Skip to toolbar

         The first piece I reviewed was a short video titled “Urban Art vs. Vandalism” (by Summer Tappmeyer). The message of this piece was a bit confused. The introduction begged the question, “what is the difference between street art and vandalism?” and yet, she never answered this. If this question was meant to be the conceptual core of this piece, as it is framed, it is strong. It’s intriguing and leaves ample room for discussion. The core loses strength in that it is not supported by the rest of the video, which went on to focus on various street artist’s work. What was presented in the video was well researched and demonstrated research competence (as exemplified by her bibliography in her credits), it just didn’t match her original premise. This shows fault in creative realization and innovation. The body of the visual essay didn’t support its thesis thus the research didn’t illuminate the project’s thesis. I thought it was a good idea to pair a report about a visual medium with a visual medium, it was easier to empathize with the author’s ideas about the beauty of street art when you could view the same pieces that she was describing. Thus, the form and content relationship matched well. The glaring fault of this video was that it posed a question and proceeded to not answer it. Therefore, the perception of the strength of the conceptual core was affected by the poor creative realization and innovation. 

https://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/view_story.cfm?vid=484&otherid=featured&d_title=Featured%20Digital%20Stories

          The second piece I reviewed was an article titled “Sheffield’s LGBT-only halls were called a ghetto – but a year on, they’re thriving”. The conceptual core of the article was strong: clarifying that LGBT-only halls provide a sanctuary and community not a hostile environment. The strength of the research competence wasn’t very clear. Most sources linked back to other articles on the same site, which didn’t add to its credibility of the article. The research often lacked variety and volume, however, I think it was effective to quote direct accounts from the students who lived in the flats. The creative realization and innovation only suffered from lack of volume of research. Otherwise, the article’s thesis was clearly answered in an especially creative form by actually interviewing students. The only effect that this project achieves by not being on paper is the audience it reaches is wider as a product of being published on the internet. The relationship between form and content was appropriate because it was an extension of prior reporting. A jump to a different format wasn’t necessary.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/aug/23/sheffields-lgbt-only-halls-were-called-a-ghetto-but-a-year-on-theyre-thriving