Skip to content
1981

Site/Sight/Insight: Becoming a Socioecological Learner Through Collaborative Art Making Practices (2019)

image of Site/Sight/Insight: Becoming a Socioecological Learner Through Collaborative Art Making Practices (2019)

This chapter explores collaborative Arts practices as critical and creative vehicles for assembling a figure of the socioecological learner. We focus on developing the sensorial and affective dimensions of learning through aesthetic engagements with place, drawing on Deleuzian concepts of the “larval subject”, “carte” and “rhisome”. In doing so, we also forge connections with contemporary life sciences that reveal the permeability and plasticity of learning processes through dynamic interactions within developmental eco-systems. These conceptual and empirical resources inform our posthumanist methodological approach to collaborative Arts practices, which we describe in terms of a c/a/r/ography. Through the collaborative production of “site/sight-specific” images and poetic texts, we seek to produce a generative and visually critical exposé, which locates the emergence of the socioecological learner within a “bio-social ecology of sensation”. This opens up a field of potentials for sensing, thinking, feeling, and learning through collective aesthetic engagements with more-than-human worlds.

Keywords: a/r/tography ; aesthetic practices ; Affect ; Anthropocene ; c/a/r/tography ; Carte ; collaboration ; Collaborative artmaking ; Deleuze ; ecologies of affect ; ecologies of sensation ; ecosystems ; enactivist biology ; insight ; larval subject ; Poetic texts ; posthumanism ; Sensation ; sensory attunement ; sight ; site ; Socioecological learner ; socioecological learning ; Visual essay ; visual experimentation

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Site/Sight/Insight: Becoming a Socioecological Learner Through Collaborative Art Making Practices (2019)
Intellect , 433 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1386/9781789388688_31
/content/books/9781789388688.c25
/content/books/9781789388688.c25
Loading

Data & Media loading...

