June | 2021 | UCL Faculty of Arts & Humanities Blog

Archive for June, 2021

Transformations: Editing Life in a Day

By UCL Faculty of Arts & Humanities, on 18 June 2021

Life in a Day

Words by Isabelle Osborne

Running from the end of May to mid-June, UCL’s Reimagine series offered an exciting collection of short courses, master classes and workshops that encouraged participants to reimagine their future. UCL academic staff, film-makers, writers, digital experts, journalists and other successful industry experts made up the company of speakers and facilitators, offering inspiring insights into their chosen fields.

One of the incredible events of the programme was ‘Transformations: Moving Image Storytelling’, a Q&A event with film industry professionals. The event centred around Life In A Day, a documentary that captures the day of July 25th, 2020 from a global angle. The film followed the Life In A Day that was created in 2010, a documentary of similar form. Over 300,000 videos from 192 countries were submitted to the project, connecting themes of love, death, hope and more. The event aimed to capture the experience of editing this intriguing, captivating film.

The panel was chaired by Kate Stonehill. Kate is an award-winning director and cinematographer whose work has screened internationally at film festivals and galleries including the BFI London Film Festival, Sheffield Doc/Fest, AFI Docs, and DOC NYC. Kate was joined by Mdhamiri Nkemi, a film editor whose work has won awards at festivals such as Sundance, Berlinale, TIFF, SXSW and the London Film Festival, and Nse Asuquo, editor of The Stuart Hall Project, Jazz Ambassadors and House of My Fathers and nominee for the Jules Wright Prize for Female Creative Technicians in 2016. Both Mdhamiri and Nse were involved with the making and editing of Life in a Day.

Kate began by asking what Mdhamiri and Nse were looking to capture within the final film, one that, she notes, was created in a ‘transformative year.’ Nse reflected on how open she was going into the experience and the fact she had no expectations, whilst Mdhamiri knew the film would have an ‘extra layer of impact’ following the international experience of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mdhamiri spoke of how, in addition to COVID, the wider conversations of the time framed the video submissions they received, and how the recent death of George Floyd became an ‘important thing to talk about’ in the film. It was important, too, that the film did not feel like a collection of films categorized as a list, but that they instead worked to capture ‘the human experience in its essence and have all [the] themes feed into that naturally.’ Kate believes the film strikes a balance between ‘being alive to the time in which it was made’ and the mundane events of ordinary lives that ‘could have been shot at any time.’ Although her world felt very small whilst being confined to her home during the pandemic, the film gave Kate a window into life ‘on the other side of the world.’

The discussion moved onto reflecting on the experience of editing a film without the element of hindsight and instead editing global experiences that were happening in a moment that Nse and Mdhamiri were themselves very much a part of, and whether this was a challenge. Nse agreed that it was challenging, as director Kevin Macdonald didn’t want the film to be a ‘YouTube thing’ but rather wanted people to express what was going on in their lives. Nse also touched on the issue around how to portray the Black Lives Matter protests, as a lot of the footage was of people talking about the protests without being ‘intimately connected’ to it; they entered the theme emotionally through a personal story of someone who was directly affected by the protests.

Kate was interested to know whether any unexpected themes presented themselves in the footage that was received, to which Nse commented on how memory became a dominant theme in the film, as did loneliness; the film captured both the universal and the personal at the same time. Mdhamiri spoke of the database that was developed to enable the team to keep track of the themes that were coming through in the footage, and offered an insight into the process by showcasing the database to the audience; such offered a unique and special window into the editing world of Life in a Day.

Hearing about the editing process was a fascinating element of the event, especially when Nse and Mdhamiri spoke of the challenges they faced during the experience. They referred to a deeply moving, vulnerable and emotional piece of footage of a Scandinavian lady who had miscarried, which spoke to a universal theme of loss; whilst they knew they wanted to put the footage into the film, they struggled to place it amongst the other clips that made up the various montages without disrupting the ‘rhythm’ of the film. This built into another issue which Nse touched upon, of knowing when to move on from an emotion and recognising when the emotions of a particular sequence became ‘diluted’ when ‘[they] had too much.’ Moving deeper into the editing process, Nse also shone a light on how all the editors worked on all the scenes so as to gain a sense of ‘ownership’ of the whole film as well as to prevent anyone feeling ‘precious’ over particular pieces of the work.

