8.15 am. Greyness. Such days do not draw one into the open. An exterior shot of my office:

10.15 am. An MA fine srt consultation, followed by a Skype tutorial with a PhD fine srt student. (I always look so tired and old on cam.)

9.28 am. The initial ‘feedback’ exchange with my collage about the Hatton Cross [working title] submission:

DR: Just listened to your track, I am very happy with it. I can’t recall my own track particularly and this didn’t sound like me, I would not have done it.  The sound quality is good, some nice crunchy sounds and in the short time you manage to do something evocative, layered-it has space, too. Yes! I like that this is noisy, but it is not out of control which I can tend to (email, 19 11 14).

 JH: Thanks for your comments. Oddly, I approached the process of recomposition with the proposition: ‘What would Dafydd do?’ As such, I searched for textures and timbres of sounds that were reminiscent of qualities that I’d encountered in your own pieces. The most satisfying aspect of the intervention was the limits imposed by the palette of modifications. All the sounds are yours; I merely re-recorded them, acoustically, in different contexts (from a back garden to a tin box), through amplifiers and speakers of different outputs and quality. (I particularly like the close of the piece, where you hear distance shouts from a rugby match that was taking place when I recorded your sample out of doors.) (email, 19 11 14).

11.00 am. A tutorial with a photography student. They wanted advice on how to develop a sound that would provide an appropriate adjunct (?) to an animation that they’d produced. Principles and observations:

• ‘I want sound to be in the background of the animation’. The concept of sound being situated, spatially, in relation to an image is interesting.  Sound can also be in the foreground of an image. But can image and sound be on the same plane? And can they both be in the middle distance (whatever that might imply)?
• The sound and image should be analogically alike: conceived, constructed, and processed in the same way, qualitatively and characteristically congruent, and equal.
• In relation to the image, sound should not be an afterthought. Rarely is it a forethought. Ideally, it should be a para-thought.

12.07 pm. My response to an eager painting student’s aspiration:

‘Integration’ has been one of those motif-words (‘thought-symbols’), that has governed my own creative ambition. Can one make artworks that consolidate all that we are and are interested in? Or is that too much for any single work to bear? An intoxicating thought (email, 19 11 14).

12.30 pm. An Interdisciplinary Studio Practice student visited (like a ghost) my office to photograph the workspace (specifically, the desk). She has haunted me like this for several weeks now. I’m intrigued:

2.00 pm. I return to The Bible in Translation project, concentrating on a subset of images corporately called ‘Bible Studies’:

Six diptych-format images will make up the suite. By mid afternoon, I’d alighted upon the text for the final piece ‘Line Upon Line, Line Upon Line (Isa. 28.13)’. Each study consists of a photo-reproduction of  two bible pages. These are exposited, using drawing and painting, following instructions, or by the application of processes, that are suggested in the text. (Content gives rise to form.)

A quick FacePaint ad:

6.20 pm. Practise session 1. 7.30 pm. In the evening, I began constructing the model PowerPoint ‘essay’. It’s intended as a model, rather than as a template: