MA Week 43 - Printing, partying, networking and writing

Reflection on the week - 18th October 2016

 

Printing

I finally got into the Print Room on Thursday 13^th October and finished the pylon drypoint. It lacks symmetry, or better said mirror imagery, but I don’t think that is too much of a problem because it is hand cut. I did have some trouble printing it, though. I couldn’t get a good black line out of it. I think the grooves I’ve etched may not be deep enough. It will hardly take any wiping at all. I need to talk to Mike or Mick about it but I didn’t get that far.  

I did do a bit of experimentation with paper for the first time. Mick had kindly given me some offcuts of Canaletto paper which is about 300gsm, so really it’s like thin card. I soaked it for about 20 minutes but I think perhaps I should have soaked it longer. It did seem to take the print a bit better than the cartridge paper, though. Certainly more experimentation to do but that would be no hardship!

 

View inside pylon - 1

I also printed it onto a couple of monoprints, one of which had tissue paper on. As I suspected, some of the tissue soaked off when I gave the paper a quick soak. I think I could probably glue it back on so I will have to see to that in due course. I also printed onto a two-tone scratched monoprint and I liked this one. I haven’t had time to reflect fully on these and where next but I don’t see that as a problem; the dissertation has to take priority this term and the printing will kick back in as the priority from January. Any printing I can do this term is a bonus.

View inside Pylon - 2 - drypoint over monoprint

 

Leeds Print Workshop opening

 

On Friday I went to the opening party of the Leeds Print Workshop and it was grand. It was kind of like hanging out in a printerly environment with beer. What more could a body want?

I also had lots of good conversations, including with my classmates Carol and Sue. Then I met two of the first year MA students, Will and Russell. Russell’s work seems to have some overlaps with mine so we have agreed we will get together to discuss in more detail and see if there are any avenues for collaboration. It was interesting trying to answer Will and Russell’s questions about the course; they are very similar to the ones I was grappling this time last year and they reflected back to me that fact that I have learnt something.I caught up with College printroom staff past and present which was good, especially to see Lyndon, and was also delighted to see my friend Filippa up and about after a bit of a low time.

Alongside the Print Workshop opening was an exhibition called “Out of Bounds”, which carried on from residencies that various East Street Arts artists and associates had undertaken in the Summer of 2015. I visited East Street Arts’ Patrick Studios to see some of the outcomes of the residencies in September 2015, and was particularly inspired by the urban mark-making of the ceramicist Rebecca Appleby. Rebecca was exhibiting two pieces from her Urban Palimpsest series and I had the good fortune to be able to chat with her again. She has had a fantastic year, including winning “Best Newcomer” at the prestigious Ceramic Art London. She gave me a bit more of an insight into how she is drawn to the urban as her source material, and also advised me to keep working and striving so that I could be ready for things to start happening when the time is right. It was a real boost to be able to talk to her a year on.

Thinking ahead

 

Another thing I’ve been doing over the past few weeks is working with my classmates Sue, Carol and Paula, to try to find a venue for our end-of-year show this time next year. To be honest I have done the least work of the four of us. However, it has opened up a conversation with East Street Arts about using temporary space. I would love to exhibit in the space that Out of Bounds is currently occupying. Carol told me the same thing as Rebecca – get making!

Thinking

I’ve had plenty of thinking to do as I press on with my dissertation. I’ve written a couple of short critical analyses. One concerns Tina Richardson’s chapter A Wander through the scene of British Urban Walking in the book she edited, Walking Inside Out : Contemporary British Psychogeography.  Her chapter throws up some interesting links with nostalgia and therefore heritage.

I’ve also written something about Constructing ‘The North’ : space and a sense of place, a book chapter by Stuart Rawnsley. in Northern Identities : historical interpretations of ‘The North’ and ‘Northernness’. Rawnsley offers a potted history of the construction of Northernness. His approach is quite aggressive in terms of exposing agencies that he considers to control constructions of “the North”. I agree with some of it, but I found it went much further than my own viewpoint.

Finally I have been browsing Discourse and Identity by Bethan Benwell and Elizabeth Stokoe. This has given me a really useful overview of factors at play in the construction of identity. These authors argue that identity is fluid and will change depending on the individual’s situation. The negative point for me with this book was that it seems to stray into the idea of the individual being part of a kind of mass of people who can’t think for themselves – I’ve found this in a number of what I would call “Social Sciences” texts. However it did throw up links to identity being linked to relationships and with place. So a kind of web of heritage – identity – walking is beginning to emerge.