Capturing the global nature of the film, an audience member was intrigued by the aspects of language and translation reflected within the film – was there footage of people that held a lot of value visually but who spoke a language that was difficult to source a translator for? Mdhamiri said nothing was impossible, but some footage was ‘very hard’ to translate. Referencing the scene with the Mongolian school children, Nse added that, with certain clips, the visual element was enough for the audience to gain an understanding of what was going on, thus language was not an indefinite barrier.

When asked whether they had learnt anything about editing through the experience of Life in a Day, Nse reflected on the ‘humbling’ nature of the film-making process and how she both loves and hates it simultaneously; it is a process of constant questioning and constant learning, as well as the difficulty of being aware of the detail and the broader picture at the same time. For Nse, the experience was a ‘privilege’, and she spoke of how she did not feel she had the ‘right to hear these intimate stories from people.’ Mdhamiri agreed, commenting on how ‘special’ the opportunity was and the rare experience of gaining an ‘insight into humanity.’ Whilst having experience in documentary work before Life in a Day, this was Mdhamiri’s first experience of working with a feature documentary, an experience that involved accepting the reality that one person could not watch all the material they received and ‘having to surrender to that.’

Moving on to discuss what they each look for as editors, Mdhamiri referenced the footage that provoked an emotional reaction and that featured people who you wanted to spend time with, as well as those that offered a narrative journey that the audience could follow. Nse reflected on the ‘intuitive’ nature of editing; it has to be something you feel. Part of the process is being able to understand what is being ‘revealed’ rather than just that which is being ‘shown.’ Nse also added that this process reveals a lot about oneself, as you have to question ‘Do I understand things just on a surface level or do I look deeper?’

The panel turned to the audience’s thoughts, one of whom asked whether the editors think about the stories within the footage today and do they wonder how the people they met through the footage are doing. Both editors said they do, and Mdhamiri commented on the virtual cast screening that brought together many of the people who featured in the film, which sounded like a phenomenal experience to virtually meet the participants that had become part of their work.

Another audience member asked about the editors’ favourite stories, both of those that made the final cut and those that did not. For Nse, the footage of an ex-marine speaking about PTSD gave a moving insight into his ‘vulnerabilities’, in addition to the birth sequence at the opening of the film, a sequence that also resonated with Kate and, most likely, the wider audience. Of the ‘endless gold mine of characters’, Mdhamiri told of how ‘moved’ he was by the Black Lives Matter footage from Oregon and Portland, as well as the ‘resilience and strength’ shown through the Indonesian transgender woman who features as both a busker and as a sex worker.

The inspiring discussion closed with Mdhamiri and Nse’s advice for UCL students who are interested in pursuing a creative career. Nse advises us to ask ourselves why: ‘if you know why, you won’t be swayed so violently by other people’s opinions or setbacks and things.’ Mdhamiri agreed, commenting on the importance of finding a network that you can collaborate and grow with.

Overall, the evening was a fascinating insight into the making of an incredible piece of art and a wonderful opportunity to hear the wisdom of two accomplished creative professionals.

Filed under Uncategorized

No Comments »

How to speak so others will listen

By UCL Faculty of Arts & Humanities, on 14 June 2021

Megaphone on an orange background

Words by Isabelle Osborne

Running from the end of May to mid-June, UCL’s Reimagine series offers a wonderful array of short courses, masterclasses and workshops that encourage participants to reimagine their future. UCL academic staff, film-makers, writers, digital experts, journalists and many other successful industry experts make up the company of speakers and facilitators, offering inspiring insights into their chosen fields.

Hosted by Tim Beasley-Murray, Associate Professor of European Thought and Culture with UCL’s BASc Programme, ‘How to speak so others will listen’ offered participants an insight into the work of TEDx and the process of giving a TEDx talk.

Tim was joined by Maryam Pasha, the Director and Curator of TEDxLondon and TEDxLondonWomen and co-host of the Climate Curious podcast; Ben Hurst, activist, advocate, speaker, presenter, facilitator, trainer, and TEDxLondonWomen 2019 speaker; and Bethany Rose, LGBT+ spoken word poet, writer and illustrator, and speaker at TEDxLondonWomen 2021.

