Skip to content
1981
Drawing Disobedient Bodies
  • ISSN: 2057-0384
  • E-ISSN: 2057-0392

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, my home–studio became a space for both art and childcare. As an artist parent, unable to work independently when my 4-year-old daughter’s kindergarten closed, I initiated a project with Louise. With the aid of a scanner and digital printer, our drawings were produced through a series of interventions and exchanges, in a co-working relationship that involves not only humans but also the studio floor and a domestic digital printer to create our ongoing project ‘Index of love and care’. I delegated my artistic practice to Louise, asking her to complete and improve my drawings. Childcare was being performed, and my practice as well. The research question explored in this project report is: who, or what, was at work during our sessions of drawing and childcare in the home–studio? Rather than thinking of the home–studio as merely a container for furniture, materials, tools and machines, this project report seeks to introduce a new understanding of how the studio, as a spatial arrangement of things, plays a part in the activities it facilitates and does some of the work involved in art and childcare. In the light of this case study and drawing on the work of Karen Barad and Gilbert Simondon, I will consider the studio as a milieu where relationships between drawing, technology and childcare can be explored. In doing so, the nature of artistic labour and its relationship to reproduction will be questioned anew.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/drtp_00145_1
2024-12-18
2025-02-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adami, E. and Fletcher, A. (2017), ‘To think the home in terms of the factory’, Third Text, 31:1, pp. 7995.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ashwin, C. (2016), ‘What is a drawing?’, Drawing: Research, Theory, Practice, 1:2, pp. 197209.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bang Larsen, L. (2014), ‘History’s intimate others: The child and its play in contemporary art’, in L. Bang Larsen and T. Hansen (eds), The Phantom of Liberty: Contemporary Art and the Pedagogical Paradox, London: Sternberg Press, pp. 24375.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barad, K. (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrett, E. (2022), ‘The non-expert’, Putittowork.wordpress.com, 17 June, https://putittowork.wordpress.com/2022/06/17/the-non-expert/. Accessed 9 October 2023.
  6. Bishop, C. (ed.) (2006), Participation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brew, A. and Journaux, J. (2017), ‘Drawing circles: A space without a project’, in J. Journeaux and H. Gorrill (eds), Collective and Collaborative Drawing in Contemporary Practice: Drawing Conversations, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 1854.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Certeau, M. de (1984), The Practice of Everyday Life, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Child, D., Reckitt, H. and Richards, J. (2017), ‘Labours of love: A conversation on art, gender, and social reproduction’, Third Text, 31:1, pp. 14768.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cinquemani, S. (2018), ‘Artistic encounters: Ethical collaborations between children and adults’, in C. M. Schulte and C. M. Thompson (eds), Communities of Practice: Art, Play, and Aesthetics in Early Childhood, Berlin: Springer Publishing, pp. 6176.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis, P. (2023), ‘Drawing (out) the evil (m)other of the family court’, Journal of The Motherhood Initiative, 14:1, pp. 187214.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Diran, I. (2018), ‘Marx’s silkworm: Valuable life and the life of value’, Diacritics, 46:1, pp. 429.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fortunati, L. (1995), The Arcane of Reproduction: Housework, Prostitution, Labour and Capital, New York: Autonomedia.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gibson, J. J. (1986), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Godard, J. ([1975] 1998), ‘Penser la maison en termes d’usine’ (‘To Think the Home in Terms of the Factory’), in A. Bergala (ed.), Jean-Luc Godard par Jean-Luc Godard, vol. 1, Paris: Cahiers du Cinema, pp. 38082.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gotby, A. (2023), They Call It Love: The Politics of Emotional Life, London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Harrison, J. and Judah, H. (2024), ‘About’, The Art Working Parents Alliance, https://artworkingparents.wordpress.com/about/. Accessed 28 April 2024.
  18. Hjort Guttu, A. (2013), ‘Nature/exhibition’, in L. Bang Larsen and T. Hansen (eds), The Phantom of Liberty: Contemporary Art and the Pedagogical Paradox, Berlin: Sternberg Press, pp. 15167.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ingold, T. (2010), ‘The textility of making’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34:1, pp. 91102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep042.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Institute for Government (2021), ‘Timeline of UK government coronavirus lockdowns and restrictions’, 9 December 2022, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/data-visualisation/timeline-coronavirus-lockdowns. Accessed 29 October 2023.
