v strong & promising draft. Just needs refinement + more discussion of SD02 Opening preamble situates practice. Could emphasize more distinctive aspects of research, eg Identity+Honesty Authenticity Truth- “revealing some aspects of a specific topic/ theme, challenging existing rules, boundaries and regulations”

Good sense of different characteristics of aerial views: commercial satellite vs personal drone; could develop theoretical implications of this with ref to Kurgan et al, eg Aleppo project of Center for Spatial Research

Research question - avoid implying there is one technological representation of the world:

How do the boundaries, constraints /or imperfections, particular qualities/features of the a technologically originated representation of the world affect and mediate our perception of it?

How does this relate to SD2 proxemics project? Abstracted/codified representations of space/identity/relations?

Substantiate with sources where appropriate: eg. “Orthomosaic” + “the Earth’s surface is a carefully rendered mixture of data from satellites, GIS data and aerial photography.”

Fix grammar:

“On the Google Earth app I could change the date and this led me to a similar to Daniel Schwarz’s project finding-map was randomly divided into a few different squares, “All of these is evident from her project”

Good integrated discussion of practitioners- Montgomery & Odell

Expand explanation of “honest” imagery of Berdsk; what changed & why/how?

Excellent point:

“Cities get reduced to a set of commonly accepted attributes characteristic to that city, essential elements of its identity and the mass produced souvenirs only support such an image.” (Could ref Barthes on Eiffel Tower”)

General Feedback
This draft opens with an engaging account of the sensibility of aerial (drone) photography: the privacy (anonymity) it affords, its capability to access areas not yet reached by Google, its tendency to iron out flaws, and as an extension of the human eye/brain. Your creative and ethical position is more implicit at this point, and further development of the draft should clarify your stance. The last paragraph suggests that you are investigating “place-hacking” as part of the project (or at least as part of your discussion); this opens up possibilities that may be worth flagging at the outset, with reference to the urban explorers movement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/abandoned-properties-to-explore.html. LO1

Your work is situated with reference to the photography of Lee Montgomery, particularly his interest in the drone as an extension of the senses, and Daniel Schwarz’s interest in exposing the flaws or post-production artefacts in satellite imagery. These two references open up opportunities for two deeper explorations of the historical and theoretical context of your project, either (or both) of which could be fruitful: Marshall McLuhan’s notion of media technologies as extensions of the senses, and the feminist critique of the “view from nowhere” inherent in satellite views, as developed in the work of Laura Kurgan and the philosophy of Donna Haraway. There may be room to develop your discussion of Jenny Odell’s work as a critique of the view from nowhere (or what Haraway calls the “God’s eye trick”, in her book Situated Knowledges). LO2

The research question identified is clear and opens up plenty of possibilities for development (a good test of a research question). Your other possible research questions are also interesting, in part, because you chose to abandon them. If you are to leave these possible questions in the final draft, it would be interesting to read a brief account of why you chose not to pursue them. For example, the question of who owns the photo, and what is the relationship between photographer and subject are interesting philosophically but are not areas directly explored in your report or the work. LO3.

The drone photography project in your town is contextualised with a very good account of your process, from initial research using google maps, to a realisation that there were seasonal variations in the Google imagery, to discovery of missing structures in the Google imagery of your town. LO4

The essay is clearly written with a good level of discussion. In some cases (highlighted in the PDF) the meaning could be clarified to improve its communicative strength. LO5