ANU painting postgraduate blog

Just another weblog

Feedback reading group

I found the reading group a little different to what I expected in structure and style. The analysis of text type very quickly became critical evaluation of the authors failings before interpretation had really occurred. In this process, assumptions are made concerning the level of understanding each of us have of the text making it hard for the discussion to flow between all participants. Although I could understand and appreciated this level of critical discourse, I was not prepared for it, as I only personally interpreted the text, I didn’t critically analyse it. Next time I will endeavour to do some further reading in relation to the text so I can undertake critical analysis. If only I was more articulate and assertive!



April 3, 2009 - Posted by | Reading 1., reading group |


  1. It’s great that someone’s posting feedback on the reading group Vanessa,
    I’m looking forward to the time when others are able get on the blog.
    I suppose I could have directed the discourse to interpretation of content earlier but I certainly didn’t want to intrude too much. Being the first one, we were learning about each other and how the group might operate. I would have liked more discussion on the issues that Marcia Brennan dealt with, but also felt that our discussion was fruitful for what it did cover and in identifying group members’ modes of expression at this stage.
    Sorry we didn’t get to looking at the Crumb (Krumb? sp?) comic. That would make an interesting reading!
    I know people will feel various responses about their own capacity in the groups and I want to reassure those who feel others are more confident and experienced. With good will everyone in the reading groups will learn from and support each other. Viv

    Comment by pg2009 | April 4, 2009 | Reply

  2. I’m not sure that the terms were entirely appropriate or at least useful. The discussion settled fairly early on critique of the text type because it was perceived as problematic (or at least uneven). Noting that the tone shifted (between fairly straightforward statement of the personal and political implications of the Pollock/Krasner circumstances to one which adopted a self consciously forma post-structural “voice”) was just that – notation of a shift in tone. The ensuing discussion was not a critique of the author. The conversation then moved to the pros and cons of poststructural analysis per se, with particular reference to feminism (there is a bigger discussion here regarding post-feminism of course). Perhaps we should acknowledge the blur between personal interpretation and critical analysis (do you me that the latter is “objective”?). I think the outcome was generally that the paper was a very successful “post feminist” analysis of the complexities of the circumstances that both created and subtended that particular partnership. The conversation didn’t extend to more contemporary examples (as Micky and a number of us might have liked) because time ran out. Plus ça change… perhaps times have changed – or have they? If the personal was political in the 60s maybe the political has to become personal now?

    Comment by 6845ju | April 5, 2009 | Reply

  3. ps I refer to personal responsibility in politics (ie that of the historically and culturally constructed subject) rather than vigilantism of course. The only viable alternative to the “nanny state” and other forms of control. Dang – I sound like an anarchist…
    Jude (again)

    Comment by 6845ju | April 5, 2009 | Reply

    • Hi Jude
      Good to see its working. Welcome your response. I’ve changed your role from contributor to author. If you go to Authors & Users you’ll see the definitions of different roles. I’m still working things out so bear with me…..

      Comment by pg2009 | April 6, 2009 | Reply

  4. Thanks for your replies Jude and Viv.
    I am learning so much from both of you already

    Comment by vanessa | April 7, 2009 | Reply

  5. Further to the comments on the Krasner and Pollock essay, I was talking to Sarah Rice who gave a clearer view of the deconstructive method and its use in the essay by Marcia Brennan.
    Deconstruction works with binary opposites in a way that both brings them together, problematises and seeks out relationships between them to produce other ways of considering the field of issues.
    Brennan does this with a number of binaries such as public/private (eg public practice and career/domestic and private), male/female, rational/intuitive and material/metaphysical (as with Pollocks material object untouched by the hand claimed to also have other ethereal emotional and metaphysical properties)
    I think it’s what separates it from earlier writings to give the sense of freshness people commented on.

    Comment by pg2009 | April 8, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: