process of "HLADEKA" and moving the presentation off topic
The ugly:
Overkill with Russian Thematic font (will re-review Rees/Morry supplemental vid #7)
The critique provided by Rees, Morry, and, name Emily Moss.
Rees- His enthusiasm as our professor during class leading up to the midterm critique has been well orchestrated, informative, and useful. When I started the semester, my thesis concept was that of great proportion. In class teachings by Rees, assigned readings, and supplementary videos has allowed me to grasp my thesis concept and focus; "Rees is in my head!"
Moray- Had a grasp the dynamic relationship between acting participants and director mid way through the presentation. Though I was not artiqulate with this aspect it was present in the visuals
Emily Moss - She was fairly light on her critique as a guest.
The Good:
-presented in a direct and formative way within the allocated 10 min with time for questions and feed back
-Better focus and scope of thesis
-Replaced thesis project name "ProjectX" with "HLADEKA"
The Bad:
-There are a details that need to be resolved as to the process of HLADEKA, the user and audience and the actor/director relastionship
-Need to practice difficult names such as "Sergeyevich Stanislavski" (dislecsia is a bitch)
-Broke the rule: "Never respond to a retorhical question except with "Ah, very interesting point" directed back to the askie") by responding to a rhetorical question. Though she brought up a point that is indeed part of the in my head on a psychological level it did not support the process of "HLADEKA" and moving the presentation off topic
The ugly:
Overkill with Russian Thematic font (will re-review Rees/Morry supplemental vid #7)
posted by Introduction at 9:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home