The conversation began with Maryam’s thoughts on why the mode of storytelling captured in a TEDx talk has become so important and what it tells us about how we communicate. For Maryam, the TEDx talk provides ‘digestible’ and ‘high quality snippets’ that communicate ideas across academia, business and other industries in an accessible way, which help us navigate the plethora of information and content that is out there for us to consume. Describing them as ‘a doorway into a field’, Maryam reflects on the fact that TEDx talks do not transform us into experts, but rather act as a tool for accessing information or ideas that may have been shut off to us before. She adds that storytelling is ‘so human’, and the concerns with storytelling that the TEDx talk is so interested in makes it a relevant place to foster ideas and discussions.

Maryam’s noting that typing ‘migration’ into the TEDx search bar brought up five TEDx talks on birds in 2010 led the panel to discuss how ‘excluded’ and ‘more marginalised voices’ fit into a venue that can appear ‘corporate’ and ‘privileged’. As a curator, Maryam feels it is important for her to bring voices that are not often heard to the platform. Since the platform has opened up and become more diverse, a search for ‘migration’ is very different. Beth felt her experience with TEDx and the fact she was not asked to censor her talk shows that TEDx is a ‘beautiful platform’ where she felt welcomed. Ben thanked Maryam for creating such a platform that ‘amplifies your voice in a way that is really important.’

Tim was interested to know the process of taking the things the speakers wanted to say and transforming them into a powerful and polished performance. Whilst Beth had the unusual advantage of having her performance half-prepared as the poem she incorporated into it was already written, she described it as ‘probably one of the hardest things [she’s] ever had to do’, which was partly exacerbated by the pandemic. Ben described it as ‘incredibly painful and difficult’, and talked of the feeling of imposter syndrome he experienced during the TEDx process, before thanking the TEDxLondon team for the support they offered him and commenting on the fact it was a ‘life changing experience.’

As Head of Facilitation at Beyond Equality, Ben focuses on challenging toxic forms of masculinity in his day-to-day life, yet he commented on how his TEDx talk, titled ‘Boys won’t be boys. Boys will be what we teach them to be’, was a different experience: ‘There’s something about having a set period of time and a script that you’ve attempted to memorize…once it’s done, it’s done, and the message is out there.’ He touched on how his talk was received differently, as it resonated with some and upset others: ‘The element of control is taken away from you in a really strange way.’ Comparing the Talk to her experience of doing spoken word, Beth highlighted how the latter is informed by her audience – ‘I don’t choose a set before I see the audience, because for me it completely depends on the mood, whose there’ – whilst the former felt like her ‘final class’, likening it to teaching a group of teenagers who interpret for themselves the lessons she gave when she was a teacher. Part of the process, she said, is having ‘the courage to be misunderstood.’

When discussing the impact conducting their TEDx talks has had on their lives and where it is taking them now, Ben commented that people started to care about the work he and his organisation were doing. He also touched on the importance of using the profile gained through TEDx to ‘amplify the voices of other people’, as well as how the work remained the most important thing for him to do following his talk: ‘Whether thousands of people have heard you talk about it or not, or it’s just a bunch of kids in a classroom, what matters matters and so you have to keep doing that.’ Beth noted that, for her, ‘TED isn’t quite finished yet’, as the fact her talk came out during the lockdown has meant the work she was approached for were ‘in person’ opportunities. Beth also spoke of her next book, a practical guide for parents that will combine her love of writing, working with people and spoken word.

The event concluded with a discussion of audience questions. When asked how she identifies TEDx speakers, Maryam spoke about finding ‘unexpected and hidden voices within a field’, encapsulating both what TEDx as an organisation represents and the enriching conversations had between Maryam, Ben, Beth and Tim. One of the most poignant take-aways from the event is that providing a space where everyone can feel welcomed to share their voice is an empowering sentiment, both for the speaker who has the opportunity to be heard, and their audience, who have an opportunity to gain an insight into a perspective they may not have heard or thought of before. Maryam closed the event with the reminder that we must all have the belief that our voices are powerful and that we have something important to say, a message that will have undoubtedly struck a chord with all the attendees, regardless of where we are in our UCL journeys.

Overall, the event was alive with powerful and compelling discussion, honest and thought provoking insights, and empowering and encouraging messages from across the panel.

Post photo by Oleg Laptev on Unsplash

Filed under Uncategorized

No Comments »

Taming Dragons – a Glimpse Behind the Scenes in the publishing Industry

By UCL Faculty of Arts & Humanities, on 14 June 2021

Words by Isabelle Osborne

Running from the end of May to mid-June, UCL’s Reimagine series offers an exciting variety of short courses, masterclasses and workshops that encourage participants to reimagine their future. UCL academic staff, film-makers, writers, digital experts, journalists and other successful industry experts make up the company of speakers and facilitators, offering inspiring insights into their chosen fields.

