Advertisement

Wayfaring, Co-Presence and Mobility: Conceptualising and Re-Conceptualising with Smartphones

  • Jess Kilby
  • Marsha BerryEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The development of camera phones in the late 2000s has generated new ways of making mobile art. Wayfaring, co-presence and mobility are concepts through which mobile media art can be reimagined. Our ability to easily document our movements through everyday life has shifted how we think about film and photography. This is the background for our creative practice research practices. Our overarching research asks: “What new forms of screen production are emerging through wayfaring with a smartphone in hand and in what ways is creative practice research engaging with these forms?” In this chapter, we explore how screen practitioners can think about their work pre-development in both practical and philosophical ways, by presenting a candid account of our own practices. This chapter is an expanded and revised version of an earlier work (Kilby and Berry 2018).

References

  1. Batty, C., & Kerrigan, S. (2018). Introduction. In C. Batty & S. Kerrigan (Eds.), Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry (pp. 1–11). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berry, M. (2008). Locative Media: Geoplaced Tactics of Resistance. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 4(2 & 3), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, M. (2017). Wayfarer’s Trail. Research Statement, Sightlines Journal Issue 2. http://www.aspera.org.au/research/wayfarers-trail/. Accessed 9 Sept 2018.
  4. Chtcheglov, I. (1953). Formulary for a New Urbanism. Summary/Notes. http://witold.postagon.com/91myy64da. Accessed 17 June 2017.
  5. Crouch, D. (2010). Flirting with Space: Thinking Landscape Relationally. Cultural Geographies, 17(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunne, A. (2001, March). Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Farman, J. (2014). The Mobile Story: Narrative Practices with Locative Technologies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Fenton, J. (2005). Space, Chance, Time: Walking Backwards Through the Hours on the Left and Right Banks of Paris. Cultural Geographies, 12(4), 412–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, R. (2018). Foreword: Cognitive Two-Steps. In C. Batty & S. Kerrigan (Eds.), Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry (pp. 1–10). Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62837-0_1.Google Scholar
  10. Haseman, B. (2006, February). A Manifesto for Performative Research. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy: Quarterly Journal of Media Research and Resources, 118, 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and Time. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hjorth, L., & Pink, S. (2014). New Visualities and the Digital Wayfarer: Reconceptualizing Camera Phone Photography and Locative Media. Mobile Media & Communication, 2(1), 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ingold, T. (2010). Footprints Through the Weather-World: Walking, Breathing, Knowing. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 16, S121–S139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ingold, T. (2015). Foreword. In P. Vannini (Ed.), Non-Representational Methodologies: Re-Envisioning Research (pp. vii–viii). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Kilby, J. (2017). The Parallaxis: A Game of Walking Between Worlds. PhD Thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne. https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:162041
  16. Kilby, J., & Berry, M. (2018). Wayfaring, Creating and Performing with Smartphones. In M. Berry & M. Schleser (Eds.), Mobile Story Making in an Age of Smartphones (pp. 52–61). London: Palgrave Pilot.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, J., & Ingold, T. (2006). Fieldwork on Foot: Perceiving, Routing, Socializing. In S. Coleman & P. Collins (Eds.), Locating the Field. Space, Place and Context in Anthropology. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  18. McCullough. (2006). On Urban Markup: Frames of Reference in Location Models for Participatory Urbanism. Leonardo Online. http://leoalmanac.org/journal/vol_14/lea_v14_n03-04/mmccullough.asp. Accessed 16 June 2017.
  19. Sullivan, G. (2009). Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in Visual Arts (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  20. Vannini, P. (2015a). Non-Representational Ethnography: New Ways of Animating Lifeworlds. Cultural Geographies, 22(2), 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vannini, P. (2015b). Introduction. In P. Vannini (Ed.), Non-Representational Methodologies: Re-Envisioning Research (pp. 1–19). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations