It was encouraging to receive some positive feed on my learning agreement, but I am a little puzzled that it was described as a "good draft" - I thought this was it not a draft and I will have to clarify when and if it needs to be resubmitted. I was pleased to be provided with CR's annotations & comments on my learning agreement.
Their was a good discussion about my ongoing practice which was also encouraging - good to continue to collect images and objects and not to force them into premature particular outcome[s].
I was pleased that CR again mentioned River Ocean Research and it was good to be again encouraged to try and make contact as this may provide opportunities for collaboration or to exhibit my work.
It was also good to discuss my printmaking and ways to further develop the work - could build on the "warm" handwritten notice and bleak photograph by using photographs or photocopies of the found objects rather than drawn representation[s] thereof [contrasting handwriting with mechanical processes]. I was encouraged that my paper choice of newsprint was so well received and that it was understood that it did not make it an obviously valuable art object in itself [this is good as it tends to avoid fetishising it]. The use/presentation of the prints was also discussed and I realised that I could use the prints to label the bags/piles of detritus for each of the weekly collections.
CR suggested that it would be good to contact PF-D to try and sort out an exhibition space where I could try out ideas of how to exhibit my work - could be in bags; - even if just for a day and could photographically document it.
I was also reminded that I need think about how and what to present for the interim group crit in a couple of weeks [2012-03-22]; but I was reassured that it was fine that it is still very much a work in progress and that I do not have to feel under pressure to force false premature conclusion for the realisation of the work.