The series began with ‘Taming Dragons – a Glimpse Behind the Scenes in the publishing Industry.’ Award-winning author Dr Liz Flanagan joined leading bookseller Tamsin Rosewell (Kenilworth Books) and Commissioning Editor Rosie Fickling (David Fickling Books) for an insightful and honest reflection on the industry.

Tamsin opened the discussion by asking what advice the panel would offer for future editors, writers and booksellers when preparing for a career in the industry. To combat the lonely experience writing can become, Liz advises us to find our ‘tribe’ by joining writing development organisations, sourcing a writing mentor or forming a critic group. Finding friends to share your work with – including booksellers, librarians and people who care about books – will offer support on the journey. For Rosie, being able to survive and thrive on criticism and failure is vital; editors have to give criticism constructively in order to help writers in a positive way. This resilience was a recurring talking point throughout the event, something Tamsin tapped into when advising us to gain retail experience whilst waiting for your first job or recovering from rejection; learning about trade discounts and how stocks/returns work in a retail environment are heavily transferable skills for the publishing industry.

A particularly interesting angle of the discussion was debating the ‘glamorized’ nature of the industry: how different is the job in reality from the ‘Hollywood’ depiction of it? Liz commented on the lack of the ‘nine to five’ nature of her work, and how being a writer involves many other responsibilities than simply sitting and writing all day. Taking us through a ‘day in the life’, Liz writes in the morning before turning to emails, doing her own accounts, and mentoring other writers; creativity is balanced with the reality of earning a living. Although Rosie’s job involves extensive re-reading and often having to turn writers down due to the influx of promising drafts she receives, she painted a wonderful picture of the job when commenting on the lovely people she gets to work with, Liz being one.

When asked to define what she looks for in a first draft, Rosie told us it is very much about ‘trusting your gut’, as well as seeing the possibility of a book and where it could go. For Rosie, storytelling was embedded within her childhood, and she saw from a young age how a book is constructed; early drafts should not only be well written, but have the possibility to go somewhere exciting. For Rosie is both an editor and a reader, and the process is about helping the writer create a book their readers will love. Tamsin claimed that choosing a draft to work with is a personal decision; it is not just about choosing a draft that is great, but a draft that is great for you. She also spoke of how being excited about a book will be filtered into the way booksellers promote the book via word of mouth, making a comparison to this form of promotion and being recognised by an accolade: whilst literary prizes sell books on scale for a short period of time, there is a pattern of major award winners becoming unavailable within 18 months of their win. Tamsin stressed the importance of having enthusiasm for selling the book.

Another refreshing discussion the panel had was on the commercial aspect of the industry. For Tamsin, commercial success is important for an effective industry, as it cannot thrive on passion alone. Rosie agreed, referring to it as both a passion and a financial goal; reminding us that the money is necessary to facilitate the creation of more books, she advocated for championing people being able to make a living from writing. Liz offered a potent reminder that failing to pay people within the industry properly limits who can immerse themselves in the publishing industry: ‘if only independently wealthy people can work in publishing, that’s a real problem.’

Questions of accessibility led into a deeply through provoking discussion of what changes can be made within the industry, and the panel reflected on the journey it must go on to ensure it remains diverse, inclusive and welcoming for all. For Rosie, promoting diversity involves promoting more writers and characters from minority backgrounds, as well as reducing ‘celeb’ books and instead supporting debut works and writers who have not had an easy route into the industry. Liz said there is ‘no excuse’ for the industry to remain London centric. For people on low incomes, disabled people and people with caring responsibilities, London events are difficult to access; she advocates for a more ‘hybrid model’ and advises we maintain the innovation of the pandemic to help achieve stronger accessibility, such as retaining an online option to establish accessibility. Tamsin reflected that the desire to open up the industry means ‘something deeper’ has to change, commenting on how diversity is misunderstood through the promotion of referral schemes and job advertisements that target people who have ‘always wanted to work in books’; as Tamsin explained, there should be no assumption that people have been brought up in a reading family, as this places a limit on who is attracted to the role.

