The story behind the finished work

Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.

When our workshop completed a wooden canoe, the first article for the community website described ten smooth days from timber planks to a successful launch. That version left out the morning when water entered through one of the joins. It also failed to mention the experienced boatbuilder who showed us how to seal it before a second test.

Some members wanted the article to remain a simple celebration. The group decided that the leak and the advice did not reduce what we had achieved; they showed how the canoe had actually been completed. We changed the stated timescale to three weekends, thanked the boatbuilder and clarified that the canoe launched successfully only on its second test. The result was still positive, but it no longer made the project appear effortless.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

Our youth theatre created a shadow-puppet performance for a local event. The first programme note claimed that the performers had designed and built every part of the production themselves. In fact, the original paper screen had split during rehearsal, and a venue technician had replaced a lamp support that did not pass the safety check.

The shortest solution would have been to keep the programme note and say nothing about the preparations. Instead, the performers added a brief account of the torn screen and credited the technician for making the lighting secure. They still took pride in the final performance, but they did not want an audience to receive a tidier story than the one they had lived through.

Both texts describe decisions about presenting completed projects to the public.