References

  1. Baguley, M. (2007). Collaboration: The prodigal process. In Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference 2006: Engaging Pedagogies. Australian Association for Research in Education. http://eprints.usq.edu.au/7022/
  2. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. SAGE.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, T., Jeanes, R., &Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2014). Social ecology as education. In B. Wattchow, R. Jeanes, L. Alfrey, T. Brown, A. Cutter-Mackenzie, &J. O'Connor (Eds.), The socioecological educator: A 21st century renewal of physical, health, environment and outdoor education (pp. 23–45). Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Conomos, J. (2009). Art, the moving image, and the academy. In B. Buckley &J. Conomos (Eds.), Rethinking the contemporary art school: The artist, the PhD, and the academy (pp. 106–120). The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Cutcher, A., Rousell, D., &Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2015). Findings, windings and entwinings: Cartographies of collaborative walking and encounter. International Journal of Education through Art, 11(3), 449–458.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cutcher, A. J. (2015). Displacement, identity and belonging: An arts-based, auto/biographical portrayal of ethnicity & experience. Sense.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. de Freitas, E. (2017). The biosocial subject: Sensor technologies and worldly sensibility. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39, 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. de Freitas, E. (2018). Nonhuman findings from the laboratory of speculative sociology. The Minnesota Review, 88(1), 116–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition (P. Patton, Trans.). Columbia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Deleuze, G., &Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellsworth, E., &Kruse, J. (2010). Touring the Nevada test site: Sensational public pedagogy. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Shultz, &J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling (pp. 268–280). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Frost, S. (2016). Biocultural creatures: Toward a new theory of the human. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gershon, W. S. (2009). The collaborative turn: Working together in qualitative research. Sense.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulicene. Duke University Press.454
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ingold, T. (2013). Prospect. In T. Ingold &G. Palsson (Eds.), Biosocial becomings: Integrating biological and social anthropology (pp. 1–21). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ingold, T., &Palsson, G. (Eds.) (2013). Biosocial becomings: Integrating biological and social anthropology. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Irwin, R. L. (2003). Towards an aesthetic of unfolding in/sights through curriculum. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 1(2), 63–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Irwin, R. L. (2004). A/r/tography: A metonymic métissage. In R. L. Irwin &A. de Cosson (Eds.), A/r/tography: Rendering self through arts-based living inquiry (pp. 27–38). Pacific Educational Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lacy, S. (1994). Cultural pilgrimages and metaphoric journeys. In S. Lacy (Ed.), Mapping the terrain: New genre public art (pp. 19–26). Bay Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Lasczik Cutcher, A. (2018). Pentimento: An ethnic identity revealed, concealed, revealed. In L. Knight &A. Lasczik Cutcher (Eds.), Arts-research-education: Connections and directions (pp. 87–100). Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lasczik Cutcher, A., &Irwin, R. L. (2018). A/r/tographic peripatetic inquiry and the Flâneur. In A. Lasczik Cutcher &R. L. Irwin (Eds.), The flâneur and education research: A metaphor for knowing, being ethical, and new data production (pp. 131–154). Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Latour, B. (2004). How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body & Society, 10(2–3), 205–229.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Manning, E. (2016). The minor gesture. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Margulis, L. (1999). The symbiotic planet: A new look at evolution. Phoenix.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Meloni, M. (2015). Epigenetics for the social sciences: Justice, embodiment, and inheritance in the postgenomic age. New Genetics and Society, 34(2), 125–151.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Naughton, C., Biesta, G., &Cole, D. (Eds.) (2018). Art, artists and pedagogy: Philosophy and the arts in education. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Naughton, C., &Cole, D. (2018). Philosophy and pedagogy in arts education. In C. Naughton, G. Biesta, &D. Cole. (Eds.), Art, artists and pedagogy: Philosophy and the arts in education (pp. 1–10). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Oyama, S. (2009). Friends, neighbors, and boundaries. Ecological Psychology, 21, 147–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Protevi, J. (2013). Life, war, earth: Deleuze and the sciences. University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Rousell, D. (2015). The cartographic network: Re-imagining university learning environments through the methodology of immersive cartography. The UNESCO Observatory Multi-disciplinary Journal in the Arts, 5(1), 1.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Rousell, D., &Cutcher, A. (2014). Echoes of a c/a/r/tography: Mapping the practicum experience of pre-service visual arts teachers in the “Visual echoes project”. Australian Art Education, 36(2), 63–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Rousell, D., &Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. (2019). Uncommon worlds: Towards an ecological aesthetics of childhood in the Anthropocene. In A. Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, K. Malone, &E. Barrett-Hacking (Eds.), Research handbook on childhoodnature (pp. 1–23). Springer.455
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Santamaria, L., &Thousand, J. (2004). Collaboration, co-teaching, and differentiated instruction: A process-oriented approach to whole schooling. International Journal of Whole School, 1(1), 13–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Shaviro, S. (2015). Discognition. Repeater Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Triggs, V., Irwin, R. L., &O'Donoghue, D. (2014). Following a/r/tography in practice: From possibility to potential. In K. Miglan &C. Smilan (Eds.), Inquiry in action: Paradigms, methodologies and perspectives in art education research (pp. 253–264). National Art Education Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. West-Eberhard, M. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Wright, S. (2004). The delicate essence of artistic collaboration. Third Text, 18(6), 533–545.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Youdell, D. (2017). Bioscience and the sociology of education: The case for biosocial education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(8), 1273–1287.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Young, E. B. (2013). The Deleuze and Guattari dictionary. Bloomsbury.457
