Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Develop exhibition concept and spatial proposition
2 weeks (2 hrs/day)
Develop an exhibition concept for a specific real or hypothetical venue. Write an exhibition rationale (400–600 words) covering: the work to be exhibited, the spatial and experiential intention (how you want viewers to experience the work), and any installation-specific requirements. Produce a floor plan sketch showing how work would be positioned.
Proof required
Submit: (1) exhibition rationale (400–600 words) as a PDF, (2) floor plan sketch (hand-drawn or digital, annotated with work positions).
What gets checked
- Rationale specifies a real or explicitly described hypothetical venue — not 'a white cube gallery'
- Spatial intention goes beyond 'works hung on the walls' — viewing sequence, lighting, spatial relationships between works are addressed
- Floor plan positions specific named works and includes scale indication
Common mistakes
- Exhibition concept is a list of works without spatial thinking
- Venue is generic — spatial constraints and character are not used in the proposal
- Rationale describes the work without addressing how the exhibition space shapes the viewer experience
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Check rationale specifies a real or explicitly described venue — generic 'gallery' proposals have not engaged with site
- Verify spatial intention addresses viewer experience — not just listing what will hang where
- Ask student: how does the sequence in which viewers encounter your work matter? If it doesn't matter, is that a deliberate decision or an omission?
Produce installation specification and technical requirements document
1–2 weeks (1–2 hrs/day)
Produce an installation specification covering: individual work dimensions and weights, mounting and hanging requirements, lighting requirements (natural vs artificial, lux levels if known), any electrical or AV requirements, and risk/health-and-safety considerations. This document should be detailed enough for a gallery technician to install the work without asking clarifying questions.
Proof required
Submit your installation specification as a PDF: work list with dimensions and weights, mounting/hanging requirements, lighting requirements, any electrical/AV needs, and a risk note.
What gets checked
- Every work has dimensions and weight — not some works with measurements missing
- Mounting requirements are specific — 'hang on wall' is not a specification; '3mm steel picture wire, 2 fixing points at load-bearing studs' is
- Risk note identifies specific risks relevant to the installation (fragile work, electrical, floor-standing pieces) — not a generic statement
Common mistakes
- Specification is aspirational rather than technical — written for an imagined perfect gallery, not for a real technician
- Dimensions are approximate — 'roughly A3 size' rather than measured
- Risk considerations are generic — 'be careful with glass' rather than specific risk controls
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Check every work has measured dimensions and weight — approximate dimensions indicate specification has not been completed
- Verify mounting requirements are specific enough for a technician to act on — ask student to demonstrate by describing how one work would be installed
- Ask student: what is the single most important risk in installing this exhibition? If they can't name a specific risk, the risk section was written generically
Present proposal to critique and refine based on feedback
1 week
Present your exhibition proposal to a tutor, curator, or gallery professional in a review session (minimum 20 minutes). Document specific challenges raised about the exhibition concept, spatial choices, or technical feasibility. Produce a revised proposal note (minimum half page) identifying what changed after the review and why.
Proof required
Submit: (1) review session record (date, reviewer, specific challenges raised), (2) revised proposal note (minimum half page on what changed and why).
What gets checked
- Review record documents specific challenges — not 'the tutor approved the proposal'
- Revised proposal note identifies at least two specific changes with rationale
- Changes address spatial or conceptual feedback, not just formatting
Common mistakes
- Proposal is presented as finished — reviewer has no room to challenge
- Revised proposal note documents changes without explaining the reasoning
- Review session is too short to get into spatial or conceptual depth
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Verify review session was minimum 20 minutes
- Check revised proposal note addresses spatial or conceptual challenges — not just administrative corrections
- Ask student: what would have been lost if you hadn't shown this proposal to a reviewer? If nothing, the review was not substantive
Part of