View Submissions
- Please choose an option:
- Title of Extended Exhibit Proposal:
Craft:Industry interface - A dialogue between hand, heart and machine (An Anglo-Japanese collaboration) (Ref #286)
- Date:
- 01-02-2007 23:46:05
- Status:
- Accepted with revisions
- Rating:
- 7
- Details:
- Final Documents are only available to Reviewers.
- Abstract:
- Read the original abstract.
Reviewer Comments:
- Review #1 : Left on 07-03-2007 12:46:52 #
- There is a dichotomy between the work and the paper, much of the reflection within the paper is lost in the description; it needs to be revised to give the audience an understanding of the subtle qualities given from one to another.
Rating: 7
- Review #2 : Left on 08-03-2007 16:12:08 #
Important questions being explored and while they are not new, re-evaluation of them will arguably always have relevance for the discipline of textiles.
The proposal is devoid of content and requires greater explanation of the key issues. How are the textiles intelligent in their making? What methods have been used in the work? Why is the collaborative element important ? what value does it bring? Why collaborate with Japan? It would be helpul if the author could explain the basics in terms of the thinking behind the making.
Also, regarding the exhibit itself, will the dummy be provided by the author?
Rating: 4
- Review #3 : Left on 24-03-2007 10:15:15 #
- The proposal is vague .
How will the display provide answers to the fundamental question of the value of craft practice? How will the display unpack issues of interface and collaboration?
Why is this research different from conventional textile sample creation for manufacture?
By displaying a range of samples with a digital display of ?mainly images of the production and development at the industry bases in Japan? only. From an audience perspective the current proposal places the responsibility on them to assume answers to the questions above rather than being informed and enlightened by the exhibit.
It is acknowledged that a full paper has also been submitted however the exhibit being research evidence needs to communicate its purpose independently.
Rating: 7