“Grim Up North? : Symposium on Northern Identity, History and Heritage (2)

“Grim up North?” presentation

16^th September 2016

This was my first academic presentation and it was gratifying to be a part of a well-organised and well-attended symposium. The symposium itself was supported by the Heritage Consortium of Universities and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). It was ably organised by two PhD researchers, Michael Reeve and Andrew McTominey. I've posted about the day itself here.

I presented on my research by practice to date, with the title “Using Urban Wandering and Visual Outcomes to investigate Northernness : How did I get here?”. Within my powerpoint presentation, I used photos from my urban wandering as backdrops to the slides, with the intention of adding context and interest to the paper.

I started by describing how my practice is fuelled by my own lived experience and is an investigation into what’s happened, and what is happening, to me – hence my subtitle, “how did I get here?” (which also links back to my 3-minute presentation at the“Heritage Show & Tell” back in March – this presentation built on that one). I then mentioned my emerging methodology of wandering and response to investigate Northernness and positioned this as a synthesis of academic research, wandering and visual outcome.

I went on to talk a little about my own lived experience – my own personal narrative – as context for my research, mentioning my family as Engineers and the trauma of redundancy when the industry closed down. I explained that when I restarted my art practice, it quickly became apparent that I was expressing “what’s inside me”. I showed an example of my work (on the slide below), and that when I came to write my MA proposal, I needed to express this in a more elegant written format – hence the research question on the slide below. And that was how I “got here”, i.e. presenting my work to a room full of historians!

 

 

Next, I talked a little about my theoretical perspectives, admitting I had no background in heritage, but quoting Harrison on heritage: the ideas of heritage concerning people, places, objects and practices, and heritage only happening if something is at risk – and obviously our industry was at so much risk that it disappeared. I also quoted Bathmaker on life history as the life story in its social context, which resonated with Jack Southern’s comments on microhistory earlier in the day. I used these two points to illustrate my argument that the two work together – heritage and identity, past and present.

After this came the main point of the presentation – the urban wandering, and beyond. I showed some images of my wandering from Woodhouse to Armley and talked about my purpose of seeking Northernness, and how it then became clear to me that I was also moving into the area of psychogeography, showing a definition of pyschogeogrpahy from Tina Richardson. I talked about crossing the boundary into Armley, findng the canal, the repurpsoed mill, factories derelict an in use, and how I took the splashes of colour – e.g. the yellow of some skips – to be a sign of life amidst the soot-ingrained bricks of the buildings. I told the story of me being in my Dad’s space, but not our space together, and yet it was no longer his space as the industy had moved on – an example of the quotidian of yesterday forming the heritage of today. I explained that this had been a really direct and immersive experience of the theoretical perspectives of heritage and identity and I re-quoted Richardson’s quote of Abdelhafid Khatib, one of the founders of psychogeography: “at the same time as being a form of action, it is a means of knowledge”.

 

Explaining one of the Armley abstracts (photo: Mel Dewey)

 

I therefore had found Northernness, conflated with industry and memory, and my next action was to depict it. I showed a couple of my visual outcomes from the wandering, and offered some insights into how I’d used what I’d experienced. I explained how I had repurposed the shapes and colours I’d seen, using the colours as a palette. I’d used collaged black and white images to represent the past amongst the colours of the present. By using an abstract approach, I had tried to offer a universal way into the work, to invite viewers to join me in my experience; not just what I’d seen, but what I’d experienced. I also showed some close-up details and drew attention to the layering and scratching, depicting memories, the hidden and the revealed, leading to the painting becoming an industrial palimpsest.

Further explanations about developing a visual language to depict embodied experience (photo : Mel Dewey)

Explaining that this was the start of a personal visual language of Northernness, I went on to talk about how it had taken on a life beyond the wandering, giving a new sense of direction and purpose. It carried on in car journeys, with me taking pictures of anything and everything I found interesting and industrial and Northern, and I cited the example of the pylon abstracts, produced using the same methodology as the Armley abstracts from the picture in the slide below. I concluded this section with images of some outcomes from the Holbeck wandering, explaining that I had introduced printing using the shapes I’d seen.

My talk finished with a brief mention of my next steps: more visual and academic research, the possibility of collaboration, and the definite undertaking of further wanderings.

 

Reflection

I’d rehearsed the talk a few times, and had tested it out on a couple of people to ensure there was a logical flow, so I was quite confident about getting up and presenting. That said, I was still nervous when I stood up. However, it went well, I said what I wanted to say, only one slide got stuck, and I was more or less within my 15-minute slot.

