What would you do differently in terms of process or content?
For process: I think I would have tried to manage my time better. I spent too long on research and didn’t always seek out new information and instead found a lot of confirming information. I definitely could have adjusted my research technique to get more specific information instead of just broader details.
For content: I would try to add the ability to add a personal message with the postcard to make it more like a real postcard and have a better user experience. I also would add links to resources. I think having a blog or social media style area for people to share their personal experiences with fracking would also be an effective addition.
What did you learn?
First, I learned a lot about the technical process of fracking and how gas and oil are extracted from the Earth. It’s a very complex process that involved massive amounts of water, chemicals, and a sand/silicon mix.
Second, I learned a lot about the damages fracking causes. From groundwater contamination, to earthquakes, water scarcity, methane emissions, carbon emissions from storage and transportations, habitat loss from infrastructure for transportation, human health impacts, chemical waste disposal, to more, fracking is extremely harmful to the environment.
Lastly, I learned about aspects that make an effective postcard. It’s not something I ever would have looked into, but it was very interesting to sift through postcards and notecards to see which ones caught my eye and which didn’t.
What feedback did you receive? Any reflections on critique itself?
As far as the critique itself, I was nervous to present my project for critique. I’m still not as confident about my artistic skills, so I was wary to share my postcards. I’m glad that I did though, since I find embracing that nervousness is the only way to build confidence for future critiques.
I received a mix of feedback. Some was positive like the overall design was nice and the postcards were effective. I also received some, I guess negative isn’t the right word, other feedback about having more of a purpose or audience behind the petition aspect. I definitely think that future iterations of the project could be more geared towards a specific state or politician to have a greater chance of creating change.
What was inspiring? What parts?
I’m not sure inspiring is the right word, but I was very proud of the postcards I designed. I was also really proud of their overall design of the site. I think it looked clean and polished and had a nice interface.
How did your project relate to the original prompts, in terms of critical lens, audience, tone?
Critical lens: I think my critical lens was pretty clear. I think fracking is dangerous and highly problematic. I think that came across in the website both in terms of the intentions and the feeling of the site.
Audience: My audience could have been narrower I think. I had intended it to be for anyone who was familiar with fracking or was concerned about the environment. Ultimately, I think that audience is too broad and is at odds with the petition aspect. Also petitions work best when they are targeted. An effective change might be to have the site as a Petition to Ban Fracking in (for example) Texas. That was it has a higher chance of success.
Tone: I think the tone was also pretty clear and effective. I was going for a mix of serious and satire. The postcard is poking fun at a very serious topic. I think the tone of the petition part definitely is more serious.
How did you balance research and experimentation? Which is easier for you? How can you focus more on the areas that you shy away from?
I spent more time on research than experimentation. I wouldn’t say one was easier or harder than the other. They were both important, and I enjoyed different aspects of each. I wouldn’t say I shied away from either, but I spent too long researching and should have cut that off earlier to start experimenting.