11th Jan Collaborative workshop – Ongoing research.
I had to participate in this workshop asynchronously and my first thought post watching is that I am lost on the actual observation of what was being taught. Maybe I need to re-watch the recording and slow it down in places, but I found it extremely distracting and my concentration faltered during the 2 hours.
“Aims of the session
• Demystify research through sharing two
projects in progress.
• Consider the potential of creative methods for
researching arts university questions.
• Start thinking about what aspect of your
academic practice you would like to investigate.”
Above are the Aims allocated to the session, both projects showed displays of visualizing the workroom surroundings, one inadvertently bias due to working and knowing the surroundings by being a faculty member. The second transcribes the textual context of witnessing art pedagogy in a socio-material observation between storytelling, who envokes such stories and observing workshops across UAL.
Potentially seeing or observing environments in creative pedagogy has led to such questions and research has begun in low-tech formats of communications or in a sense of common ability and practices. Using drawing as a tool of communication in a proactive way, led to such possibilities for connecting everyday observations or learning scenarios.
‘Carazzo’ interprets their research as spatial, that the space we use as creatives is fundamental in learning how we progress creatively. The invasion of ‘sofas’ in office spaces has allowed student interaction to be less aggressive/formal and more inclusive and harmonious in sharing or connecting.
“Pedagogy is an inherently spatial practice” Acton 2017:1441
“The material space of the studio is rarely examined” Carazzo 2019
‘Carazzo’ goes on to quote other influences that back up their theory on spatial environments playing a role in student learning and interaction and thus becoming somewhat of a socio-material relationship of student-environment-tutor.
“These materials may be used by humans, but that may also use the humans and influence and change the educational practice, which then is no longer particularly human; instead it is socio-material” Sorenson 2009:2
With this influence of observation, ‘Carazzo’ establishes a workable theory with routes of investigation be it peer or student interaction with the work environment. Creating an ethnographic map of the surrounding that is participant based and allows students and peers to draw out the environment through their personal lens.
The results came through with interlinking or entangled results in the idea of what kind of environment can lead a student’s journey through creative pedagogy, with some back-and-forth acknowledgments in the idea of formal/informal scenarios, the student’s wants and needs, and the well-being of students by observation or interaction.
‘… if I’m sat around a table it looks like you’re doing something proper and real,
but if you’re just sat on the sofa it looks like informal chit chat.’ – Tutor 2
‘…actually often getting to the bottom of what somebody is about happens more authentically as it feels more real. There is actual dialogue and it’s a different dialogue – not two monologues … I’m able to listen more effectively the dialogue
becomes more true dialogue.’ – Tutor 2
The above was directly from the same observer, the latter counter-reacting to the first by reflecting on the outcome of the dialogue between tutor and student. This ponders my own question on art-based pedagogy.
‘ Does the environment we indulge in provide the opportunity to commit creatively?’
The question reflects a more technical observation of art pedagogy, creatively speaking does a studio, workshop, or workroom (basically all the same) contribute to the creative flow of conversation between tutor and peer review. Would the accessible advantages of equipment lead to active participation in communication through physical means, be that drawing, knitting or sewing, or even sculpture.
If I was to replace a sofa with a machine, or tool can the same dialogue between learners be replicated in that sense of ‘carazzos’ observations?
What I did pick up from ‘Smith’ presentation was a text-based journey in understanding, particularly the ‘Noticing, Departure points and Closing’ sections. It established a stand-out end route of bringing the research to a conclusion.
Although ‘Smith’ left me with another paper to research or abstract, as the textile term stood out, and for me on the journey its about making a connection between textiles and academia,
‘Bricolage'(Kincheloe, 2001)
“Following Levi-Strauss’s concept of the bricoleur or craftsperson, bricolage is an assemblage of different methods, responsively collated into a coherent whole. Heavy use of reflection as connective tissue.” Smith 2023
This brings me to the end of this collaborative take on research, be it ongoing in its journey, (a mental note to read up on the final paper on these two creatives in the future).
What still remains muddy?
Absolutely everything, is it clearer? not really, can I participate in research? I believe so. Can I challenge the concepts of my observations to create a research topic? I believe so.
Image : Bricolage Quilt – (Link)
“The essence of Bricolage is in the name – a piecing together of available cloth and local Irish linens, to create contemporary quilts and homewares. Its influences come from a strong design background, the power of Irish nature, the inherent natural qualities of the linen cloth used and the familiar heritage of plant-dyeing processes. ” Sinead Black of Bricolage quilts.
