1.5 Semester 2 Begins, back to the grind
Reflecting and improving based on studio + RPO feedback
Studio submission was a mad rush and I’m just glad I did decently. The feedback I received are stated below…
First Marker’s Comments:
As much as there is a clear push for specific framework to the
studio research, the hint to what to expect in S2 is not as visible.
Currently, you manage to unpack the current problem with
Singapore tourism and have pulled together a series of
alternatives but surprisingly they are more visible in your target
audience as compared to your Mandatory 2.
The target audience group still needs a little bit of thinking
because it is too broad, being able to define your audience
would allow you to use the strategy that you’ve been studying.
Please work in your design referencing and skillset urgently.
2nd Marker’s Comments:
There is also a need for you to look at other design directions
because the current direction sensibility applied to your studio
research feels very heavy handed and not refined.Questionable
art direction choices in the CPJ where you have very good
references but design decisions remain confusing and
unimaginative.
I understand and agree that the target audience for my studio work is too broad, as such I have been spending the holidays reading up on market segmentation in the tourism industry.
As for the feedback pertaining to my art direction, I am having mixed consensus. I do feel that the outcome of the design of my mandatories were not exactly what I had envisioned. I wanted to do a collage art style but it turned out to be rather flat and messy. Thinking back maybe it would have been better if I used maps to pinpoint the different places of interest. I would rework on the design and execution of my mandatories if I have time but sadly I don’t…
I now have a clearer idea of what direction that my studio project for semester 2 should take on. while working on mandatory 3, I realised how wide a target audience I currently have. By looking at current research and literature out there, I can draw connections to the kind of tourist I should be targeting.
For my dissertation, I am glad that the comments and feedback given seems to agree that my topic is clear and understandable (enough?). However, I do keep confusing myself with what am I exactly trying to prove or find out about. For my RPO, the primary research subjects are Singaporeans. I wanted to speak to Singaporeans to find out about what kind of domestic tourism would attract them but this data seems to be more appropriate for my studio work. Since my dissertation is looking at place-making as a tool for Singapore’s domestic tourism, I felt that maybe speaking to experts on this expertise would be more helpful. I disseminated a survey to get the general consensus of Singaporeans and they don’t understand/never heard of the term ‘place-making’ before. How then will this help me in my research?
I have also been looking at place-making projects done in Singapore done by ShopHouse & Co., and it would be interesting to get their opinion on incorporating Lew’s framework into Singapore’s domestic tourism efforts. I will seek Joselyn’s (lecturer) opinion on this.