To co-opt is to take or assume for one’s own use. This project aimed to co-opt imagery and reconfigure it into new meaning, whilst still pointing towards its source but also representing a new expression. The methodology used on this project was bricolage, a more flexible approach to non-linear filmmaking. Through this methodology the project showcases groundwork with a written production process explaining the development of the creative artefact along with the creative artefact itself. Practice as research methodology was also used in the project as bricolage is a multi-methodological process, resulting in the creative artefact being the strongest part of the project. However, the project ended very differently from where it began and from this, weaknesses emerged. This written reflection will discuss in more detail the strengths and weaknesses of the project and what differences would come from the project being researched again.

​

Looking at the project as a whole, it feels as if the creative artefact took hold of the project entirely. Because one of the methodologies used was practice as research, it is natural to see the artefact take up so much of the project. This is because the artefact itself is answering the research question at hand. However, the question being asked was thought of after the completion of the artefact. This was due to the methodological approach of the project as a whole. With bricolage methodology, the artefact was constantly evolving into something new, and with that so was the research question. Although development is natural and good, having the research question change proved to be a weakness. Initially, the project was to research the effects of sound design and music. However, through the production process, the artefact evolved into a full film with themes and focus areas that were more than just sound and music. Although it is clear in the groundwork that a lot of time and effort has gone into the sound design and music production, the project’s focus area developed into more of a methodological approach towards filmmaking itself. This constantly evolving project lead to the main weakness that is of the research question. However, the project still holds good value in regards of a unique methodological approach towards filmmaking.

​

The groundwork is the part of the project where there is discussion of ideas and reasons for what was made. As the project is a website, it allows there to be multiple forms of media such as images and audio files. This created a simple yet effective way of communicating concepts and development. The groundwork is structured in a way where you can view the very beginning of the production, all the way to the end, ultimately resulting in an easy to understand form. However, within the context of the groundwork, there are moments that are overly descriptive. These moments can mostly be seen in the music production section of the groundwork. This is again linking back to the development of the project, how the research question changed over time. Although this is not necessarily a negative aspect of the groundwork. It can be seen as an example of detailed knowledge and understanding of a designated area in film, sound design.

​

The artefact itself is by far the strongest element of the project. The artefact displays well developed technical choices such as an original score and rich sound design. It also challenges traditional filmmaking conventions in regards of the imagery used. Still photography was the only imagery used in the creative artefact, this is a departure of a typical filmmaking approach. Not only this but the photography used was already taken prior to the films production. The artefact reconfigures the imagery, taking on a new meaning. This is the research question and the artefact is answering the question directly. Only by viewing the artefact can the question be answered.  

​

By watching the creative artefact and reading through the production process, it is clear that the production process is different to that of conventional filmmaking production. There are many well developed aspects within the production, and it is the approach towards this process that demonstrates multi-perspective thinking and critical re-evaluation. This is because of the methodology used in the project, bricolage. This methodology allowed the approach of the creative artefact to be considered in a completely new way, challenging the traditional approach of a linear production.

​

If the project was to be researched again, the differences would be to constantly keep the research question in mind. As this lead to challenges and difficulties towards the end of the project. Asking the question throughout the production will justify creative decisions, allowing for better context that relates to the focus area of the project. Another difference would be the production process of the project. Although bricolage is to constantly review and develop elements of the production simultaneously, having this type of methodology created a process that was unorganised and confusing. The editing for example was the longest stage of production, as one scene had 12 drafts. This is due to the unique context of the imagery already having a purpose. Having some parts of the production process linear would definitely make editing easier and more organised. The difference would be a mix of both a bricolage and linear approach to the process of production.

​

Over all the project displayed an equal amount of strengths and weaknesses from a variety of elements. Most noticeably was the methodological approach of the project. This unique way of filmmaking engaged with critical thinkers by challenging conventional concepts of the production process. Although it is this process itself which also created weakness throughout the project. It is flawed in nature of its unorganised method by having to constantly re-evaluate every element simultaneously. This critical evaluation will prove to be a good resource for an example of a bricolage methodological approach to filmmaking.