It was clear that my research was at a much earlier stage than most of the other presenters, who were all PhD candidates or Early Career Researchers. However, I didn’t see this as a problem, simply a fact. There was a difference in presentation style and that’s something for me to consider  if/when I do another presentation. My presentation was much more personal than the others, although that is in part because my research by art practice is very personal. The others’ talks were clearly part of their ongoing research – a window into their research at this time, so to speak – whereas my presentation was a business-style affair with a definite beginning, middle and end and slides that had been prepared specifically for the occasion (some others had obviously done this, some not). I prefer the business-style presentation but I do wonder if perhaps mine was a little too personal on this occasion; however, there is no escaping that my life history is the basis of my research. I also made a point of including lots of visuals in my presentation rather than just loads of text. I do think this helped maintain interest.

After my panel, some people came up to talk to me. I hadn’t anticipated this and it was a shock, and a pleasant surprise, to find that people were interested in my work. The psychogeography element definitely captured people’s imagination. I think most people in the audience were from some kind of history background and I think the psychogeography angle gave them a way into my art practice. This was an interesting and potentially useful revelation. One participant told me he had done something similar as part of his undergraduate studies and that he had actually walked to some of the same places as myself. He did say he would share his writings with me but that hasn’t happened yet, which is a shame. He was also complimentary about my art work which was really gratifying. 

Cate Benincasa, who was formerly a lecturer at Leeds College of Art and is now a Senior Lecturer at the University of Huddersfield was really encouraging and complementary about my talk and told me I had pitched it at the right level. That was really useful and encouraging feedback. She also complemented me on the red pylon abstract which I was very pleased about. 

I realised afterwards that this is the first time I’ve shown my recent work to anyone publicly. I’m glad I didn’t realise it beforehand or I would have been very nervous. To have the work complemented was fantastic.  

Dr Henry Irving of Leeds Beckett University also approached me regarding a possible participation in Leeds Beckett’s “Being Human” festival event, when he and colleagues will lead participants on short walks around Leeds City Centre and help them produce written response. He was interested in possibly producing visual responses. This is really interesting and I hope it will come off. 

The whole experience was a really good one and I hope I can give another paper at some point. Although the preparation took a long time, the research I did will form the basis of my dissertation, which I will write on the same topic.

“Grim Up North? : Symposium on Northern Identity, History and Heritage (1)

Grim Up North?" : Northern Identity, History and Heritage

The Leeds Library, 16^th September 2016

An extremely interesting day spent in the fine surroundings of the Leeds Library. There were three panels, summarised below, including my first academic paper. 

 

With other Symposium participants during a break (photo : Mel Dewey)

 

Panel 1 : Identity 

First up was William Marshall (independent), who discussed negative Yorkshire stereotypes and how they have been appropriated positively by Yorkshire folk constructing their own identity. One example he gave was that of horse dealers who allegedly swindled unsuspecting non-Yorkshire folk of their horses. This gave rise to the positive ideas of humour, thriftiness and cunning as part of the county’s identity, and gained particular currency with the advent of print. William argued that the adoption of negative stereotypes as positive constructs could be both a form of defence and defiance. 

The second speaker on the panel was Jack Southern (University of Central Lancashire), who spoke about the Lancashire cotton industry up to 1915. He argued that previous investigations have often focused on the economic situations of the time, rather than the effects of those economic terms. This he termed microhistory. Neighbouring villages competed, taking pride in their industrial outputs. They built their identity based on industrial reputation and local principles, propagating these until they became the stuff of myth.The local identity ignored civic boundary changes. Women also had some financial independence, and although this point was not pursued, there were comments asking is history gendered? 

The last speaker of the morning was Anna Feintuck (University of Edinburgh) whose research investigates the amalgamation of Leith into Edinburgh. . Although Leith had and has its own identity, it also had and has connections to Edinburgh e.g. by public transport and tracks. Anna made a strong point of how arbitrary boundaries can be, citing the anecdote of the Hull – East Yorkshire boundary running through her own back garden when she was a child. She raised ideas of the boundary being at once definite, permeable and arbitrary, depending on whose viewpoint was under consideration.  

All three talks had a strong theme of the self-determination of identity by residents, drawing on myths, microhistory and reputation. Boundaries imposed by civic authorities were not necessarily accepted by local residents. However there is a boundary fluidity. Boundaries are invisible. How do we know they are there?

 

Panel 2 : T’other

The first speaker in this panel was Adelle Stripe (Manchester Metropolitan University) who spoke about the Bradford playwright Andrea Dunbar, who wrote “Rita Sue and Bob too” amongt other works. Dunbar wrote the stories she saw on the Buttershaw Estate in Bradford, for example in her local pub, the un-aptly named “The Beacon”. When her work was performed in London, audiences laughed, leaving Dunbar nonplussed. Opening up her lived experience of Buttershaw to the whole country caused disuputes with neighbours because of the way she portrayed the estate. The media played a part in this, constructing their own versions of Dunbar’s and Bradford’s identities, ultimately contributing to Dunbar’s early death.

