Skip to content
1981

Partiality as an Ethics of Embodiment in A/r/tographical Research

image of Partiality as an Ethics of Embodiment in A/r/tographical Research

In this chapter, authors explore the ethics of embodiment through the concept of the partiality of the art education researcher. Drawing on Berlant's (2011) theories of object attachment, authors create a conceptual conversation with four historical readings in a/r/tography and explore openings created in the loss of the object as an etho/aesthetic and critical mode of engagement. Implications that this has for a/r/tographical and art education research are discussed.

Keywords: Affect ; Affect and affective intensity ; Alternative pathways for research ; Art practice ; Arts-based Research ; Being-with ; Concepts of home and the uncanny ; Durational event ; Etho-embodied research ; Identity ; In the midst of ; Memory ; Methodology ; Object Attachment ; Ontological disposition ; Ontology ; Partiality ; Relationality ; Uncanny

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barad, K. (2003). Post humanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: An ecology of things. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berlant, L. (2015). Structures of unfeeling: Mysterious skin. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 28(3), 191–213.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Berlant, L. (2017). Affective assemblages: Entanglements & ruptures—An interview with Lauren Berlant. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 38(2), 12–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bertelsen, L., &Murphie, A. (2010). An ethics of everyday infinities and powers: Felix Guattari on affect and the refrain. In M. Gregg &G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 138–157). Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boulton, A. (2019). Artistic inquiry in art teacher education: Provoking intuition through a montage of memory in and of place. The Canadian Review of Art Education, 46(2), 3–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Boulton-Funke, A. (2014a). Narrative form and Yam Lau's Room: The encounter in arts based research. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 15(17), 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Boulton-Funke, A. (2014b). A critique and a proposal: A/r/tography, arts-based research, and a methodology of intuition. Visual Inquiry: Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 207–221.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Burke, G., Peterken, C., Hall, C. A., &Bennett, R. G. (2014). Belonging, being and becoming in the arts through a/r/tography: (Re)imagining early childhood teacher education. Australian Art Education, 36(2), 22–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Clough, P. T. (2007). The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Clough, P. T. (2010). The affective turn: Political economy, biomedia, and bodies. In M. Gregg &G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 206–228). Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Coleman, K. (2018). Through the looking glass: Reflecting on an embodied understanding of creativity and creative praxis as an a/r/tographer. In A. Sinner, R. L. Irwin, &T. Jokela (Eds.), Visually provoking: Dissertations in art education (pp. 50–59). Lapland University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dale, K., &Latham, Y. (2015). Ethics and entangled embodiment: Bodies-materialities-organization. Organization, 22(2), 166–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Deleuze, G. (1991). Bergsonism (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). Zone Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Garoian, C. R. (2013). The prosthetic pedagogy of art: Embodied research and practice. State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Herman, D. (2020). Partiality and the art education researcher. Studies in Art Education, 61(3), 286–290.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. jagodzinski, j., &Wallin, J. (2013). Arts-based research: A critique and a proposal. Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kallio-Tavin, M. (2013). Encountering self, other and the third: Researching crossroads of art pedagogy, Levinisian ethics and disability studies [Doctoral dissertation, Aalto University].
  21. Kallio-Tavin, M. (2020). Art education beyond anthropocentricism: The question of nonhuman animals in contemporary art and its education. Studies in Art Education, 61(4), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2020.1820832233
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kalmanson, L. (2010). Levinas in Japan: The ethics of alterity and philosophy of no-self. Continental Philosophy Review, 43, 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-010-9143-8.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kind, S. (2006). Of stones and silences: Storying the trace of the other in the autobiographical and textile text of art/teaching [Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia].
  24. La Jevic, L., &Springgay, S. (2008). A/r/tography as an ethics of embodiment: Visual journals in preservice education. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 67–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. LeBlanc, N., &Irwin, R. L. (2020). A/r/tography. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford encyclopedia of qualitative research methods in education. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. LeBlanc, N., Triggs, V., &Irwin, R. L. (2019). Sub/versing mentoring expectations: Duration, discernment, diffraction. Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 39(1), 82–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Levinas, E. (1969/2008). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Duquesne University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Madrid Manrique, M. (2014). Inclusivity and aesth/ethics in third participatory a/r/tographic spaces. Visual Inquiry, 3(2), 149–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964/1968). The visible and the invisible (A. Lingis, Trans.). Northwestern University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Nancy, J. L. (1996/2000). Being singular plural (R. D. Richardson & A. D. O'Byrne, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Springgay, S., &Truman, S. E. (2017a). Stone walks: Inhuman animacies and queer archives of feeling. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(6), 851–863.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Springgay, S., &Truman, S. E. (2017b). A transmaterial approach to walking methodologies: Embodiment, affect, and a sonic art performance. Body & Society, 23(4), 27–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. St. Pierre, E. A. (2012). Another postmodern report on knowledge: Positivism and its others. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15(4), 483–503.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. St. Pierre, E. A. (2013). The posts continue: Becoming. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 646–657.