I’m looking forward to running a junk-hacking workshop at the Digital Cultures Research Lab event, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, on July 8th.
I’m looking forward to running a junk-hacking workshop at the Digital Cultures Research Lab event, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, on July 8th.
The third series of events under the larger project – Transmissions & Entanglements – was held across a week in June, 11-14th.
It featured a Bloomer Making Workshop, public talk by Jackie Orr, full day symposium, exhibition launch and performance and symposium brunch. The full program is here.
Following is an overview of the symposium.
The full day LIVE Transmissions: Critical conversations in crafting, performing and making symposium was held in 310NX Road as per the sewing workshop the day before. It was an invite-only event that brought together 32 people from last year’s symposium along with some new faces. Everyone was there because they are engaged in exciting, challenging, material and often collaborative work in a range of media that pushes at the edges of conventional knowledge production and exchange across disciplines located in and outside academia. (A full list of participants is here).
As per usual the range and quality of work was exciting and eclectic – we watched films on dance, weaving and the many forms of craftivism. People recited poetry and fiction and unrolled storytelling graphs, while others demonstrated environment sensing devices, birdcams and even specially made trousers to enable women to pee standing up. We heard about the use of drones as a sociological method to fly above Polish villages, of hands-sewn letters as a form of political networking, of failed 3D printed objects in London Hacker Spaces and mobile phone repair practices in Kampala. And so much more……
What is really exciting and productive about this event for me (and I’ve heard similar from others) is the opportunity it enables to talk about shared issues, concerns and ideas across a whole range of disciplinary backgrounds and experience. In no particular order, we had artists, filmmakers, sociologists, anthropologists, craftivists, technologists, poets, writers, computer scientists, curators and many who were multi-disciplinary.
People travelled from Madrid, Copenhagen, Malmö, Vienna, California, New York, Brussels, Edinburgh, Lancaster, Oxford, Cambridge and of course from all bits of London. Thankyou to everyone for their travel, time, attention and ongoing commitment to the project. It was an amazing day!
The day long sympoisum was held in a small but interesting space for a group of people to get together to talk, present and perform ideas. Although the structure of the day was largely comprised of site specific multi-media knowledge transfer in the form of talk, performance, film, sound and objects, the nature of 310NX Road (the shop structure and its location on a very busy road) meant that the urban context was an active participant as well.
The event was divided into three main sections.
I *tried* to reduce the number of speakers from last year so to create more space for networking and discussion. There were two themed sessions of talks I. POLITICS of MAKING and II. PRACTICES of ENTANGLEMENT.Each was made up of two speakers and a chair. The afternoon session III. MA Visual Sociology featured short presentations from Goldsmiths students who showcased their cutting-edge practice.
Throughout the day, in between sessions, there were short LIVE Transmissions sessions I, II, III. Everyone was invited to bring an example of ‘live transmission’ in their work, to briefly speak about it (<5min) and curate it with other things to create a growing mini-exhibition through the day. This was an important means through which a wide variety of voices could be heard and projects discussed. By the end of the day this meant that we heard about the work and practice of 26 people : )
The following overview/write-up is an attempt to capture just some of the many ideas shared, generated and discussed during the day while remaining mindful of the ‘liveness’ of the event which cannot be fully captured. As a result I do not attempt to present a coherent polished or finished documentation. Nevertheless it is quite textured for the purpose of enriching our developing network and also keeping with the idea of rendering visible the labour processes through which knowledge is created, the messy material mechanisms of production and modes of circulation.
Feedback, ideas, suggestions, criticisms or thoughts about potential collaborative experiments welcome!
Laura kicked off the session by talking about the art books that she makes as part of her research practice. She is an a feminist STS ethnographer and poet. She brought in two books: ‘Data Stories’ is written in collaboration with Dawn Nafus, an anthropologist at Intel, for the purpose to finding new ways of engaging with software engineers at Intel. It is an inventive format that folds out, with a poster and can be played with. ‘Orkney Futures’ documents a remote Scottish island that is also a world centre for wave and tide power – so you have a space age industry developing in a place where there are 20,000 farmers.
Laura has been working in Orkney for seven years doing ethnographic research. Throughout this time she has been searching for a voice for the hard work locals are doing to make futures, because there are many futures. The book is a co-produced collection of the future of Orkney by many different people – artists, school children, locals, farmers etc. It was curated as a poem and Laura finished by reciting the one of the pieces in the book – ‘If’.