The panel offered inspirational reflections on accessing the industry. Whilst Rosie does not have a degree, having gone down a different path before deciding publishing was the career for her, she demonstrated that the skills we learn in unrelated jobs can be fundamentally influential. Drawing upon her work as an office manager, whereby she exercised organisation and learnt how to support people, whilst her job as a chef instilled hard work within her, Rosie supported Tamsin’s reflections on accessibility by evidencing that successful publishers do not need to be long-term book lovers, and we should instead champion people of all backgrounds and experiences who want to enter the industry.

The enriching event closed with a Q&A session, offering the audience a unique opportunity to ask their burning questions. When asked whether a book series is something an author has in mind from the inception of an idea, Liz spoke about how she did not envision Dragon Daughter as a series, which Rosie attributed to ideas unfolding into further books once a world has been created. Tamsin’s advice for starting one’s own publishers was simple: ‘go for it.’ Such captures the spirit of the evening and the panel’s warm and encouraging attitude towards an audience of budding writers, editors and booksellers. If anyone was unsure as to whether a job in the publishing industry was for them, the panel certainly tamed any doubts.

Overall, the event and the discussions within it represents how much passion and energy the publishing industry thrives on through people like Liz, Tamsin and Rosie who are committed to upholding the integrity of and advocating for the respect of its writers, editors and booksellers. A fascinating and hopeful insight into the industry, balanced with a recognition of the flaws that can be remedied by an acknowledgement that change needs to be made, the event was a privilege to attend.

Filed under Uncategorized

No Comments »

Writing Your World

By UCL Faculty of Arts & Humanities, on 14 June 2021

Pen and pad

Words by Evie Robinson

On Wednesday 2^nd June, the UCL Faculty of Arts and Humanities opened its summer programme, ‘Back to the Future’, with an exciting event run by The Writing Lab. During the event, entitled ‘Writing Your World’, students had the privilege of hearing from writer Anne Helen Petersen, who shared details of her writing journey and how her style has evolved throughout her career.

Anne Helen Petersen is the author of four books and writer of the Culture Study newsletter, as well as currently working as a Senior Culture Writer at Buzzfeed. Anne has written on a broad range of topics, but her current and most recent work primarily focuses on celebrity culture. Combining her academic background with current celebrity news, she shared her explained her writing process of striking a balance between the accessible and sophisticated: the collision of high academic theory with celebrities, stars and history allows for Anne’s work to reach other scholars and academics, as well as her friends and family.

Taking us on a tour of her writing journey, Anne explained her path to writing in terms of three central facets: a focus on personal writing and the craft of creative non-fiction, an analytical approach resulting from academic training and studying for her PhD, and a journalistic approach involving reporting. She emphasised the third element of reporting as something particularly daunting and scary, as it involved talking to real people and putting herself out into the world in order to break some important stories.

Anne first found different visions of and ways into reading and writing as a young person through both letter-writing and creative non-fiction, and when she eventually embarked on her PhD in Film Studies, she began to cultivate more of a creative writing voice as a well as a political one. She became deeply interesting celebrity culture and began by starting her own blog as a way of fusing high academic theory with commentary on celebrity news. Anne spoke of the authenticating effect of being paid for her writing, a feeling many of us young budding writers are no doubt aspiring toward. It was an article on Jennifer Lawrence that landed Anne her permanent job at Buzzfeed (as well as solidifying her identity as a writer in a personal sense), as this was the first longer piece on Buzzfeed to go viral. This style of writing, historically rooted analysis of contemporary celebrity culture that still employs personal thoughts and experiences, would become Anne’s authentic trade as a writer.

In the latter half of the event, Anne talked through two of her pieces for Buzzfeed (links for which can be found below), both of which employ a style of reporting focused on gathering statements and collecting interesting stories, as a way of adding to her analysis and fleshing out the piece. Though, as an introvert, Anne initially found the concept of reporting to be very daunting, she confessed that it has now become an essential tool of her writing style (though it does still make her nervous!)

When asked to give advice to aspiring writers looking to find their voice and a way in to writing, Anne shared her view that there is no singular or straight path that brings someone from childhood to writing for a living. She emphasised that celebrating your own unique path to writing is what makes your work and voice unique, and that if you have an overflowing passion for something, this will always seep onto the page and engage readers, regardless of whether or not they had previously been interested in the topic. Wrapping up her discussion on her writing journey and experiences of reporting, Anne’s words serve as an inspiring reminder for young writers hoping to tell different stories:

“Listen to people. Everyone has an interesting story, if you talk to them for long enough”

Links to Anne’s pieces:

Filed under Uncategorized

No Comments »

How To Be a Critic

By UCL Faculty of Arts & Humanities, on 14 June 2021

Typewriter with the text 'Review' showing on the paper

Words by Deepali Foster

“Restaurant star ratings; in-depth album reviews; Twitter threads on the latest film releases: many of us are both consumers and producers of content about what we buy, where we visit and how we live. But what does it take to build a career in journalistic criticism?”

