Propositions for an Environmental Arts Pedagogy: A/r/tographic Experimentations with Movement and Materiality

  • David RousellEmail author
  • Alexandra Lasczik Cutcher
  • Peter J. Cook
  • Rita L. Irwin
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


This chapter works through a series of methodological experimentations with movement and materiality in order to explore the potentials of environmental arts pedagogies. We address the question of what environmental arts pedagogies might come to look like in the ever-changing contexts of children’s social and environmental worlds. This leads us to engage with the movements and materialities of learning environments as they come to co-compose pedagogical encounters. In doing so, we draw on new materialist accounts of matter as agentic, fluid, and dynamic; movement as a choreographic architecting of experience; and a/r/tographic approaches to pedagogical engagement and embodied practice. Taking up the use of concepts as methods, we develop a series of artistic and pedagogical experimentations with concepts of “corridors,” “flight,” “viscosity,” and “construction.” In teasing out the implications of these concepts for an environmental arts pedagogy, we combine imagery and text to both render and diagram the movement of bodies, materials, and environments in passage through each of these four conceptual enactments. This leads us to develop a series of propositions for an environmental arts pedagogy based on our creative research process. In doing so, we aim to sketch the contours of an environmental arts pedagogy that combines the speculative imagination with embodied, sensorial, and empirical experiences.


Environmental arts pedagogy Movement New materialism A/r/tography Speculative empiricism 


  1. Alaimo, S. (2010). Bodily natures: Science, environment, and the material self. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. J. (Eds.). (2008). Material feminisms. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bolt, B. (2013). Toward a new materialism through the arts. In E. Barrett, & B. Bolt (Eds.), Carnal knowledge: Towards a New Materialism through the Arts (pp. 1–14). London, UK: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  6. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cahill, H., Coffey, J., & Smith, K. (2016). Exploring embodied methodologies for transformative practice in early childhood and youth. Journal of Pedagogy, 7(1), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coole, D., & Frost, S. (2010). Introducing the new materialisms. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency and politics (pp. 1–43). London, England: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  10. Cutcher, A. J. (2015). Displacement, identity and belonging: An arts-based, auto/biographical portrayal of ethnicity & experience. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies, M. (2003). Movement and dance in early childhood. Surrey, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Deleuze, G. (1988). Spinoza: A practical philosophy (R. Hurley, Trans.). San Francisco, CA: City Lights Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference & repetition (P. Patton, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. de Freitas, E. (2012). The classroom as rhizome: New strategies for diagramming knotted interactions. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(7), 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dolphijn, R., & van der Tuin, I. (2012). New materialism: Interviews and cartographies. Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garoian, C. R. (2012). Sustaining sustainability: The pedagogical drift of art research and practice. Studies in Art Education, 53(4), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guattari, F. (1995). Chaosmosis: An ethico-aesthetic paradigm. Sydney, NSW: Power Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Hunt, S. (2014). Ontologies of indigeneity: The politics of embodying a concept. Cultural Geographies, 21(1), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: A brief history. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Irwin, R. L. (2008). Communities of a/r/tographic practice. In S. Springgay, R. L. Irwin, R. C. Leggo, & P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with a/r/tography (pp. 71–80). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Irwin, R. L. (2013). Becoming a/r/tography. Studies in Art Education., 54(3), 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Irwin, R. L., & O’Donoghue, D. (2012). Encountering pedagogy through relational art practices. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 31(2), 220–236.Google Scholar
  26. Knight, L. (2016). Playgrounds as sites of radical encounters: Mapping material, affective, spatial, and pedagogical collisions. In N. Snaza, D. Sonu, S. E. Truman, & Z. Zaliwska (Eds.), Pedagogical matters: New materialism and curriculum studies (pp. 13–28). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  27. Koch, S. C., Caldwell, C., & Fuchs, T. (2013). On body memory and embodied therapy. Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy, 8(2), 82–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kumagai, N., Sasajima, S., & Ito, H. (1978). Long-term creep of rocks (results with large specimens obtained in about 20 years and those with small specimens in about 3 years). Journal of the Society of Materials Science, 27(293), 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lasczik Cutcher, L. & Irwin, R. L. (2017). Walkings-through paint: A c/a/r/tography of slow scholarship. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 1–9.
  30. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2016). “The concept as method”: Tracing-and-mapping the problem of the neuro (n) in the field of education. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lenz Taguchi, H., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2017). Using concepts as methods in educational and social science inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry.Google Scholar
  32. Malone, K. (2016). Reconsidering children’s encounters with nature and place using posthumanism. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manning, E. (2013). Always more than one: Individuation’s dance. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Manning, E. (2015). Artfulness. In R. Grisin (Ed.), The nonhuman turn (pp. 45–80). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Manning, E., & Massumi, B. (2014). Thought in the act: Passages in the ecology of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  36. Massumi, B. (2011). Semblance and event: Activist philosophy and the occurrent arts. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  37. McKnight, L., Rousell, D., Charteris, J., Thomas, K., & Burke, G. (2017). The invisible hand: Designing curriculum in the afterward. The International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(7), 635–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merriam Webster. (2016). Viscosity. Retrieved 20 June, 2016 from
  39. Mies, M., & Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. London, England: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  40. Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rousell, D. (2016). Dwelling in the Anthropocene: Reimagining university learning environments in response to social and ecological change. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 32(02), 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rousell, D. (2017). Mapping the data event: A posthumanist approach to art|education|research in a regional university. In L. Knight & A. L. Cutcher (Eds.), Arts, research, education: Connections and directions (pp. 203–220). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Rousell, D., & Fell, F. (2018). Becoming a work of art: Collaboration, materiality and posthumanism in tertiary visual arts education. The International Journal of Education Through Art [Special Issue on Speculative Realisms and Materialisms].Google Scholar
  45. Saldanha, A. (2008). The political geography of many bodies. In K. Cox, M. Low, & J. Robinson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political geography (pp. 323–334). London, England: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. St. Pierre, E. A. (2016). Curriculum for new material, new empirical inquiry. In N. Snaza, D. Sonu, S. E. Truman, & Z. Zaliwska (Eds.), Pedagogical matters: New materialisms and curriculum studies (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  48. Stengers, I. (2005). Introductory notes on an ecology of practices. Cultural Studies Review, 11(1), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tiainen, M., Kontturi, K. K., & Hongisto, I. (2015). Framing, following, middling: Towards methodologies of relational materialities. Cultural Studies Review, 21(2), 14–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Triggs, V., & Irwin, R. L. (in press). Pedagogy and the a/r/tographic invitation. In R. Hickman (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of art and design education. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. Tuana, N. (2008). Viscous porosity: Witnessing Katrina. In S. Alaimo, & S. J. Hekman (Eds.), Material Feminisms (pp. 188–213). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Ulmer, J. B. (2015). Embodied writing: Choreographic composition as methodology. Research in Dance Education, 16(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watson, J. (2009). Guattari’s diagrammatic thought: Writing between Lacan and Deleuze. London, England: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  54. Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Rousell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexandra Lasczik Cutcher
    • 2
  • Peter J. Cook
    • 2
  • Rita L. Irwin
    • 3
  1. 1.Manchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.School of Education, Southern Cross UniversityBilingaAustralia
  3. 3.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Section editors and affiliations

  • David Rousell
    • 1
  • Dilafruz Williams
    • 2
  1. 1.Manchester Metropolian UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.Portland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations