Advertisement

Creative Practice and the Non-Representational

  • Candice P. BoydEmail author
  • Christian Edwardes
Chapter

Abstract

As the introduction to the edited collection, this chapter discusses historical trends in the theory and practice of art in the context of the affective turn, which have brought cultural geography and the creative arts closer than ever before. This is followed by a brief overview of non-representational theory—its beginnings, its implications for research methodology, and its promise for creative and collaborative work at the art-geography nexus. The chapter concludes with a description of the structure and organisation of the book and its contributions.

References

  1. Anderson, B. (2014). Encountering affect. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, B., & Harrison, P. (2010). The promise of non-representational theories. In B. Anderson & P. Harrison (Eds.), Taking-place: Non-representational theories and human geography. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  3. Augé, M. (1995). Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London, UK: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, E., & Bolt, B. (2013). Carnal knowledge: Towards a ‘new materialism’ through the arts. London, UK: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  5. Batista, A., & Lesky, C. (2015). Sidewalk stories: Janet Cardiff’s audio-visual excursions. Word & Image, 31, 515–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, C. (2006). The social turn: Collaboration and its discontents. Artforum International, 44, 178–183.Google Scholar
  7. Bolt, B., & Barrett, E. (Eds.). (2013). Carnal knowledge: Towards a ‘new materialism’ through the arts. London, UK: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  8. Bolt, B., Barrett, E., & Kontturi, K. K. (2017). Editorial. Studies in Material Thinking, 16Google Scholar
  9. Bourriaud, N. (2002). Relational aesthetics. Dijon, France: Les Presses du Réel.Google Scholar
  10. Bourriaud, N. (2003). Topocritique: l’art contemporain et l’investigation géographique. In Palais de Tokyo (Ed.), GNS, Global Navigation System: Palais De Tokyo, Site De Création Contemporaine (pp. 9–39). Paris: Cercle d’art.Google Scholar
  11. Boyd, C. P. (2017). Non-representational geographies of therapeutic art making: Thinking through practice. London, UK: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadman, L. (2009). Nonrepresentational theory/Nonrepresentational geographies. In R. Kitchen & N. Thrit (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (1st ed). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Coole, D., & Frost, S. (2010). Introducing the new materialisms. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox, C., Jaskey, J., & Malik, S. (2015). Realism materialism art. Berlin, Germany: Sternberg.Google Scholar
  15. Crouch, D. (2010). Flirting with space: Journeys and creativity. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  16. Dall, A., Hyland, S., Leung, M., & Riding, D. (2016). We have your art gallery. Engage, 37, 136–142.Google Scholar
  17. Dewsbury, J.-D. (2010). Performative, non-representational, and affect-based research: Seven injunctions. In D. Delyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, & L. McDowell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative geography. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Doherty, C. (2004). Contemporary art: From studio to situation. London, UK: Black Dog.Google Scholar
  19. Edwardes, C. (2015). Peregrinations with maps and landscapes: Narrating the spaces of practice in Fine Art (Doctoral dissertation) University of the Arts London.Google Scholar
  20. Finkelpearl, T. (2001). Dialogues in public art. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Finkelpearl, T. (2014). Participatory Art. In M. Kelly (ed.), Encyclopedia of aesthetics (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. French, B., & Loxley, A. (2016). Civic actions: Artists’ practices beyond the museum. Sydney, Australia: Museum of Contemporary Art.Google Scholar
  23. Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J. (2010). The affect theory reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Grusin, R. (2015). The nonhuman turn. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Guattari, F. (1995). Chaosmosis: An ethico-aesthetic paradigm (P. Bains & J. Pefanis, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kester, G. H. (2004). Conversation pieces: Community and communication in modern art. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kirschner, R. (2017). Raw flows: Fluid mattering in arts and research. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kwon, M. (2004). One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lange-Berndt, P. (2015). Materiality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Lin, T. (2003). Following the money. Art in America, 91, 142–147.Google Scholar
  32. Lippard, L. (1997). The lure of the local. New York, NY: New Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lorimer, H. (2005). Cultural geography: The busyness of being ‘more-than-representational’. Progress in Human Geography, 29, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lorimer, H. (2008). Cultural geography: Non-representational conditions and concerns. Progress in Human Geography, 32, 551–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manning, E., & Massumi, B. (2014). Thought in the act: Passages in the ecology of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  36. Marte, I. (2007). Documenta Kassel: 16/06-23/09 2007: Katalog = catalogue. Köln: Taschen.Google Scholar
  37. Massey, D. (2005). For space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Sullivan, S. (2006). Art encounters Deleuze and Guattari: Thought beyond representation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rothman, R., & Verstegen, I. (2015). The art of the real. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  41. Sedgwick, E. K., & Frank, A. (1995). Shame in the cybernetic fold: Reading silvan tomkins. In E. K. Sedgwick & A. Frank (Eds.), Shame and its sisters: A Silvan Tomkins reader (pp. 1–28). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Stange, R. (2003). A utopian citizen? Parkett, 68, 46–53.Google Scholar
  44. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Thrift, N. (2006). Space. Theory, Culture & Society, 23, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tiravanija, R., & Sze, S. (2013). Thing theories. Artforum International, 51, 111–112.Google Scholar
  47. Tolia-Kelly, D. P. (2013). The geographies of cultural geography III: Material geographies, vibrant matters and risking surface geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 37(1), 153–160.Google Scholar
  48. Vannini, P. (2015). Non-representational methodologies: Re-envisioning research. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ventura, H. K. (2016). Get involved! Participation and marketing: On Theaster Gates’s model of success. Kunstforum International, 240, 110–121.Google Scholar
  50. Warf, B., & Arias, S. (2009). The spatial turn. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Witzgall, S. (2014). Material experiments: “Phenomeno-technology” in the art of the new materialists. In M. Schwab (Ed.), Experimental systems. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Witzgall, S., & Stakemeier, K. (2014). Power of material/politics of materiality. Zurich, Switzerland: Diaphanes.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of GeographyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Arts University BournemouthPooleUK

Personalised recommendations