On June 4 2021, Rachel Aroesti, a freelance journalist who writes about popular culture, and who has previously written for publications such as the Guardian, gave UCL students an interactive masterclass on how to be a critic. Talking to us about criticism in the public sphere for a general audience, Aroesti used the term “contemporary British newspaper critic” to describe her role, emphasising the specificity of the job she does. Breaking down her job, she explained what exactly critics are for.

Most obviously, critics are a consumer guide, recommending things or warning the general public off things, helping people to “spend their time and money well”. Aroesti also emphasised the role of critics as entertainers; as well as reviews offering a window into an experience that might not be available to everyone (such as a pricey restaurant or West End show), criticism should be engaging enough to be considered as entertainment in its own right. Breaking down the binary between criticism and entertainment, Aroesti reflected on her experience growing up reading NME, joking that often the criticism was more entertaining than the original creation in question. Controversially, Aroesti went far enough to consider the critic as an artist, referring to the debate in Oscar Wilde’s ‘The Critic as Artist’, which spurred contemplation about the relationship between the artist and critic — that’s if they can be divisible — and to what extent criticism is self-expression. To the Victorian poet Matthew Arnold, poetry was the “criticism of life”, epitomising how art and criticism can not (and, in my opinion, should not) be thought of as inherently opposite.

Speaking of the joys of criticism, Aroesti expressed the satisfaction of advocating for art and culture that she loves. Most critics start off as fans, making it obvious that they’d want to champion things. However, at the same time, Aroesti talked of the “critic’s duty” to “police” some work, using ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’ as an example — infamous for its emotional abuse of participants involved. Critics essentially call out harmful things that are being sold to the public — they hold art and businesses accountable.

Aroesti then moved onto discussing (ironically!) popular criticism of critics — the negativity unfortunately bound up with the role of the critic in our current moment. She directed us to a tweet by Samuel L Jackson in 2012, in which Jackson condemned the critic A. O. Scott for writing a negative review of ‘The Avengers’ film. Jackson later defended his attack by claiming that Scott “intellectualised” the film and thought too deeply about it — a classic example of viewing the critic as being ‘too serious’. However, nearly ten years on, Aroesti believes that things are changing, partially attributing this to podcasts. The granular detail that podcasts go into, and their microscopic way of considering pop culture, proves that people are thinking thoroughly about entertainment, and there’s an appetite for contemplating what we consume. Aroesti then approached the ‘critics as failed artists’ myth — one that attempts to (unhelpfully) erect the boundary between critic and artist, ignoring figures such as the writer Philip Larkin, who was Jazz reviewer for the Telegraph. We then considered other myths such as critics being hypocrites, unqualified to judge others, and nasty or negative. I find the latter the most alarming, considering public discussion about the quality of art is what typically enriches it and fosters progress. Without talk and debate, there is little improvement.

What interested me most during the masterclass was Aroesti’s emphasis on ‘conscious criticism’ — a term I hadn’t encountered before. She explained to us the need to be aware of power dynamics in the industry, such as the hierarchy between critic and artist. For example, critics are often vulnerable to attack when critiquing an industry, cultural zeitgeist, or individual’s work. Artists are able to mobilise their fanbase by interacting with critics, sometimes leading to swarms of online trolls heading in the critic’s direction, highlighting the disparity in power. The privilege of power functions in the opposite way too. Criticism is always interacting with society, power structures, and the harmful dynamics of the internet, and a critic can significantly aid or harm artists’ livelihoods. Aroesti talked about how Jay Rayner, the Observer’s restaurant critic, announced in September 2020 that he stopped writing negative reviews during the Covid-19 pandemic because eateries were so financially precarious. People complained, mourning his guidance and characteristically scathing reviews. However, Rayner’s acknowledgement of the impact of his words on people’s survival is fascinating. It’s a reminder of the power of criticism and the power of the critic, whose influence extends far beyond a page or screen.