Alex showed us an arduino node from a network that senses air quality. It is part of a set of technical network that is distributed along a street in Cambridge called Tennison Road. There are eight of them in location sensing the air quality in the street. It is part of a network for displaying data – pie charts and graphs on the street will represent the data. There is also a thermal tracker will measure the flow of traffic, number and density of traffic. It is a technical infrastructure but it is motivated by the concerns of street residents. It is evocative of what and how data comes to matter to people and how a group imagines its future.
In many ways this is a technical network that is embedded in a street which tells very little about the street but it is is entirely motivated community have motivated by what concerns that street and like Laura tells us what data might come to matter in a street and how a street might come to image its future. These are some of the people who live on the street. They are a community who have motivated all of these networks and there are many of them – layers upon layers, intertwined and entailed – to the point where it is no longer a technical network. It is a network of people, of things, of senses, of devices and companies… and I work on this street, so I’m not going anywhere. I am part of this network. We are embedded in networks of imagining the future… we might start with simple crude senses that we have all seen before but these are entangled in transmissions of imagining new futures where data might come to matter in different ways.
Anna talked about her work on disability, the body and performance. Her work is sourced from dancers experiences and their movement phrases are responses to their lives, lived experiences, and embodied particularities.
The idea is that by making these physical statements are ways of transmitting quite intimate lived experiences of having a disability that stand alongside other tropes of disability that might constitute public discourses especially around disabled bodies. This produces dance text that tell stories about disabilities yet they ‘refuse dominant discourses that offer different style or a particular type of social entanglement that run contrary to other forms of relationships that are invited by public culture.
Anna shared with us a video excerpt of a dance performance to demonstrate these ideas of transmission and entanglement.
Julia started her talk with a video clip of Gabriel Craig performing ‘The Gospel according to Craft’ in which he stands on a soap box on a street corner asking the public is they have ‘accepted craft as a road to personal road to salvation’. Julia discussed how the ideals of craft to deliver us from the evils of capitalism and consumption practices and intersects this with a fervour of the growth of DIY ethos and craft which has brought together artists, makers and activists – forging craft and activism into craftivism. She provided fascinating examples of craftivism and also ways in which craft is big business.
Independent online retailer Etsy which sell mostly handmade items was predicted to bring in $50million in revenue in 2014. Etsy’s tagline is ‘Shopping for Meaning’ – a slogan that brings together consumerism and craft as it implies a search for cultural significance through the creation and acquisition of objects.
Julia asked how people are negotiating the promise of salvation, meaning making, anti-capitalist resistance, consumerism and entrepreneurialism? How the repurposing of craft objects such as the rainbow flag and pottery objects become interwoven with cultural, historical, political and gendered themes. She talked about affective labour in craft with its strong connections to the domestic context, the politics of bodies and skill.
How do bodies, most critically hands, which in discussions of craft mnemonically stand in for bodies, shape craft? Crafters often describe the pleasure in engaging directly with their materials, whether wood or scrapbooking supplies. Crafting becomes almost an erotic or sensual encounter with matters as mediated by the hand. A tactile delight in the touches, textures and the sensations that also change the very nature of how we think and process information…. For many converts to the so called church of craft these terms describe the immersive corporeal process of bodily making. But within the context of contemporary culture there is a spectrum of crafting bodies to consider – ones marked by race, region, gender, sexuality, age and class. And not all of them revel in the procedures of making by hand. These bodies have vastly unequal levels of access to capital, to privilege and to power. So that the women hand sewing uniforms onto GI Joe dolls in the Pearl River Region of China on a 16 hour a day work shift might have a very different understanding of the intersection of bodies, production and craft.
Janis Jefferies | Artist, writer and curator | Professor of Visual Arts in the Department of Computing, Goldsmiths
Janis discussed and presented a range of emergent forms of knowledge practice with the aim to take up some of the challenges and opportunities offered by knowledge production. A core question: How is contemporary art practice being rethought, remade, redone within certain theoretical and practical discourses? Janis drew on Richard Serra’s ‘Verb List Compilation Actions to Relate to Oneself’, Grant Kester’s 2004 ‘Conversation pieces’, Jacques Ranciere’s 2007 ‘Emancipation of the spectator’ and Anne Wilson’s 2012 ‘Walking the Warp’ amongst others.