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Trigg, D. (2012). The memory of place: A phenomenology of the uncanny. Ohio University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Triggs, V., &Irwin, R. L. with Beer, R., Grauer, K., Xiong, G., Springgay, S., &Bickel, B. (2008). Educational arts research as aesthetic politics. Working Papers in Art & Design, 5, 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Zembylas, M. (2020). Affective ideology and education policy: Implications for critical policy research and practice. Journal of Education Policy, 37(4), 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Barad, K. (2003). Post humanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: An ecology of things. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berlant, L. (2015). Structures of unfeeling: Mysterious skin. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 28(3), 191–213.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Berlant, L. (2017). Affective assemblages: Entanglements & ruptures—An interview with Lauren Berlant. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 38(2), 12–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bertelsen, L., &Murphie, A. (2010). An ethics of everyday infinities and powers: Felix Guattari on affect and the refrain. In M. Gregg &G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 138–157). Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boulton, A. (2019). Artistic inquiry in art teacher education: Provoking intuition through a montage of memory in and of place. The Canadian Review of Art Education, 46(2), 3–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Boulton-Funke, A. (2014a). Narrative form and Yam Lau's Room: The encounter in arts based research. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 15(17), 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Boulton-Funke, A. (2014b). A critique and a proposal: A/r/tography, arts-based research, and a methodology of intuition. Visual Inquiry: Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 207–221.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Burke, G., Peterken, C., Hall, C. A., &Bennett, R. G. (2014). Belonging, being and becoming in the arts through a/r/tography: (Re)imagining early childhood teacher education. Australian Art Education, 36(2), 22–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Clough, P. T. (2007). The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Clough, P. T. (2010). The affective turn: Political economy, biomedia, and bodies. In M. Gregg &G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 206–228). Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Coleman, K. (2018). Through the looking glass: Reflecting on an embodied understanding of creativity and creative praxis as an a/r/tographer. In A. Sinner, R. L. Irwin, &T. Jokela (Eds.), Visually provoking: Dissertations in art education (pp. 50–59). Lapland University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dale, K., &Latham, Y. (2015). Ethics and entangled embodiment: Bodies-materialities-organization. Organization, 22(2), 166–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Deleuze, G. (1991). Bergsonism (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). Zone Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Garoian, C. R. (2013). The prosthetic pedagogy of art: Embodied research and practice. State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Herman, D. (2020). Partiality and the art education researcher. Studies in Art Education, 61(3), 286–290.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. jagodzinski, j., &Wallin, J. (2013). Arts-based research: A critique and a proposal. Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kallio-Tavin, M. (2013). Encountering self, other and the third: Researching crossroads of art pedagogy, Levinisian ethics and disability studies [Doctoral dissertation, Aalto University].
  21. Kallio-Tavin, M. (2020). Art education beyond anthropocentricism: The question of nonhuman animals in contemporary art and its education. Studies in Art Education, 61(4), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2020.1820832233
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kalmanson, L. (2010). Levinas in Japan: The ethics of alterity and philosophy of no-self. Continental Philosophy Review, 43, 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-010-9143-8.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kind, S. (2006). Of stones and silences: Storying the trace of the other in the autobiographical and textile text of art/teaching [Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia].
  24. La Jevic, L., &Springgay, S. (2008). A/r/tography as an ethics of embodiment: Visual journals in preservice education. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 67–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. LeBlanc, N., &Irwin, R. L. (2020). A/r/tography. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford encyclopedia of qualitative research methods in education. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. LeBlanc, N., Triggs, V., &Irwin, R. L. (2019). Sub/versing mentoring expectations: Duration, discernment, diffraction. Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 39(1), 82–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Levinas, E. (1969/2008). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Duquesne University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Madrid Manrique, M. (2014). Inclusivity and aesth/ethics in third participatory a/r/tographic spaces. Visual Inquiry, 3(2), 149–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964/1968). The visible and the invisible (A. Lingis, Trans.). Northwestern University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Nancy, J. L. (1996/2000). Being singular plural (R. D. Richardson & A. D. O'Byrne, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Springgay, S., &Truman, S. E. (2017a). Stone walks: Inhuman animacies and queer archives of feeling. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(6), 851–863.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Springgay, S., &Truman, S. E. (2017b). A transmaterial approach to walking methodologies: Embodiment, affect, and a sonic art performance. Body & Society, 23(4), 27–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. St. Pierre, E. A. (2012). Another postmodern report on knowledge: Positivism and its others. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15(4), 483–503.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. St. Pierre, E. A. (2013). The posts continue: Becoming. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 646–657.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Trigg, D. (2012). The memory of place: A phenomenology of the uncanny. Ohio University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Triggs, V., &Irwin, R. L. with Beer, R., Grauer, K., Xiong, G., Springgay, S., &Bickel, B. (2008). Educational arts research as aesthetic politics. Working Papers in Art & Design, 5, 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Zembylas, M. (2020). Affective ideology and education policy: Implications for critical policy research and practice. Journal of Education Policy, 37(4), 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9781789388688.c12
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
/content/books/9781789388688.c12
dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9781789388688
Book
false
en
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test