# data[].attributes.body
* exploration of clinical representation of something emotional like a lullaby: an interesting juxtaposition.
* text and image combination.

Consider:
* the quality of images, the associations of colour/black and white. How they add to your intentions.
* what is lost/absent in this visual representation of the lullaby?
* in annotated bibliography: how your references have informed your iterations

# data[].attributes.body
Working well ⭐️
/ I think that the form plays a strong role in presentation of the iterations. Week 1's stark, monotone publication lent itself to a poetic or maternal quality.

/ This week's iterations seem more structural, where the mouth shapes and sounds are organised as a sequence or taxonomised — a sort of notation (also suggested by superimposing the shapes/text on a musical score). Both are interesting approaches.

Suggestions:
/ Is there a way to make the viewer aware of the idea of signifier/signified (I know it's tricky because it's an abstract concept!)

/ Does the intention or purpose of a lullaby play a role in how in the semiotics of how it's communicated?

Moving forward:
/ What form do you think is most effective in conveying the suggestion of the lullaby?

/ What's the message you hope to convey through the iterations (in relation to Mythologies)?

# data[].attributes.body
Instruction .. is thought as a systematic method of understanding such things and that medium juxtaposed with lullaby is creating some interesting contrast like the bridging between the emotion and the static emotionlessness(hope this word exists) and that is  contextualising the subjectivity of sounds and words. But one thing I miss from Beini's last week's iterations is the narrative quality from the sequence she carefully devised throughout the publication.

# data[].attributes.body
* bringing in new ideas about the new subject of focus: collective memory. Informing how you bring together image and text (what effect they produce together, especially with the authoratitive typeface)

At the moment the image & short statement combination suggest (to me) the partiality and bias in all history making.

Very interesting to see your drawings on trace - they carry something of the physicality, personal memory.

Further development for line of enquiry/annotated bibliography: consider how your references can help you analyse these experiments you've done this week.

# data[].attributes.body
Working well:
- you cede control to the program - highlighting what you do and what the program does
- relationship between text (line of code) and image (generated in program) using hand written lines of code (a visual device or is that part of the process?)

Potential refs
- relationship between randomness and setting parameters
- authorship: shared between designer and computer (Barthes, Death of the Author)

* use your references and line of enquiry to examine in more depth how this relates to graphic design. What are the implications?

# data[].attributes.body
Working well:
exploring through different forms - sound, image, physical forms. Different ways of pinpointing a phenomenon and assessing how they work (together and separately?)

experiences/perception (and performances) being central to your enquiry, creating something for an audience to experience

# data[].attributes.body
unwrapping / surface / texture
what do these 2 different sets of iterations suggest about different positions on surface and object?
(the difference between human frottage practice and computer program?)

Partial view in the 2nd set - limits set by the scale of the paper and the materials
fragments / mapping of the room

text and image working effectively - offering a moment of surprise

# data[].attributes.body
data visualisation - representing time on paper

working well:
your layered, transparent images giving a sense of process - the meaning of the whole is greater than sum of its individual parts.
(possibly also offers a reading ‘performance’ for the audience, a physical and material experience that helps keep the physicality of dance in mind?)

possible references: Exercises in Style (on reading list)

# data[].attributes.body
this second set of iterations demonstrates a meaningful, distinct shift from the first: using the process within specific parameters to see what it produces. You have struck a good balance between focused intention and iterative open-endedness.

Your work intentionally allows for multiple readings, meanings and interpretations to co-exist. It sounds like you're exploring and reflecting on this in your annotated bibliography: very appropriate for this work.

# data[].attributes.body
The theme of measuring and experimenting with time was well reflected with the form of a stack of layers. What made it interesting to me was that each drawing had a sense of manual and subjective quality of understanding time in it. Not clear where the 3d converted version and perspective angled view came from.

# data[].attributes.body
I remember Jamel repeatedly describing each frame as different iterations. I'm not sure if it was shown from this week's iterations and don't know where this definition might can lead to, but definitely an interesting access that only Processing(specific tool) can have.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like from the conversion between this two set of iterations-CG and hand drawn, Ye Jin is already forming a context of unwrapping and the concept 'surfaces'. Personally, it feels like there can be a lot of directions and possibilities weaving this two methods she've been using.

# data[].attributes.body
Working well🦾

The idea of ​​separating the body from the consciousness is very interesting in the interaction with different media. The experiencer makes an action, but in reality, there is no response, which makes the audience question.

Reference that might be useful: http://stelarc.org/?catID=20353 （YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90KHwo02f2E )