What happened?
The group met for the workshop on time, but 2 of the members were absent.
This week we were to continue our work for the individual final assignment, but also review other group's works for the group 3D artefact assignment.
The review featured the criteria that was agreed by all the groups to use for the marking scheme for the 3D artefact. This was:
- Evidence of Research in creative process
- Innovative response to chosen word
- Evidence of experimental practice
- Demonstrate an interest in variations, time and dynamics
The feedback from another group was helpful. They believed that our work gave an effective response to our chosen word (ygen (Japanese): an awareness of the universe that triggers feelings too deep and mysterious for words) and also thought the shape generation used in our animation was well done.
The group that I reviewed had a very good piece of work that was more interesting than ours (in my opinion) and fit the criteria better.
Reasoning and thinking behind actions and practices...
I think that the other group used easier auto-generating 3D software to create their artefact, so they had more time to focus on transistions and dynamics to make their piece more immersive. I think ours could have 'scored' better if our group was more experienced with Blender.
Evaluation
Good: The group reviewing was a useful exercise, even if it is a bit late.
Bad: Other groups work turned out better then ours.
Reconstruction
Use experience of reviewing to help with making the final individual artefact more interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment