Final Version:

Previous Drafts & Supervisor Sessions:

First Draft

20th June 2025

I had my one-to-one with Janet on 20th June.

She kicked off by suggesting that I look at ‘autoethnography’ [a qualitative research method in which researchers use their personal experiences to examine and understand cultural phenomena] as well considering the Tao; an approach to life which is more of a wandering.

I should aim to have few references which are not apparently connected and find a new pathway from synthesis which is uniquely mine.

She ran through her notes.

• It has strong potential particularly its exploratory stance and willingness to probe instability
• There is a compelling central enquiry into mapping as a dynamic, active process
• Its strength is the questions it raises rather than its answers

I need to:

• Work towards refining the focus
• Tighten the language and clarify the relationship between the concepts eg what’s the relationship between Kierkegaard and Grayson Perry? Map/mapping, reality/memory
• The title is too long and general – need to specify the argumentative focus – although the title can come at the end
• Personal voice in the opening paragraph is authentic but need to transition more clearly into the critical voice – set down where I’m coming from to start to see it as a critical analysis of where I’m coming from rather than a ‘hello’
• Define what I mean by autobiographical mapping
• Consider the difference between mapping the self and representing the self.
• Consider psychogeography and subjective cartography – artistic tradition sits at the intersection of these terms
• Dodge & Kitchin – ontogenesis – links to autobiographical process lived and relived through memory
• Look at Carol Tills – a geographer
• Memory is VITAL ie alive
• Consider adding another disciplinary depth – so far have art, cartography, philosophy – inter-disciplinary is good. Have breadth, now need depth.
• Instability of memory related to instability of maps
• Good concepts and thoughtful reflection
• Need to read more in order to narrow down the focus and more rigorous integration of theory and artistic examples
• Philosophers don’t know much about material dimensions – when making something it gives information to you. Am I being me?
• Paul Ricoeur, Henri Bergeron

Second Draft

9th October 2025

I had my second session with Janet yesterday to discuss the my current draft research paper.

It was a relief. I’ve been battling for a lot of the summer, mainly in my head, trying to get to grips with how I could incorporate all the aspects which I’m interested in, trying to find something to latch on to. I’ve been doubting whether there is anything there at all, whether it is actually saying anything, so it was a relief to hear Janet’s feedback.

Her general view is that I’m doing well, and that she found it really interesting. She can see that it is immensely valuable for my own practice – it is, and the process itself, irrespective of the end result, has opened up other areas of exploration. I reflected that when we last met, I was thinking in general terms about selfhood, mapping and memory and that I’ve have been struggling to find a direction to go in. Since then the common thread of ontogenesis has made me think about it in terms of practice : how can an artist capture something which is forever changing particularly when the very processes being used to do it are themselves in a state of flux? She commented that this gives a contextual understanding which is important in art; there is an intensity about art, something to do with the resistance in it, resisting the chaos by ordering the thinking and the work. There’s a need to be able to perceive the depth of the attempt of trying. When an artist makes work there has to be some kind of structure, but that the use of thought is poetic.

She commented that the draft is comprehensive and well researched, and that the themes are coherent. She particularly liked the conclusion. The draft navigates complex ideas in an accessible way, although I need to refine and tighten the argumentative flow. In particular, the conclusion should ordinarily consolidate the argument rather than reopening it, but she actually likes how it reopens it. 

She thought that the Dylan quote as a way in was effective, but that I need to define what I mean by ‘ontogenesis’ – it is a motif word which needs to be shaped from the beginning. I could look towards biology, developmental psychology or even etymology.

We then went through the draft in detail.

Abstract:

This needs to be completed. 200-300 words.

• Research problem/ question
• Theoretical framework
• Core argument ie representation of selfhood is an impossibility, process is priority
• Implication

Keywords:

I mentioned that technically I have 6 – I’ve included material engagement as one – maybe ‘material’?

Introduction:

• Introduce ‘ontogenesis’ as a term more fully
• Tighten up second para – ‘art’ and ‘artist’ quite a lot
• Final para – likes what I’ve done, but needs tightening up – eg ‘This paper argues that whilst the artist’s desire to represent selfhood encounters ontogenetic impossibility, this … (can’t read notes) itself enables a recursive, processual form of creative self becoming.’

Selfhood

• Compress the notes into 2 or 3 paras interweaving quotations
• Opening introductory para eg ‘Across both Eastern and Western traditions selfhood resists being fixed. Buddhist and Tao philosophies conceive the self as a process of relational flow while Western thinkers from Heraclitus to Guattarri have equally emphasised flux and transformation.’
• Summarise each point ending with contemporary reference
• Deleuze and Guattarri act as a bridge to the other sections
• Try and have a bridge from one section to the other for flow

Memory

• This section is rich and well researched – good content balance between psychology and philosophy
• Need to tighten flow
• Suggest introducing with one sentence defining memory as ontogenetic and the group under 3 subthemes
  • cognitive & reconstructive nature eg Bartlett & Ricoeur
  • Narrative & ID formation eg Ricoeur & Mindich
  • Artistic implication eg Kahlo, Kentridge
• End with a bridging line to mapping eg ‘if memory maps itself through reconstruction then mapping on the other hand converts memory into spatial etc…

Mapping

• This is the strongest section at the moment & references are well chosen
• Include the artist examples – include Perry & Emin because they visualise the theory – usually 2 or 3 examples are enough, the most pertinent ones
• Add a transition para to link to material engagement eg what do we mean about material engagement and its relationship to mapping

Material Engagement

• Need to add a brief context for metaplasticity & neural archaeology because at the moment they appear out of the blue.
• Likes the reference to Elkins – it could be expanded to show how liquid thought is the becoming of the recursive self which is central to the argument

Implications in Practice

• This section is very engaging applying philosophy very lucidly
• Second para – make more concise eg ‘ a hypothetical alternative might be’ – likes the phrase & it’s good, but fewer words?
• The paragraphs are a good length but perhaps break them up a bit because quite a bit of theory : maybe sub sections but without breaking up the flow
• Figure 1 – describes what it shows in words – check how it should be labelled and citation, even if created by me?

Conclusion

• This is very interesting
• The conceptual loop could be tightened even further if I can take out any repetition of earlier arguments
• in two minds whether needs sharpening because she likes it as it is and it needs to be kept in the moment; there’s a truth about it. Could try and tighten it slightly – things have to be lived through to understand them- in art you have to do it – almost forms a portal to what makes art special. It’s about the participation rather than the representation. Can’t capture the process – the self becoming in the process – has to be lived through in the act of making something, reflecting and giving back from where the work is coming from – self generating – work almost creates itself but wouldn’t exist without the artist. Possibly just tighten the ending if possible – end with something which is clearly assertive, even a question, but she likes what it’s saying – it’s very good.

General

• Use Harvard referencing
• 12 pt
• She prefers double line spacing
• Be consistent
• Verify online sources
• Page numbering – she likes ‘ 1 of 10’ but may not be Harvard
• Check for typos