  21. Journeaux, J. and Gørrill, H. (eds) (2017), Collective and Collaborative Drawing in Contemporary Practice: Drawing Conversations, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Journeaux, J., Reed, S. and Gorrill, H. (2020), Body, Space, and Place in Collective and Collaborative Drawing, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Judah, H. (2022), How Not to Exclude Artist Mothers (and Other Parents), London: Lund Humphries.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kelly, M. (n.d.), ‘Postpartum Document’, https://www.marykellyartist.com/post-partum-document-1973-79. Accessed 21 August 2024.
  25. Knight, L. (2009), ‘Mother and child sharing through drawing: Intergenerational collaborative drawing processes for making artworks’, International Art in Early Childhood Research Journal, 1:1, pp. 112.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. McClure, M. (2011), ‘Child as totem: Redressing the myth of inherent creativity in early childhood’, Studies in Art Education, 52:2, pp. 12741.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. McMillan, K. (2021), Representation of Women Artists in Britain 2020, London: Freelands Foundation, https://freelandsfoundation.co.uk/web/2020. Accessed 15 September 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Moki Cherry: Here and Now (2023), Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, 31 May–3 September, https://www.ica.art/exhibitions/moki-cherry-here-and-now. Accessed 29 April 2024.
  29. Molesworth, H. (2019), ‘San Francisco housewife and mother’, in T. H. Schenkenberg (ed.), Ruth Asawa: Life’s Work, St. Louis, MO and New Haven, CT: Pulitzer Arts Foundation and Yale University Press, pp. 3543.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nelson, M. B. and Combe, J. (2017), ‘Mothering-ArtAdemics: Intersecting identities of strength’, Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, 8:1–2, pp. 21231.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Putnam, E. (2024), ‘MotherHack: Creative coding as an artist-mother’, Gender, Work & Organization, pp. 117.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ruocco, A. (2020), Co-working with Things: How Furnished Spaces Contribute to the Emergence of Artworks, Loughborough: Loughborough University, https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/thesis/Co-working_with_things_how_furnished_spaces_contribute_to_the_emergence_of_artworks/12692267. Accessed 22 July 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruth Asawa: Citizen of the Universe (2022), Modern Art Oxford, 28 May–21 August, https://www.modernartoxford.org.uk/whats-on/ruth-asawa-citizen-of-the-universe. Accessed 29 April 2023.
  34. Simondon, G. (1989), Du Mode D'Existence des Objets Techniques, Paris: Aubier.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Simondon, G. (2005), L’individuation a la lumière de la notion de forme et information, Paris: Éditions Jérôme Millon.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Simondon, G. (2016), On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects (trans. Malaspina C. and J. Rogove), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Simonini, R. ([2018] 2019), ‘At Home with Susan Cianciolo’, Artreview, 8 July, https://artreview.com/archive-ar-summer-2018-simonini-susan-cianciolo-republish/. Accessed 21 August 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ukeles, M. L. (1969), ‘Manifesto for maintenance art’, https://queensmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Ukeles-Manifesto-for-Maintenance-Art-1969.pdf. Accessed 21 August 2024.
  39. Vishmidt, M. (2012), ‘Everyone has a business inside them’, Mute, 3:3, https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/everyone-has-business-inside-them. Accessed 24 April 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Vishmidt, M. and Stakemaier, K. (2016), Reproducing Autonomy: Work, Money, Crisis and Contemporary Art, London: Mute Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Warne Thomas, C. (ed.) (2023), Structurally F-cked, Newcastle upon Tyne: A-N The Artists Information Company, https://static.a-n.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Structurally-F%E2%80%93cked.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2024.
  42. Wilson, B. (2007), ‘Art, visual culture, and child/adult collaborative images: Recognizing the other-than’, Visual Arts Research, 33:2, pp. 620.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Dalla Costa, M. and James, S. (1975), The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community, Bristol: Falling Wall Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Gordon-Bouvier, E. (2019), ‘Vulnerable bodies and invisible work: The COVID-19 pandemic and social reproduction’, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 21:3, pp. 21229.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Molesworth, H. (1997), ‘Work stoppages: Mierle Laderman Ukeles’s theory of labour value’, Documents, 10, pp. 1922.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Phillips, P. C. (2016), Mierle Laderman Ukeles, New York: Queens Museum and DelMonico Books.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/drtp_00145_1
Loading
/content/journals/10.1386/drtp_00145_1
Loading

Data & Media 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