A quick psychogeography and culture lesson

I was really pleased to be able to meet up with Dr Zoë Tew-Thompson of Leeds Beckett University on Tuesday. Zoë is taking part in the “Being Human” event that I mentioned last week. She is a lecturer in Media, Communication and Cultures and has a particular interest in place and space. Her research has included telling the “small stories” behind the “big shiny” official stories (my words) – much like I am trying to do. Also similar to me, she had to pull theories from many different disciplines to be able to understand her research and it was great to know that I’m not going mad trying to find the academic underpinnings of my visual work. She gave me a few more psychogeography references to follow up and we talked in some depth about the importance of viewing the city in a different way to that which the city planners have defined. The shapes, smells, colours are all there to be observed if you simply open yourself to them. Zoë is interested in the idea of disrupting the “official history” to tell the narratives of the individual stories underneath, because really these are not only the story of one person – they are the stories of many contingent people.  In this she articulated at least some facet of why I’m doing what I’m doing. It was quite exhilarating to be able to talk to someone who knew what I was on about and could offer insights that unlocked some of the academic blockages I’ve been wrestling with. As a result of our meeting, though not of any particular thing that Zoë mentioned or suggested, I’ve realised I can improve the structure of my dissertation so that it will flow significantly better.

MA Week 43 - Benwell & Stokoe on Identity and Discourse

Identity was historically considered to emanate from the self and there was a belief that at least some level of a stable, non-changeable identity existed in each person. This paradigm has been gradually overtaken by the idea of identity as changeable – “performative”  - depending on the situation in which the individual finds themself. Many different external influences inform the construction of identity and the facets of identity change depending on the circumstance. 

Identity theory moved from a belief in the individual identity to that of a collective identity, a label, in the second half of the c20th. (Self/other becomes ingroup/outgroup). However this could often provide a justification for a negative view of that labelled group. There was a gradual recognition that an individual is not just a member of one group and that these collective identities intersect. This is taken further by the idea of hybridity, which is particularly seen individuals who belong to more than one clearly definable group and who give the lie to the idea of binaries in identity theory. A problem with the discursive, performative definitions of identity comes with the fact that it ignores the physical body and concentrates only on the psyche.

The recurrence of the idea of post-modernity as causing fragmentation and the need to identify with very clear groups is interesting. That said, this text is 10 years old. However this does find a resonance with the idea of nostalgia due to the risk caused by speed of change, which more and more appears to be one of the paradigms underpinning my research by practice.

My own opinion is that there is some level of self-identity otherwise the very small group who belong to all the same collectives would all be the same. Denying self-identity seems to me to be a power construct that is designed to try to homogenise the individual. At the same time, there is no denying the large number of influences on the individual’s identity and it would be difficult to argue that we as human beings do not feel a need to “belong” to some group or groups. I also think that there is some element of intrinsic individual identity in the choices we make of groups to belong to.

Touched upon peripherally is the idea that identity is always being forced upon us from all over the place, but that we are seen mainly by researchers as passive consumers of these influences. In one or two places the idea of the individual as the possessor of some sophistication and judgement is aired, but for the most there seems to be an overwhelming sense that people are a bit stupid and flock together with those like them without any apparent thought. Not only in this book (which I’ve found fairly accessible), but also in other social science-based texts, I read the subtext that the researcher is in their own (superior) “ingroup” and the rest of the world is their “outgroup” and their subject (in all senses of the word).

The authors identify a useful list of identity settings:

• Everyday conversation and interaction – how we act with friends, and perform e.g. our gender with them
• Institution e.g. how we act within the university, the doctor/patient setting
• Narrative – telling stories about self and others
• Commodified: identities of consumers, how ads engage with us, representations of identities in commodified contexts
• Spatial identity : links between place, space and identity construction-
• Virtual identity

Two of particular interest to me are commodified identities and spatial identity.

