Taken from university documentation.
This piece was particularly important for me. The methodology I used when creating this piece was a new one to me, and involve engaging with every aspect of the piece I could think of. Colour, font, size, positioning on the page, positioning of the words in relation to eachother, the words themselves and what they form as a text, the etymology of the words, punctuation: all these aspects were considered.
I found the examining of the etymology particularly interesting, and it went on to inform a lot of the rest of the piece (specifically the word positioning and the text). The words 'for' and 'about' and their positioning (with 'for' over 'about') are particularly good examples. Their etymologies (from etymologyonline.com), are as follows:
For: O.E. for "for, before, on account of," from P.Gmc. *fura (cf. O.S. furi, Du. voor "for, before;" Ger. für "for;" Dan. for "for," før "before;" Goth. faur "for," faura "before"); see fore. A common prefix in O.E., where it could be intensive, destructive, or perfective. Its use alone as a conjunction (not found before 12c.) is probably a shortening of common O.E. phrases such as for þon þy "therefore."
About: O.E. onbutan "on the outside of," from on "on" + be "by" + utan "outside," from ut (see out). By 13c. it had forced out O.E. ymbe for meaning "in the neighborhood of." Abouts, with adverbial genitive, still found in hereabouts, etc., is probably a northern dialectal form. About face as a military command (short for right about face) is first attested 1861, Amer.Eng.
It seemed to me that 'for', related to 'fore', 'therefore', 'before', all very forward facing areas of meaning, was a rather masculine word, whereas about, related to 'around' and 'on', was a more feminine word. The piece being, for me, concerning rape (which, while can be perpetrated by anyone to anyone, seems to me to be a very gendered act), it seemed to fit that 'for' be on top (dominating) 'about'.
The words 'I' and 'she' are similarly functioning examples, except here the domination exists through size, and the discussion of the word 'I' in in the grammar sessions informed this.
Though I did go into punctuation in this piece, and I feel the piece stands by itself, it is possible that I could have gained a more complete understanding if I had engaged with the punctuation in more depth. In particular, the usage of the apostrophe, as a mark of omission, could have been a particularly interesting avenue (as it is meant as an exploration of how this person might think or avoid thinking about their act).
My knowledge of fonts and typography is limited, and as such the choice of font for this piece was based nearly entirely on whether it would fit together well. I did some research into people's reactions to make sure I wasn't making a horrible mistake, but as it was the font's semantics and history were not exactly fitting. The font is based on the font that was created for use on National Park signs in the USA, and try as I might this did not quite link. Then again, neither did Georgia, the alternative that fit. I could probably have consulted with someone more informed than me on my choice of font.
The 'h[u/ea]rt' part I think went extremely well. It is the heart of the piece, and in a sense epitomises what I was going for. Hurt over heart. The conflict that is necessary in someone committing such an act. It's in the centre, and it seems almost the the rest of the piece branches out from it. Having the words in a dark red (referencing blood) only reinforces this. It's even possible that the piece could have still been successful if everything apart from that word, or even just the 'u/ea', had been omitted, and this is definitely something to consider in terms of future pieces. Less is more, and how much can I cut out while still giving the piece something to stand on (this is, the specificity vs. power compromise, 'Why?' is powerful, but is so vague that it can make no point by itself (though, naturally, it is never by itself)).
A short word on the title: titles to me are very interesting aspects of art, becoming more curious the more vague the work is. Sic is an aside, something almost said to oneself as a bit of meta-dialogue, that contains both the statement "correct as it stands" and "incorrect". This contradiction, correction, doubt, judgement, aspect is very relevant to the piece. The take-it-or-leave-it ambiguity of the parentheses compounds this, and the 'k' within (to make 'sick') puts a spin on the word that gives a clue as to the dark nature of the piece. Sick itself is also am ambiguous word. It can mean sick as in repulsive and sick as in a problem with the mind or body. These two natures, their intersection, and their problematic nature, are key to the piece, and also very important to me personally.
The relationship between this piece and the companion close reading is more pronounced than any other so far, and I feel it represents the climax of this term. I am very pleased with it. The fact that throughout this reflection I've said a lot, and yet I feel there's much more to say for it, is a very exciting feeling, and is similar to the one I felt when examining A PRIVATE GRACE.