Q2: How effective is the combination of your main product and ancillary texts?
A STREAMLINED WAY TO ANSWER THIS Q
See below for more detailed notes, but this structure might help save you considerable time, and could make for a better, more coherent response overall.
- VIDEO PART 1: Discuss/critique the question: would such texts be tightly integrated? Make brief comparison with some examples - you won't struggle to find examples from your own artist with very limited linkage
- Print off your print texts (and/or have open on multiple tabs/screens). Slowly work through your video, pausing to take screenshots/make notes where you see a link to print texts, BUT ALSO making some notes on points of difference too. Writing on print-offs should help with the next step.
- Separately compare your print texts noting key links and some differences
- Go through your notes. Do you see points/themes emerging? Can you tie any of these to specific theories, eg intertextuality (Kristeva, postmodernism)?
- VIDEO PART 2: If so, use these as 'chapter titles' and discuss all three texts at once. Otherwise, structure by focussing on your digipak first, then your mag ads
- VIDEO PART 3: SUMMARY A brief review of key points and reflection on how tightly or loosely yours tie together. It would be especially useful here to include some thoughts on changes you could make if doing this again.
SOME PAST STUDENTS' ANSWERS:
2014 FAITHLESS + ATOMIC KITTEN ANSWERS
The same issues as with Q1/3/4: a shared script (which, if presented without clear sub-headings and imagery does not help marks on presentation) which is sometimes recorded in a very poor manner, and the imagery not always as closely reflecting the point being made as it should. The use of titles is helpful, and the analysis generally good though.
EMMIE: The one weak answer from Emmie; this would really benefit from a video and a greater degree of depth. It appears long as a post, but there is a lack of detail overall.
BETH: A single vid, with an existing vid referenced in this embedded below. Rather rushes through a script, which undermines the impact (assessment criteria:
ability to communicate), but the content is good. Specific egs throughout, and very, very good at getting into how the industry works - drawing on and suitably illustrating concepts such as
digitisation and
convergence when doing so.
EMMA:
The Eval Qs are a little hard to find: the post dates do need to be
tweaked to ensure they come immediately (and in order) the final cuts, plus 'Eval Q2' as a post title isn't helpful. This is an interesting answer for 2 reasons: (1) starts with excellent industry context (specific examples of companies that work in this field - and what they charge [easy to get via websites or ringing and asking - as a band! - for a rough quote) and (2) starts out by rejecting the need to combine too explicitly the 3 texts designs. The vid goes on to detail the
conceptual and
narrative links from vid to the ancillaries (cartoon style, party/rave scene).
|
Neat, simple way of showcasing the links: edit 1 image of all 3 together |
JONNY: Again, vid done as a group meant there was a real risk of exam board marking this Eval down to 0/20 -
don't repeat
this mistake! Responses to this Q are often rather dull - this is an exception, and it helps secure high marks if a sense of passion comes across, as it does here. The combined image Jonny provided quite neatly illustrated the visual link between the texts, and is a good idea to utilise! The vid uses the physical products to back up points made: quick, simple yet effective (just not for every Q!). Skip to 3:30 in and note the neat trick of discussing fonts used and then saying to camera "and you should be able to see this font on screen NOW!" With a little forethought its a neat idea to talk about things you know you'll edit in later! The written text below was excellent, with many hyperlinks, relevant sources quoted, and well laid out - but easy to do, because it
came from posts within the R+P, simply rewritten/paraphrased for the Eval.
CHRIS: Simply too brief in this case.
This is a suggested approach to tackling this question.
Break down the varying tasks, which might include:
- critiquing the question!
- detailing your target audience
- (this links back to audience) where might each text be distributed/exhibited
- break down (denotation of) key elements of each of the 3 texts in turn
- in what ways are the 3 products linked
- in what ways are they differentiated
- evidence + reflect on some AF on all 3 as a package
- is there anything you would alter given more time/resources
- IF brief was different...
Remember, you need to incorporate some new video material with each Eval Q, and widely employ images, hyperlinks, basic design elements, and perhaps selective podcasting too.
You can share research within a group, but must produce individual responses.
You can share video, but make it unique by using the YouTube annotation tool to add individual evaluative comments, links etc.
Below you'll find detail on the 9 points listed above; these overlap, and are just a suggestion; combine these as you see fit.
INTRO (1): DISCUSS/CRITIQUE THE QUESTION
Re-read and quote the brief, paying particular heed to the alliterative