Master of Fine Arts, The Ohio State University, 2017, Art

This thesis examines my work. I am interested in how we encounter and experience architectural representations. I will address how my work explores this through the typology of corporate modernist architecture as represented by the American Electric Power (AEP) building in Columbus, Ohio. I make several types of work including rubbings, laser etchings of photographs of models, text pieces, graphite drawings, and digital 3-D models. In this thesis I will analyse these practices, focusing on the rubbings, laser etchings and text pieces. I am especially interested in exploring how we see, experience and interpret architecture, and how the work complicates this relationship for the viewer. I will describe how and why I have researched and accessed the building, the kinds of work this has produced, and the implications that these different forms of architectural representations possibly might have. I am driven by the question of how I can challenge and reject the notion that there is a singular or correct way of reading architecture. At its core, my project is about how and where architecture, and its experiences, exist. A large part of my practice has been research based, in the form of archival visits and readings. These informed my work in relation to the AEP building, as well as other ideas that have not yet found artistic form. Part of this paper will describe this aspect of my work.

Committee: George Rush (Advisor); Laura Lisbon (Committee Member); Michael Mercil (Committee Member) Subjects: American History; Architectural; Architecture; Art History; Economic History; Fine Arts; Landscape Architecture; Mass Media; Modern History; Urban Planning

Bachelor of Science in Business, Miami University, 2011, School of Business Administration - Accountancy

Many executives are under intense scrutiny to understand the risks associated with their company strategies because unforeseen risks can drastically affect a company's stock price and financial viability. Since the inception of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) companies have had to demonstrate through business reporting that the company not only understands the connection of strategy to risks, but must also be able to quantify the impact of risks, as well as demonstrate plans of action to deal with risks as they occur. Reporting risks are specifically important because they are the company's most complete display of its performance and can directly changes how investors determine the stock price of the company – a key factor for all publicly traded companies. One way companies can quantify and report its risk is through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting. AEP created the 2010 Corporate Accountability Report to demonstrate to stakeholders that the company is being a positive force in society and in the world. Yet some companies, like BP, have created CSR reports that do not align reality with what the company is reporting. The impact of poor CSR reporting is that some companies produce quality information for stakeholders while others greenwash its reports to look good for stakeholders, making CSR reports difficult for readers to believe and compare against other companies and across time periods. This report assesses the accountability and comparability of AEP's 2010 Corporate Accountability Report to demonstrate that the company still has room for improvement in how it reports. This was accomplished by utilizing AEP's Integrated Enterprise Risk Model (ERM) to understand the company's environmental and safety strategy, the associated risks and stakeholders, and how AEP reports on these issues to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the report. Then AEP's organization model and risk management strategies were used to lay ground for assessment. A (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Dan Heitger (Advisor); Brian Ballou (Committee Member); Kevin Armitage (Committee Member) Subjects: Accounting; Environmental Studies