Next up was Rhiannon Pickin (Leeds Beckett University) who spoke about constructs of Yorkshire identity in Yorkshire Crime and Punishment Museums, in particular contrasting these museums in Ripon and York. Both museums offer experiences for children to understand their heritage (and by implication, add to the construction of their identity). However, as one might expect, York’s Museum has more of an international outlook, whereas Ripon draws on local volunteers who have actually worked in the judiciary and are therefore passing on direct experience. So the experience for the children is quite different. She also explained that there was little research about historical judicial systems outside London.

Closing the panel was Tosh Warwick (Leeds Beckett University) who spoke about the World Cup 1966 in Sheffield and Middlesbrough, which were both host towns (used as a generic term as Sheffield is a city). His research reveals that people (FA officials, foreign journalists and FIFA officals) didn’t want to go there. The two venues set about selling manufacturing towns as tourist destinations, with differing ideas of Northernness. Sheffield showcased its steel industry but Middlesbrough wanted to create a sculpture-based art trail (much to the dismay of some locals). Tosh associated this with Middlesbrough’s gradual move out of Yorkshire proper and towards Teesside.

 

Within all three papers there was the concept of the “other” being London; it wasn’t overtly stated, but it was implied. There were though also other others e.g. the media (Stripe), foreign FIFA officials (Warwick). Again the paradigm of identity construction emerged strongly, although this time not as self-determined, but as determined by others (e.g. museum staff, media).

Panel 3: Heritage

This was my panel, and unfortunately the two other speakers had to drop out. However, a replacement speaker was found for one of them. I presented on “Using wandering and visual response to investigate Northernness: How did I get here”?. More on this here.

 The other speaker, Catherine Flinn Goldie (independent) gave a paper on the politics of postwar rebuilding in Hull. She discussed arguments at local level regarding how to proceed, causing stumbling blocks. An interesting point was that rebuilding plans made no mention of heritage and there was the concept of the past being swept away as modernism prevailed. Oddly, some of the temporary structures put up are still in existence. This was a glimpse of the urban palimpsest in the city.

 

With Catherine Flinn Goldie taking questions after the papers (photo: Paula Hickey)

 

The keynote address, by Barry Doyle (University of Huddersfield) looked at health indicators in the inter-war years in Leeds and Sheffield. He discussed that this can be politicised and that there is evidence that it wasn’t so “grim up North”. He also, again, touched on the idea of London as “other”.

Discussion

The Symposium had a number of recurring themes:

Boundaries – boundaries featured strongly and it was clear there were definitions other than those used by the authorities. Boundaries could be fluid and could be invoked by local people when necessary and equally, ignored when necessary. There was a playful jibe at Jack Southern from the panel chair that he was from the wrong side of the Pennines (i.e. Lancashire) and Jack gave as good as he got – the county rivalry lives on! This gives rise to areas for investigation, e.g. what boundaries do we have that we acknowledge (myself and my classmates gave the example of the boundaries of where you could play out as a child). Conversely, what boundaries do we have that we don’t consciously know about or refuse to acknowledge?

Construction of identity – this massive topic was touched on in various ways. To at least some extent, we self-determine our identity, and our community does the same. However, there are many external agencies at play, particularly the media. Alongside this, .I felt there was the question of whose voice constructs our history, and therefore our heritage, thereby feeding our identities? Certainly all the speakers were giving some voice to their own view of history.

London – London was identified as the “other” several times. This poses the question – what about that part of the country (England? UK?) which isn’t the North and isn’t London? Just as some papers argued that previous research had only investigated London, and by implication there is a conflation of “London” with the “UK”, so I felt we as Northerners were conflating London with the South.

Moving around the urban space – this was another strong theme, which my own paper relied on, and which also arose in discussion of boundaries and in persons or groups moving to another place. Reactions to the urban space and to moves help create identity.

Microhistory – I hadn’t heard of this term before, but I identified it with Bathmaker’s idea of “life history” (one’s life story in its social and historical context) which I used in my own paper. Again, I think this is something that my work is exploring. The very brief mention of the gendering of history was, alongside this, also an indicator of the question of whose voice shapes our history.

Heritage feeding identity – this is a key tenet for me and it came out very strongly from many different viewpoints. This confirmation was very satisfying.

Above all, there was a joy of Northernness and a real affirmation of the value and importance of researching regional and local identity. It was a fascinating day and a great experience for me to be a part of it.

 

MA Year 2 - restarting

 

Unbelievable that the first year is already over (and that I passed it!). I haven’t had much of a break, to be honest, as I’ve been reading, writing, powerpointing and rehearsing ahead of the “Grim up North?” symposium on September 16^th. I haven’t read nearly as much as I would like, but I have read a bit around sense of place, psychogeography and constructs of Northnness. I’ll write up some critical reflections on these in due course.

 

I’m also thinking about my dissertation. I think its subject matter is going to be similar to that of the Symposium presentation, but with a wider focus. I need to think more about the idea of chance encounters within the built environment and what theory (-ies) can underpin that. I can see the dissertation taking up most of my “art” time up until Christmas but I need to think about fitting in an hour or two of visual practice each week.