Commodified identities: concerned with consumption. The consumer is often seen as passive and manipulated; advertisers and market forces have the power. An alternative view is that the consumer has authority and is able to make a sophisticated choice between products on offer. There is no doubt that advertisers construct the identity of their target audience in a particular way, and the text points to the link between what is desirable but unattainable, and  the advertisers’ conflation of this with their product – in other words, their product will enhance your life, and presumably therefore your identity. Semiotics does important work here, with choice of language as well as choice of images (e.g. use of the word “you” to make the message more intimate). These reinforced representations fall into common usage. This links to Marshall’s idea of the appropriation of negative qualities as positive ones in the Yorkshire identity; the consumer (the Yorkshire folk) has chosen to subvert the message to their own end.

Spatial identities: This paradigm explores the connection between place, space and identity construction. Physical space is “socially constructed by human agents” – humans construct different types of boundaries and “police” them. This can be as simple as staking your space out on a beach (territorialising it) – an interesting idea of your identity displayed by bodily movement in physical space. People make spaces and vice versa – space constrains you but offers a site for identity construction.

“Who we are is inextricably linked to where we are, have been or are going” (p210) – this implies a kind of fluidity of identity based on place- but not just where you are now, also past and future. This then offers a link to heritage.

The authors quote Hetherington – social centrality of places as persons try to express their identity by meeting with others who identify in the same group (e.g. emos). People make sense of their “self” by attributing meaning to place (p212). Space produces ingroups and outgroups eg Chinatowns, male only golf clubs (p214). Again these are constructions of space and of identity; the space functions as a way of producing others. This also links to heritage as people start to identify with a particular group in a particular space – what Harrison would call “unofficial heritage”.

The concept of place as integral to the life story is introduced; place assists in construction of personal identity. “links between places and persons get connected in narrative accounts and is an example of how place/space is produced in, and as a topic of discourse” (p220). So the fact that everything takes place in some kind of space, and that we associate that event with that space, forms an inextricable link between identity and place. Further, using language about a place gives your opinion about it and therefore something about your identity and by implication the identity of the “others” (p216-219). This implies that people are given to talking about people in places and this links them. So we link people to places and vice versa. Then of course we have relationships with those people and possibly also with these places. These become intermeshed within our identity.

Nationalism and national identity are also at work in here. Semiotics of e.g. the use of the word “us” remind us (sic!) of nationhood. The nation as historically and rhetorically constructed. Therefore the link between place and identity is not just at an individual level (p227).

I hadn’t really thought of psychogeography being so linked to heritage an identity. I had thought of it more as a way of exploring these paradigms but here I am beginning to see it as heritage and identity being woven into the – theories? practices? of psychogeography.

One really interesting thing about this book is the cover, which is a painting by Anita Klein called “Watching the Sound of Music”. I’ve seen some of Klein’s work before; the people are packed into the canvas and there is a very strong sexual element, with large suggestive eyes and sensuous faces. This painting shows two women and a man, all displaying a sensual body language. Except that it is reproduced in full on the back cover and actually contains three women and a man (and a TV), with a complicated jumble of legs, such that it’s not quite clear which pairs (groups?) of people are attracted to each other and who is actually trying to watch the TV. I find it quite ridiculous that a book on identity should deliberately exclude one of the actors from the picture.

MA Week 43 - Rawnsley on Northern Identity

Stuart Rawnsley - Constructing ‘The North’ : space and a sense of place

A potted history of how the North came into being, and extremely useful for a beginner like me.  

Rawnsley argues that “no other region has such an intensified ‘sense of place’” (p3) – and yet the North remains ill-defined, despite the convincing arguments he puts forward in this chapter. Having read a few authors on the topic now, each one seems to have their own idea of what constitutes “the North”, just as I do myself. Neither does Rawnsley offer any information on what traits Southerners – or non-Northerners - might display. I did also wonder, as I read the chapter, whether these concepts of “the North” (and whatever is the opposite) still ring true in these days of social media, global crises and Brexit. However, following the “Grim up North?” symposium, I think they these ideas are still strongly held.

Rawnsley argues that “the North” was “originally constructed by 16^th century cartographers and reconstructed many times through various agencies” (p4). The industrial revolution caused towns and cities to become differentiated from each other (p6), and led to the formation of working class enclaves. The suggestion about towns differentiating and competing is borne out by Jack Southern’s paper at the “Grim up North?” symposium, and whilst the inter-city rivalry might not be so bitter now, I am personally aware that there is still competition between Leeds and Manchester – particularly as the latter seems to get all the funding. He also states that the Irish contributed to Northern identity (p7) - this is the first time that I’ve learnt that my Irishness is Northern!