Post photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Filed under Uncategorized

No Comments »

Poetry for Better Futures

By UCL Faculty of Arts & Humanities, on 14 June 2021

Open book with the pages flapping in the air

Words by Deepali Foster

What do you think of when you hear the word “poetry”? Perhaps you picture Wordsworth marvelling at his yellow flowers, or the Insta-poet Rupi Kaur and her viral Tumblr-esque words. Perhaps your relationship with poetry ended after a childhood of scrawling acrostics, or hasn’t yet begun at all. Either way, Dr Mariah Whelan, the poet, editor, and academic, led an open event on June 3 that showcased the power of poetic practice, challenging misconceptions about the craft and the identity of the poet, which was riveting for all attendees.

The event consisted of an exhibition of poems written by UCL students alongside Dr Whelan as part of UCL’s ‘Back to The Future’ programme, and a roundtable discussion between Whelan, Dr Eric Langley (UCL), Dr Hannah Copley, Dr Thomas Karshan (UEA), and Dr Hannah Walters (UCL). The discussion reflected on the relationship between poetic and academic practices, exploring what creative methods can bring to research.

The event opened with a celebration of students’ poetry and their use of creative methods to engage with the academic, personal, and professional. Whilst in pre-Covid times their work would have been displayed in an in-person exhibition, audience members could encounter the array of poetry in a digital gallery — all the same fun, simply without any lukewarm wine. The multimedia gallery space consisted of collage, page, and performance poems. Two poets recited their work live, the first being Aleksander Jagielski, who read their poem ‘Changeling/My Body Unravels’ — an exploration of the trans body. Deepali Foster then read a series of poems entitled ‘SPONGE/BRiCK’, inspired by notions of safety and structure, partially in response to the Grenfell Tower fire. To read the poets’ work, click here.

The showcase portion of the evening initiated discussion about poetry and research in conversation.

Dr Langley opened the panel discussion by reflecting on the “tight congruence” between his work as a creative writer and academic. He noted the “liberation” he feels now that English Literature departments are increasingly allowing academics to include their creative output in their work, and described his poetry as “slightly furtive”, creeping in around the edges of his critical work. Langley called the relationship between his creative and critical work “mutually beneficial”; in his poetry, he takes starting points from things encountered as part of his academic research, providing the example of Shakespeare’s conception of subjectivity — the dominant theme of his academic writing. For Langley, poetic practice “loosens” — he doesn’t have to justify as much, and the reader is expected to do labour that is otherwise the responsibility of the academic.

The notion of poetic creation as something freeing was also evoked by Dr Hannah Copley when she considered the value of writers going into archives without knowing any ‘answers’. As poets aren’t confined by the same rules that restrict critics and historians, they can engage differently with archival or legislative material, ripping it up, probing and collaging it, whilst remaining aware of the power they exert over stories. Copley explained that her place as a researcher and archivist is all part of her being a poet. For her, poetry is a way to critique — to dismantle and put together again. Inspired by history books, census records, and old medical textbooks, she “gets to the personal through the critical”. This will surely be evident in her forthcoming poetry collection: Speculum, its name evoking investigation, illumination, and control.

Whilst Langley and Copley emphasised how their academic research informs their creative pursuits, Dr Hannah Walters focused on the value of creativity in research. Walters will be collaborating with Whelan to use poetry in the research setting. Her work explores gender and class-informed experiences of working class women students at elite universities through the analysis of posters and lifelines that students create and which speak to their academic journeys. Walters drew out the tensions between the creative and critical in academic spaces and contemplated how creative methods can “make the familiar strange”, allowing us to upturn assumptions regarding the social world and its meanings. Her project aims to respect creative artefacts in and of themselves, generating data that is located in the creative, as opposed to using the creative as an afterthought. This suggests creative approaches as having an emancipatory value and being central to high-quality research.

The panellists’ talks and subsequent Q&A session with the audience was incredibly thought-provoking. It encouraged me to think about the harm of segregating critical and creative work, and potentially viewing one as more ‘serious’ or rigorous than the other. I wonder how we, as UCL students, can dare to bring acts of poem-making (or other forms of creation) into traditional academic spaces, and reap the benefits of experimental research.

The ‘Poetry for Better Futures’ event was one of energy, compassion, and contemplation. From the young poets’ phenomenal creations, to the discussion of working in an interdisciplinary way, it was truly enriching, asking far more questions than it answered.

The perpetuation of “not knowing”? Typical of those poets!

Post photo by Elisa Calvet B. on Unsplash

Filed under Uncategorized

No Comments »