Comment [H4]: It could be a good idea to use some sort of visual convention to separate your thoughts from quotations from others. Perhaps their words in italics and yours straight?
I have been thinking about this sort of convention often during my BLOG posts containing both my notes on the given texts, my own thoughts and questions, and my response to set questions in each project. I initially used the same text to indicate the author’s thoughts, my own ideas and questions, and my response to set questions. As I went further through the course I began to extend my technique, using essay style. This consisted of ideas from the text (cited and referenced in Harvard style), and my own ideas and discussion in plain text.
A useful product of this has been my ability to distinguish different voices (especially author from my own) in my discussions. This is very important for academic integrity. I do not think I have remained entirely consistent with these distinctions, but hope that it is usually obvious whose voice is referred to during my discussions.
Comment [H11]: I think it was Matthew Collings (the art critic) who said that art takes over when magic no longer exists (or words to that effect)
One might also substitute science, knowledge or many other words here….
Comment [H12]: Also because of the process itself, with a camera the thing depicted on the negative at least must be in front of the lens when the exposure is made…waht happens after that of course is another matter!
Yes, and this is essentially the same argument as that for the indexicality of photography compared to painting. The connection is due to the physical connection between a light wave from the object and the chemical reaction taking place on the photograph’s surface. The need for an object to be in front of the camera is subsumed within this argument.