In todays class we watched everyone’s artist interviews and received feedback and critique. I think our video could have incorporated some of the background music and sound that other groups had to give the piece an extra layer and engage the audiences a bit more. Another audio difficulty we had was with the quality of our sound. I tried to reduce background noise to make it cleaner and crisper but this slightly warped Marcus` voice. Joseph and Robbie said that if this was exaggerated and amplified it would have made sense in the context of Marcus` work because he experiments and warps sound and radio frequencies. Because it wasn’t enhanced enough and wasn’t intentional it didn’t work in context of the piece and wouldn’t be obvious of evident to the audience. We were also told there was a lack of externally sourced information and other visual mediums to provide the audience with more to look at then 1 artist talking. As a group we were aware of this in advance due to the lack of information available online with examples of Marcus` work. The final piece was clunky and there were some unrefined cuts between shots. Upon watching the piece on a big screen I thought that some of the shots were held for too long, for example the shots of the hand gestures. We had tried to use these in place of the actual artistic work to give the audience more to look at but it was extended for too long. Another criticism we received was that the juxtaposing shots weren’t clearly related and that because of the change in angle and lighting it almost seemed like a different shot filmed on a separate occasion. I am glad that the piece seemed to communicate one overall idea. I was worried that the cutting of Marcus` statements would mean they were taken out of context and weren’t coherent but the audience seemed to understand his overarching ideas about his artwork, in particular his sensory pieces at Testing Grounds.