Janis shared a project she was involved in called ‘How to do things with academia‘ which was part of a doctoral training seminar that had been running for several years with people from Goldsmiths, University of Copenhagen and Berlin. Rather than a series of conventional papers it provided a practice based intervention in the form of an occasion to practically create new practices, new types of knowledge production that were eventually verbalised and performed in the form of a manual… By utilising the format of the manual as a production drive the outcome of the symposium was a reflection of a process of learning the so called step-by-step that is demanded by the manual and the relationship between the thorny issue of what is practice and what is theory.
The workshop was created from the Richard Serra’s verb list. While the verbal list enabled Sierra to explore freely before committing to what he was going to make, before the thing was made, the premise of the academic project was to explore entwined movement, text, thought, action and practice that could be transferred within and beyond academia.
Janis also provided another powerful example of Anne’s Wilson’s weaving work – Walking the Warp. In Manchester Wilson performed weaving without the textiles – no technology, no thread – using only a gestured vocabulary of weaving in space. The performers wind invisible bobbins and walk an invisible warp, increasing speed and intensity over the course of the performance with references to the speed to industrial production. Through these movements the act of weaving is performed but without any material evidence of the act of weaving. In Wilson’s performance the body enacts the very absence of the textiles and by extension the textile industry.
Julia, Janis and Nina assembled chairs at the front of the room to discuss the first session which raised a plethora of craft themes related to politics, art, institutions, memory of making, histories, practice, the body, labour gender race and more.
– The labour of making knowledge. How do we hold on the making process as method, output and transmission. Is it possible? Should we?
The transparency of transmitting the process – ie. performances and workshops – are a form of holding onto it. It is also somewhat impossible as it writes itself out in the nature of the materiality itself. Craft is always getting forgotten and rediscovered. It is perpetual. We should also hold onto the pain and the drudgery. It is not just a story of pure bliss. It is also a story of craft wounds, pin scratches and achey backs. These points are often overlooked – as if the handmade is some kind of refuge from immaterial labour. The story is more complex than that.
Making memories is an important is part of what we are doing.
– How do we engage with the idea of accumulating knowledge?
Conversations are an important part of the labour of making. These moments don’t translate into funding applications or policy documents. How do we acknowledge the methods that may not stay but matter a lot. There is a strong heritage of commitment to things not staying.
– What are the strengths and weakness of craftivism?
Like anything, craft is process like any other. One of its strengths lies in its unruliness. It is not necessarily a force for good. It is a way of making things. Like all forms of making things it can be used and interpreted for many reasons. One of the reasons people ant craft to be this way is as a response to the commercial marketplace.
– There are multiple tensions of craft narrative, not necessarily something intrinsically good for bad. How do you knit yourself back into your work? How do you want to re-make your work?
Julia responded saying she struggles with this, as she wants to be a great skeptic about craftivism and is also very moved by many of the practices aligned with craftivism. One way that she avoids general sweeping statements is to stay with the material and lead with examples. It is about specificity. This is more detailed and rigorous. She also draws on queer and feminist theory which helps with positionality and specificity.
– What happens if the boundary that is drawn around craft includes digital craft? The academic talk is a craft – it is crafted with our hands – what is the specificity of what is being called craft? How do we place craft in these different realms?
Janis thinks of craft as a verb – to craft – then its always on the move. It is about re-enactments, re-stagings. You can think about crafting in all kinds of disciplinary contexts. There are also many different tools of production that deploy different ways of using the hand to release different kinds of ways of making. An example is the current cult of 3D printing.
Julia argued that one to think of craft not as a refuge but a motor. The online craft world is a means through which people are learning to craft, to knit to do all sorts of things. They are not separate but co-exist, entangle. The sharing of on and off line knowledge is not in opposition.
We spilled into the very urban garden for lunch and relaxed chat.
Åsa and Kristina presented a project called ‘X Front’. It started with a question – How do grown up women learn to stand up and pee? – and experimented with the kinds of clothes one might need as a woman to stand up to do this. They ran workshops and re-purposed existing clothing – such as t-shirts and jumpers – and also made garments from scratch.
Åsa and Kristina thought about the difference in making and wearing and the trousers. They talked about different types of transmissions of knowledge produced from these making practices such as when you wear different versions of these garments you perform different kinds of work and catalyse different responses – people were asking what is happening here? They added two pairs of pissing pants to as well as series of photos of women wearing an using these garments to the table.