Traits of Northernness (p8) are identified as: “independence, dignity of labour and solidarity both at work and in the community”, depicting the construction of a Northern working class. I’m not sure how much of this is factual and how much of it is just perpetuating a stereotype, re-constructing the Northern working class in retrospect. Anyway, with the advent of the railway by the mid-19^th century, tourists could see the North without seeing the urban (p9). The production of beautiful images for advertising allowed the sense of place  to be “distilled”and exported to London.

Rawnsley specifically mentions London and he equates London with the State. The concept of Northernness is as an “other” to the Englishness of London and the surrounding areas. Thus a broadbrush description of North arose and the whole North was stamped with it.  Regional planning, emanating from London and used in the war, made spatial divisions of the country and helped in the construct of “the North” (p12).”The North” could now be shown on a map, defined ideologically and the site of battles of power and control between labour and capital. Alongside the state, the BBC (which can be considered an instrument of the state), identified (p14) the area between Trent and Tweed as “intrinsically different” from the rest of the country, particularly in its “general attitude and culture”. The BBC’s choice of personnel and some of its publications reinforced this Northern stereotype. It subsequently moved to regional broadcasting (“the North” being a region) which broadcast items about ”Northern” local culture. Rawnsley purports that the BBC would not overtly recognise class differences but at the same time sought to reinforce them.

Between the wars, the traditional industries started to decline and service industries started to appear. The North-South divide became more deeply entrenched (p16). The distress of North on appeared on TV in the South, once again underlining the “otherness” of the two areas to each other. “Photojournalism” became a kind of acceptable form of voyeurism (p17). I interpret this as a kind of virtual dark tourism of the North.

In the concluding pages of the chapter (pp19/20), Rawnsley stresses the importance of mapping, and therefore borders, in the construction and control of the North. He sees the boundary as controlling. He then concludes with a statement that can be interpreted in various ways: “In the modern world place is separated from space in the sense that knowledge of and familiarity with a place no longer depends on the immediate environment”. I presume he states this as his interpretation of “The South” presuming that it understands “The North”.

I think Rawnsley does overstate some of his arguments. He is clearly anti-State and goes so far as accusing the State of surveillance. However, the chapter does lead me to reflect on how much of my Northernness /Yorkshireness is socially constructed and how much is my actual experience. I think most of it is experience, but against that is the fact that I can’t go back in time and unpick how much media and social manipulation my own construct of Yorkshireness has undergone.

The reiteration of the county border as “controlling” also fails to take into account the pride of Yorkshire people in their (our) identity. I’ve previously mentioned the 2014 Tour de France Grand Depart in this context, when the whole of the county seemed to turn out to put the county very firmly and definitely on the map – possibly literally as well as figuratively. The Grim Up North? symposium revealed the Yorkshire-Lancashire rivalry to be still alive and kicking.

Regarding the disconnect of place and space, my own wanderings provide a counter argument to this. It is only by moving, physically, mentally and emotionally, within a place, that one can gain a knowledge of it.

Overall I found this chapter very useful and informative, not least in the counter arguments it made me construct.

MA Week 43 - Psychogeography Readings (2)

Psychogeography readings (2)

Tina Richardson’s chapter A Wander through the scene of British Urban Walking in the book she edited, Walking Inside Out : Contemporary British Psychogeography (2015) gives a good overview of the current stated of psychogeography. I’ve summarised below a few key points.

Richardson quotes Situationist International member Abdelhafid Khatib’s definition of the dérive: “At the same time as being a form of action, it is a means of knowledge”. She further clarifies that the dérive cannot be just a stroll and that the wanderer must be conscious of the environment. Psychogeography concerns itself with crossing boundaries, whether logical or physical (p2). This is certainly something I’ve experienced in my own wanderings.

 

Richardson is very inclusive in her discussion of the urban walk, and certainly does not equate it only to the SI dérive. She considers that numerous factors are at play; the walker, the place, the method. Neither is she precious about the style of the outcomes, citing zines, blogs and academic papers as equally valid outputs. The walk necessarily causes a subjective and individual response. She encourages readers to define their own form of psychogeography if they wish or need to do so. (p3-5), urging the reader to name their own approach and formulate it into a more clearly defined methodology (p18). She suggests (p13) that “artists (both performance and visual), while not always describing themselves as psychogeographers, might call themselves ‘walking artists’.” Possibly the idea of walking as a way of challenging the traditional boundaries of art? It has certainly felt that I have pushed my practice forward through urban wandering.

