Today I finally got my feedback from Tom Simmons on the MA in Moving Image and Sound at NUA.

I passed, which is the important thing, but I knew that my report was lacking in input from my own practice, and findings from testing methods etc.

As I said to Tom, I should have expanded on the modern stuff and had my own pieces in the report, then I would have felt much happier. Also I should have critiqued other peoples modern practice and approach to immersive responsive technology/art.

He totally agreed with me and I think I should follow this up with writing this part of the report the way it should have been. I felt the end was rushed and the artists closest to my own practice were rushed over in favour of the older history of immersive art – which I found totally inspiring and thoroughly enjoyed reading and researching, but it wasn’t quite the right direction…


Formal feedback from Tom Simmons and Suzie Hanna


The work submitted has a focus on relationships between immersion and augmented reality in historic and contemporary practice. The research report and research file combine a range of examples, drawing on practical and theoretical perspectives to broadly chart the areas of interest. The body of creative practice includes examples of ways in which user engagement/experience might be enhanced using digital technologies, relating these to potential museum display formats. The practical ideas focus on integrating historical practices, contemporary contexts and digital techniques, and are topical in the sense of developing new ways for public audiences to gain understandings of extinct animals and their habitats, to which we no longer have real access. The report is well devised and visually designed, it makes clear connections between subject research and practice development and reveals a genuine engagement with the communication of factual information through artistic and technological processes.

Areas for improvement.

While the different parts of the submission do all address the same theme, the relationship between these, and the overall organisation of the research, creative practice and writing is sometimes a little difficult to comprehend. The examples provided in the research report are all relevant in one way or another, but the disparate historical contexts associated with each of these are not fully evaluated in relationship to the creative practice (and its potential development). There are moments in which the theoretical examples that have been chosen are combined with conceptual and technical approaches, but in general the methods associated with the development of of the work are less clearly presented/ evaluated. At this stage perhaps it would be helpful to refine the approach to help progress the application of ideas to the development of practical outcomes.