Diana Hughes

For starters, I absolutely believe we should write a thesis paper. This is an MFA, but our projects often straddle the line between fine art and research science (is there even such a line? I think it might be more like a valley). As such, they are extremely subjective and usually kind of convoluted. If we don't take the time to sit down and write down the whys, whats, and hows of our projects and process, there's a good chance they won't make sense to anyone but us. There's a lot of room for misunderstanding, not only between students and faculty (and advisors), but between IMD and the rest of the world. Writing a paper is a good way to communicate just what we're up to.

Also, at this point, we are big boys and girls. We ought to be able to communicate effectively in our native tongue by now, whether in written or spoken form (if English isn't your native tongue, you can go ahead and ignore me now). So really, the argument that writing a paper to the quality standard expected is hard or impossible doesn't really hold much weight with me. I know we're all here because at some point in our lives we decided we were creative types, but come now. Writing about a subject near and dear to you in a coherent way isn't THAT hard.

On the other hand, as a lot of people point out, IMD is not exactly a bastion of traditional academia. We don't write papers, for the most part. Video games, websites, and installation art are as much a part of our "prior art" libraries as are books, and I can't even remember the last time I took a written exam. This mostly stems from the fact that the work that we do doesn't really fit the traditional academic model, and our courses reflect that.

So now we come to the crux of the issue. Documentation and justification for our work is needed, but the traditional thesis paper model doesn't seem to fit. Quite the conundrum. I have a suggestion, which I welcome any and all to critique or modify until it's something usable. Let's start writing thesis papers like science papers. If our work does what we say it will, and it's pushing the boundaries of art or knowledge or technique or what have you, well that sounds rather like an experiment, doesn't it? Now, my memories of high school chemistry are a bit fuzzy, but as I recall, the format of a paper after an experiment went something like this:

I. Statement of Intent: This is what I am hoping to accomplish with my experiment.

II. Research: I've looked into it, and here are a bunch of things that other people have tried in my subject area. I've noted what worked and what didn't.

III. Hypothesis (may be multiple): Based on what I've read/seen, here is what I think will work.

IV. Experiment: This is how I tried to prove my hypothesis/hypotheses. I built a bunch of stuff and tried a bunch of things.

V. Results: This is what I ended up with, including a description of the final product and where applicable, the results of playtesting or other user/audience interactions with the product. (okay, that part wasn't in chemistry. move along, now.)

VI. Analysis: This is what I learned/proved/accomplished with my experiment. Here's what it adds to the current body of knowledge on the subject. Here's how/why it did or did not accomplish what I wanted it to.

And that's it. Fill in with diagrams, bullet points, and source citations however you like. Bam. Thesis paper. The format may have to be flexible for certain kinds of projects, but I think it's at least a good outline for all the things a thesis paper ought to have in it, and it's a logical way of organizing those requirements.

So, that's my take on the subject. Somebody either agree or argue with me. Preferably several somebodies, as I'd really like for this question to be resolved by the time I have to write one of these things. Ready? Go!