Interesting is her mention of Iain Sinclair, a contemporary British psychogeographer who often takes a nostalgic view, and whose influence has led to British psychogeography taking a nostalgic bent. The nostalgia has a danger of leading to a type of repurposing the past, of revealing or perhaps inventing forgotten characters, a rose-tinted longing for a time that never really existed in the way that it’s presented. This I interpret as a veiled criticism of viewing history “at a distance”. (p10).However, the nostalgia connection is interesting as it also occurs in Harrison’s discussion of heritage (see this Week 16 blogpost). Richardson here comments on a connection that I’d already made by my own wanderings, namely that of  heritage and psychogeography.

She demands (p18) “if a psychogeographer is not revealing the hidden topographical layers of social history or questioning the physical manifestation of some capitalist edifice or other, is psychogeography actually taking place?” - good question. My wanderings revealed some layers of social history to me, at least, and in turn I tried to depict these visually for other people to view and critique. I suppose there was also some anger at the capitalist destruction of industry too.  So I must be doing psychogeography….?

 

 

MA Week 42 - Psychogeography readings (1)

I’ve read the first chapter of The Situationist International : A User Guide by Simon Ford (2005) . This is the history of the Situationist International(SI) movement, founded by Guy Debord, and from which the discipline of psychogeography emerged. This gives some useful background, summarised below.

 

The SI was formed 1957 in Paris and was theatrically disbanded in 1972 by Debord, and is considered an important part of the post-war avant garde (pp9-11). Debord had moved to Paris in 1951 and drifted around Saint_Germain-des_Pres, with no desire to work: “Ne travaillez jamais”. He made films and was interested in the idea of creating situations. Ford quotes Gil Wolman (a member of the Lettristes International, a precursor group to SI) ‘A science of situations is to be created, which will borrow elements from psychology, statistics, urbanism and ethics. These elements have to coincide in an absolutely new goal: the conscious creation of situations”(p 25). This seems to me to be a kind of early indicator of psychogeography.

Debord and his associates spent a lot of time drinking (pp30-34). They had a fascination with urban living and chance encounter. This necessitated a new way of navigating the city. They walked or took taxis that they randomly redirected. From this came the concept of psychogeography, “the study of the specific effects of the geographical environment, consciously organised or not, on the emotions and behaviour of individuals” (p34). The chief means of psychogeographical investigation was the “dérive, which consisted of drifting and deliberately trying to lose oneself in the city”. This was defined in 1958 as“ a mode of experimental behaviour linked to the conditions of urban society: a technique of transient passage through varied ambiences” (p 35)

A further concept of the SI was “détournement”, which does not have a direct translation but seems to equate to diversion or subversion. It basically allowed plagiarism of existing texts, ideas and artworks, which were then altered or collaged to suit the SI’s ends. (p37). Debord actually saw no worth in art, but this didn’t stop him meeting and being associated with artists. Debord himself produced an artwork with maps and arrows called “The Naked City”, with the arrows indicating “pyschogeographic flows”.” This was an interpretation of a freedom of movement, challenging the fixity of conventional cartography. (p59)

The definitions that Ford quotes, of deliberately trying to lose oneself during the dérive, was not the same as the one I’d used in the paper at the Grim Up North? Symposium. I’d thought of the psychogeographical walk as having more of a definite purpose. However, I do like the ideas he introduces of the randomness and chance encounter. This ties in quite well with my photos taken when a car passenger, for use as source material. Even though psychogeography is associated with walking, Debord’s use of taxis to randomly explore the city offers a tenuous link to car-based psychogeography.

Debord’s artwork, “The Naked City” is interesting in terms of interface between psychogeography and art, despite Debord having no time for art. I am also wondering if it ties in with Lillehammer’s idea of drawing maps, and a recurring theme in what I’m reading – the power and control exerted by maps (Lillehammer actually mentions this although I didn’t go into it in my notes on her book chapter). There is also the paradigm of the boundary, which came up on the Grim Up North? symposium. This, for me, distils once more into the idea of space and of repurposing … what? Map, space, daily experience?? I’d recently discussed some of my prints with my tutor, Sharon, and she had seen some of the resists I’d used as producing a kind of negative space effect. So… the idea of “space” in my prints. This somehow intuitively ties in with the concepts Ford presents in this chapter; not sure how, but definite food for further thought.

