Anonymous
General Note:
[…] Ellipses Journal for Creative Research endeavours to make bare the process of research and development in creative and artistic research. This is for readers / viewers an opportunity and mechanism to see the types of academic critique engaged with creative research and to make visible the responses and development.
The following peer review was produced blind and in process, the artist / author has subsequently been given the opportunity to respond and develop both the theoretical and interactive parts of the article before publication. What you see published has been edited post this review.
Peer Review 1: 8 Seconds in Uneven Numbers (2020)
Reviewer: Anonymous
Which aspects of the submission are of interest / relevance and why?
I was very interested in how the artist gave a forensic account of the building, the disaster and the aftermath. As someone who lives in Joburg, and actually saw that fire from my office at the time, I was fascinated by how they reconstructed the history of the space.It also has a general interest for anyone interested in the psychogeography of urban space.
How are the artistic and research outcomes represented?
The submission combines a very detailed, and often gripping text, with sound and visual pieces to accompany.I was genuinely impressed by how much research and detail the author has provided. It really anchors the project in a sense of time and space, and brings it to life. I also appreciated how they combined the focus on space with the human stories of the people trapped within it.
How well does the design support the submission?
I really liked the design elements. The webpage had a real mystery and dread to it.I thought the design powerfully conveys the sense of urban fear and disaster which the work expresses.
Are there any ethical or legal concerns?
No.
Conclusions and and pre publication revision:
An intriguing and powerful work. It really captures its subject-both the building and people. The combination of text and audio is impactful and generates an intense atmosphere. I found it to be a fascinating submission.
Anonymous
Peer Review 2: 8 Seconds in Uneven Numbers (2020)
Reviewer: Anonymous
Which aspects of the submission are of interest / relevance and why?
How could a demolition –concretely, materially –remain so elusive and inconclusive?
‘8 Seconds in Uneven Numbers’ presents a research question, documentation of the process, analysis, and (unresolvable) conclusion. The submissions subject matter takes up the question of the demolition of the Bank of Lisbon in Johannesburg. The submission traces winding accounts and interviews related to the 11 months of preparation, the 8 seconds of implosion itself, the aftermath and fatal impacts on those who lost their lives in the fire which persisted for 3 days. Issues of testimony and witness surface as outcomes to foreground the unknowability and impossibility of precisely historicizing this event that happened in plain sight.
The incompleteness (“neither impartial nor comprehensive”, Footnote #2) is clearly indicated almost as a disclaimer and the details are present where possible: dates, names, times, regulations, dimension, etc. However in this polyphonic account (the implosion recording, the soundscape, the essay, the drawings, and the clippings from interviews and reports) the process of historicization becomes part of the muddle. The research outcome is an artistic synthesis of sources that in attempts to recreate and playback the event, effectively evoke an extended meditation on remediation.
How are the artistic and research outcomes represented?
The integration of artistic research and practice is evidenced by the three main pieces that comprise the research’s presentation: video, soundscape, and text. The form adequately represents both the multi-layered and multi-source research as methodology and presentation. The interaction between the submission’s elements, including the work of multiple artists, stream well into each other in sequence. The video, an absent witness (“We pressed record and exited the building”), concludes with dust settling. What is visible behind the smoke? Kreutzfeldt’s essay offers footnotes and drawings which serve to both sketch the research findings and retrace steps in the mystifying process of inquiry into the unknowable. Accompanied by the sound piece by Andrei van Wyk, the sensation of remediation is palpable. The result of these outcomes is the suspension of space and time as if re-tracing, re-playing, re-visiting, and re-reading could ever offer more than a partial account.
How well does the design support the submission?
As touchpoints, there are a few orienting elements in the design that I appreciate. They make room for the intentionally disorienting features and content. They are as follows: The title of the browser tab “The Bank of Lisbon,” the “i” on the index page to access the abstract, specs, and bio, the countdown on the video bottom right corner, the “LISTEN” label on the sound piece, the clickable pop-up footnotes.
The concepts of measurement and re-tracing steps are reflected in the design through the slowed down sound piece by Andrei van Wyk, the timer at the bottom right corner counting up and down, the two lines being drawn across the page.
The navigability between elements is also supportive to engaging an audience who accepts the invitation into the research to play it back and mull it over.
Are there any ethical or legal concerns?
Not that I am aware of.
Conclusions and and pre publication revision:
This submission is overall very strong in terms of research, method, outcomes and presentation. Most notably, the presentation effectively evokes the process of research itself. The many sources are disorienting in a way that works towards the research objectives. Through design elements and selected media, we are invited to sit in the research with the artists. The multiple design elements provide the gestures of searching, re-searching, playing back, looking for clues, almost as if all the documents are scattered on the floor and the audience is asked to attempt to make sense of what remains. I do not recommend any essential revisions.