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Baguley, M. (2007). Collaboration: The prodigal process. In Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference 2006: Engaging Pedagogies. Australian Association for Research in Education. http://eprints.usq.edu.au/7022/
  2. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. SAGE.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, T., Jeanes, R., &Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2014). Social ecology as education. In B. Wattchow, R. Jeanes, L. Alfrey, T. Brown, A. Cutter-Mackenzie, &J. O'Connor (Eds.), The socioecological educator: A 21st century renewal of physical, health, environment and outdoor education (pp. 23–45). Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Conomos, J. (2009). Art, the moving image, and the academy. In B. Buckley &J. Conomos (Eds.), Rethinking the contemporary art school: The artist, the PhD, and the academy (pp. 106–120). The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Cutcher, A., Rousell, D., &Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2015). Findings, windings and entwinings: Cartographies of collaborative walking and encounter. International Journal of Education through Art, 11(3), 449–458.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cutcher, A. J. (2015). Displacement, identity and belonging: An arts-based, auto/biographical portrayal of ethnicity & experience. Sense.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. de Freitas, E. (2017). The biosocial subject: Sensor technologies and worldly sensibility. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39, 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. de Freitas, E. (2018). Nonhuman findings from the laboratory of speculative sociology. The Minnesota Review, 88(1), 116–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition (P. Patton, Trans.). Columbia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Deleuze, G., &Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellsworth, E., &Kruse, J. (2010). Touring the Nevada test site: Sensational public pedagogy. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Shultz, &J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling (pp. 268–280). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Frost, S. (2016). Biocultural creatures: Toward a new theory of the human. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gershon, W. S. (2009). The collaborative turn: Working together in qualitative research. Sense.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulicene. Duke University Press.454
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ingold, T. (2013). Prospect. In T. Ingold &G. Palsson (Eds.), Biosocial becomings: Integrating biological and social anthropology (pp. 1–21). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ingold, T., &Palsson, G. (Eds.) (2013). Biosocial becomings: Integrating biological and social anthropology. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Irwin, R. L. (2003). Towards an aesthetic of unfolding in/sights through curriculum. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 1(2), 63–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Irwin, R. L. (2004). A/r/tography: A metonymic métissage. In R. L. Irwin &A. de Cosson (Eds.), A/r/tography: Rendering self through arts-based living inquiry (pp. 27–38). Pacific Educational Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lacy, S. (1994). Cultural pilgrimages and metaphoric journeys. In S. Lacy (Ed.), Mapping the terrain: New genre public art (pp. 19–26). Bay Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Lasczik Cutcher, A. (2018). Pentimento: An ethnic identity revealed, concealed, revealed. In L. Knight &A. Lasczik Cutcher (Eds.), Arts-research-education: Connections and directions (pp. 87–100). Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lasczik Cutcher, A., &Irwin, R. L. (2018). A/r/tographic peripatetic inquiry and the Flâneur. In A. Lasczik Cutcher &R. L. Irwin (Eds.), The flâneur and education research: A metaphor for knowing, being ethical, and new data production (pp. 131–154). Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Latour, B. (2004). How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body & Society, 10(2–3), 205–229.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Manning, E. (2016). The minor gesture. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Margulis, L. (1999). The symbiotic planet: A new look at evolution. Phoenix.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Meloni, M. (2015). Epigenetics for the social sciences: Justice, embodiment, and inheritance in the postgenomic age. New Genetics and Society, 34(2), 125–151.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Naughton, C., Biesta, G., &Cole, D. (Eds.) (2018). Art, artists and pedagogy: Philosophy and the arts in education. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Naughton, C., &Cole, D. (2018). Philosophy and pedagogy in arts education. In C. Naughton, G. Biesta, &D. Cole. (Eds.), Art, artists and pedagogy: Philosophy and the arts in education (pp. 1–10). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Oyama, S. (2009). Friends, neighbors, and boundaries. Ecological Psychology, 21, 147–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Protevi, J. (2013). Life, war, earth: Deleuze and the sciences. University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Rousell, D. (2015). The cartographic network: Re-imagining university learning environments through the methodology of immersive cartography. The UNESCO Observatory Multi-disciplinary Journal in the Arts, 5(1), 1.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Rousell, D., &Cutcher, A. (2014). Echoes of a c/a/r/tography: Mapping the practicum experience of pre-service visual arts teachers in the “Visual echoes project”. Australian Art Education, 36(2), 63–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Rousell, D., &Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. (2019). Uncommon worlds: Towards an ecological aesthetics of childhood in the Anthropocene. In A. Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, K. Malone, &E. Barrett-Hacking (Eds.), Research handbook on childhoodnature (pp. 1–23). Springer.455
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Santamaria, L., &Thousand, J. (2004). Collaboration, co-teaching, and differentiated instruction: A process-oriented approach to whole schooling. International Journal of Whole School, 1(1), 13–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Shaviro, S. (2015). Discognition. Repeater Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Triggs, V., Irwin, R. L., &O'Donoghue, D. (2014). Following a/r/tography in practice: From possibility to potential. In K. Miglan &C. Smilan (Eds.), Inquiry in action: Paradigms, methodologies and perspectives in art education research (pp. 253–264). National Art Education Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. West-Eberhard, M. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Wright, S. (2004). The delicate essence of artistic collaboration. Third Text, 18(6), 533–545.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Youdell, D. (2017). Bioscience and the sociology of education: The case for biosocial education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(8), 1273–1287.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Young, E. B. (2013). The Deleuze and Guattari dictionary. Bloomsbury.457
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9781789388688.c25
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
/content/books/9781789388688.c25
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