MA Week 42 - Dissertation underway

Nothing visual to show this week. I didn’t get into the Print Room as I was away Friday/Saturday. However, I have made a start proper on my dissertation. I had a really good tutorial with my very patient tutor, Sharon, on Wednesday, which confirmed I’m on the right tracks with the structure. Since then I’ve spent time putting some flesh on the bones, so to speak. I’ve read a bit about psychogeography but there’s still more to do. I’ve been reading The Situationist International : A User Guide by Simon Ford (2005) , in which he describes Guy Debord – who is the founder of the Situationists International Group and the father of psychogeography – as seeing the psychogeographical walk as a drift, called the dérive.  See this Week 42 blog post for a summary of this. This contrasts with Tina Richardson’s viewpoint which she expresses in one of the chapters of the eminently readable book she’s edited, Walking inside out : Contemporary British Psychogeography (2015), in which she sees the psychogeographical walk as being more purposeful than just a stroll. So more reading and thinking to do. However it does seem Debord’s original idea allows for random and chance encounters, so this does help with my ideas of walking along and being open to whatever you might come across.

 

I also had the pleasure of meeting up with some members of staff from Leeds Beckett University on the same day, to talk about taking part in their “Being Human” event. There were four of us in total, from different backgrounds: English, History, Cultural Studies, and me! The plan for the day is to take groups of attendees on a short walk in the city centre, then invite them to reflect on what they’ve seen and experienced through creative writing and some sort of visual response (which is where I come in – it will probably be through collaging pre-cut shapes). We walked the short route and we all saw different things and could give different comments and insights from our various backgrounds. It was a very short burst of interdisciplinary collaboration and it was quite fascinating. I’m really hoping that I can get to the day and that it will be equally interesting.

This week, I’ve met one of my Twitter friends, Jane, in the flesh. That was great, to sit and natter away over lunch about our respective art practices. For the rest of the week it’s dissertation and hopefully the Print Room on Thursday.

 

 

MA Week 41 - Heritage readings (1)

A couple of useful chapters from a book called Heritage Studies : Methods and Approaches edited by John Carman and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen.

In the first chapter, “Heritage Studies : An outline”, the editors give a history of Heritage Studies. They quote a definition from UNESCO : “Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations”. However, they argue that there is no real definitive definition, so to speak, as Heritage Studies exists in an “interdisciplinary space”.

They trace the roots of heritage studies back to the late 18^th/early 19^th century, emerging with civil rights and citizenship, and argue that the industrial revolution and land destruction gave rise to the need to “safeguard” heritage. This brought heritage legislation into play. However, such legislation brought with it conflict with the state and the traditional guardians of heritage.

Heritage studies as a discipline was first clearly identified in 1980s as the “field of practice that investigates the role of the past in the present”. Part of driver was post-colonialism and new voices and contested ownership. Arose from “developments in several otherwise largely unrelated disciplines.” There was an initial school of thought that “today’s presentations of the past can be coloured by ideologies”, but the authors rebut this as they believe it to be grounded in perspective rather than substantive research. Here I would have to quote back to them the idea of life history or microhistory. The current authors are not living through the 1980s!

Subsequent work in the 1990s “identified different communities who valued different types of past – a monumental, national or global history; or a more personalised, family and genealogical past”. The authors acknowledge the “expressly political nature of interpreting the past”. For me this idea is not so different to identity. One’s own views (self) magnified through research. Here there is also the idea of metanarrative dominating. The authors then go on to state that heritage is  “recognised as simultaneously defenceless and open to abuse… and also as a potentially empowering aspect of social life in terms of, for example, the formation of identity and creating a sense of rootedness” (so they probably agree with agree with me!)

They summarise current (2009) concerns : “We have officially as well as cognitively moved from an object/monument-focused understanding of heritage to being able to recognise the many kinds of cultural products that are part of our construction of heritage and the roles it plays in our lives”.

Apart from where my lived experience gives me different opinions, I’ve taken this chapter at face value as a potted history of Heritage Studies. Although I don’t think there is a lot that is directly related to what I’m doing, it’s useful to have the background. It also supports some of Harrison’s views, particularly regarding the many different strands of heritage and culture it brings together.

Of more interest was Grete Lillehammer’s “Making them Draw : The use of drawings when researching public attitudes towards the past” Lillehammer was investigating “public attitudes towards cultural heritage in a rural district of south-western Norway”, looking at the opposing views of farmers and environmental bureaucrats. There was an ongoing conflict between the cultural heritage of the land and its use for farming, particularly concerning the so-called “fairy rings”.

Lillehammer interviewed people from both groups, and at the end of the interview, asked them to draw a map of the farm. These she termed “cognitive maps”, describing these as “products of the mind’s ordering of information”. She had come across this method by chance during the literature search for her research, and approached its use “ …as freely and openly as possible to see what happened”. She then realised that “…the most representative record … was actually the drawings made by the two groups”. She recognised some similarities in the maps but could not fully describe these. By using them to assist her systematic analysis of the interviews, she gained fuller understanding of the drawn maps. Farmers draw their farm from near – others drew them from managers from afar. Basically the drawings serve to depict what could be expected in terms of the differences between the two groups.

She acknowledges that trying something new can bring interesting results: “The potentiality of applying methods generated from the theory of different disciplines stresses the importance for Heritage Studies and archaeology continuing to explore and even further extend its means of investigation”.  

Lillehammer’s work really resonated with me, and at least part of this resonance was intuitive. Firstly I liked the way she presented her book chapter chronologically, as a description of her journey of the discovery of the cognitive mapping method and her growing understanding of how she could apply it and use it as another method alongside her original method of interviewing. This made me think that perhaps my presentation at “Grim Up North?” wasn’t overly personal after all, which was reassuring. 

I liked the fact that she had used the cognitive mapping method “freely and openly” and had been open to the possibilities it could bring. This put me in mind of my openness to my surroundings when undertaking a wandering. I often think that research employs rather prescriptive, rigid methods (and academic research often demands similar outcomes) and yet by the nature of the freedom and unpredictability of drawing, she had employed it freely and gained rich outcomes. Of course, given my history of tension between the written and the visual, I was personally pleased that the drawn outcomes had given rise to greater insights than those afforded by interview alone. That was probably the most resonant point.  

Her conclusion about applying methods from different disciplines is very similar to the path my research is taking at the moment. Using heritage, identity and psychogeographical perspectives is enabling me to discover and depict new areas and depths in my practice.

MA Week 41 - Printing and Perusing

Reflection on restarting – 4^th October 2016

 

So, back in the thick of things. Since I gave the paper a couple of weeks ago I’ve made a start on my dissertation and done a bit of printing.

 

I’ve spent quite a bit of time poring over books and perusing papers. My dissertation will have the same theme as my paper but obviously will need more academic rigour, so there’s quite a bit of referencing to do. There was a lot of food for thought about identity and heritage in the symposium itself and some of this has been borne out in the reading I’ve done.

 

I’ve also gone back into the print room. It was strange, restarting, and I made some of the same stupid mistakes I made last term – doh! On Thursday I did some monoprinting. I decided to use grey and black as a change from red and black, but the grey didn’t work brilliantly well. I mixed some white into Payne’s grey and it went really thick. When I scratched into it with the comb, it gathered at the edges of the paper.

 

Some of the Vernon Street staff are now in the Blenheim Walk print room and this means I am getting some additional views and information as obviously everyone has different experiences. This is even better than before! Mick Welbourn advised the use of cobalt drying drops. I completely forgot to put them in the grey but put them in the red. The red ink definitely dried quicker – by the afternoon it was difficult to roll whereas the grey was still going strong. It also dried better on the paper.

 

Rack of monoprints. Happy days!

 

I tried two different types of paper: a coated paper and my usual cartridge paper. The red didn’t work very well on the cartridge at all. On the other hand, it worked really well on the coated paper. Susie (a technician) told me that this paper is used for commercial printing as it’s glossy and takes up the ink really well. You need to do at least one pull on cartridge paper first or the ink overwhelms the (coated) paper. So this is all fodder for my desire to experiment with paper this academic year.

 

On Friday I started to etch a photo I’d taken looking up a pylon. It’s gone a bit astray in places but so far so good. Mick showed me how to ink it using oil paint. You apply the paint onto the plate with a cardboard square then scrape it away and polish it – no scrim. It’s a lot cleaner but I missed the scrimming. And there was no black, just bl**dy Payne’s grey. So I’ll ink it properly when it’s finished.

 

Pylon drypoint - WIP