Lara presented a live transmission on her work about mobile phone repair in Kampala. She brought a ‘Chinese Phone’ with a universal battery and talked us through the process of making this battery fit different phones. She did this via the use of a series of printed photos from her fieldwork and a version of the phone. She talked about how she felt there were many ways of transmitting and entangling in her work and is interested in how a study of repair focuses on the possibility of live transmissions and how in embodied work like this can become part of my sociological practice.
She is interested in acts of repair like this in comparison to other places that are popping up such as the Repair Cafe which are more community group based. These are very different transmissions of repair just as there are multiple versions and ideas of craft. Lara is interested in drawing out the complexities and entangled notions of repair in her work.
Bernd told the group a story about the hare and the hedgehog. He met the hare at home for people in a vegetative state or unresponsive wakefulness syndrome state where he is doing fieldwork. The hare was visiting his friend the hedgehog – and their relationship is not about a race at all but about a relationship – they loved each other – but sadly the hedgehog had been involved in a server accident and he had a brain injury and was in a vegetative state.
The hare visited him daily and would do things to cheer him up and try to help him to recover. But he was concerned that his emotional welbeing might affect the hedgehog. He questioned why the hedgehog’s wellbeing was constantly monitored by the doctors – and asked if perhaps it might have something to do with visitors’s wellbeing too. So he turned it around and he devised a protocol for measuring his mood – to diagnose himself.
The hare measured his emotional and physical wellbeing via a specially designed technical glove device which gathered this data throughout the day. Bernd unrolled a huge complex diagram that documented the hare’s mood throughout one day. Bernd told us that he is exploring the relations between the hare and the hedgehog with the aim of taking all these kinds of things and working on a family album to try to enrich understandings of states and relationships.
Sarah has a background in campaigning and learnt to craft from youtube. She is interested in how craft connects to global issues and can help to create networks and relationships between people, can be a lovely way of getting people excited and thinking it is possible to change the world. She brought a replica of a hand stitched handkerchief which she gave to a local politician whom she said would not communicate with her over key issues that she felt passionate about. Craft helped Sarah connect with this politician in a positive respectful way.
Zoe, Azucena and Olga collectively presented their transdisciplinary collaborative research work from backgrounds in fine art, philosophy and the history of art in the contexts of social media, activism, urban context and policy in Madrid. They are dually interested in testing how they might present their work in an academic context and the field of humanities and also how academia might be affected by different kinds of collaborative practices.
We have chosen the neologism de-cast (or de-casting) to suggest an institutional “unmolding”, that is to say to think about the possibility, the one hundred or more methodologies, that can be tested to break the mold that bounds cultural institutions. We would also like to evoke the idea of a theatrical casting taking place in the institutions that could reverse the pre-assigned roles of the agents usually involved in them. From independent agents to a networks of agents – Zoe,
Azucena and Olga presented a range of independent initiatives and networked organisations who have changed their practice to work in and on collective participatory projects in public space. Social-artistic movements: a redefinition of what is a public space.
There has been a redistribution of responsibilities, knowledge and ownership of public space in Madrid with many self organising networks drawing on open source models to begin to experimentally ‘run’ urban sites.
Egs of projects:
Hacenderas – of a citizen “parliament” that once a month discuss concrete neighbourhood difficulties, that we address through committees.
City kitchen – monthly “co-working tables” in which citizens, professionals and civil servants shared strategies and models of activation of public space.
Intermedia is a city council funded collective chosen to test different institutional hypothesis, enabling what we like to call an open code working dynamics, oriented to a more democratic, horizontal and public production of culture. They way they do this is by aiming to become-others through a process of contact and listening. Instead of an institution that curates, produces or makes, it is an institution that is curated, is produced or is made, enabling the redistribution of agencies and the sharing of responsibilities in the construction of a cultural space.
Are we in a threshold of overcoming certain “modern” ways of understanding cultural institutions, citizen participation and the autonomy of art? What type of citizen parliaments are being tested in these projects? Is this kind of distributed network being operative? What would be the modes in which to include a radical heterogeneity of political subjects and objects? What new forms of governance are being tested? What could be the meaning and function of a public experimental art centre within a model of distributed network?
Citizen Sensing is an ERC project at Goldsmiths run by Jennifer that looks at how environmental senses are increasingly appearing in environments as ways of looking at environmental change but also being scaled up to citizen engaged activities who were using easily available technologies to better understand what was happening in their environments.
Practice is a way of researching new technologies, to analyse as well as create new technologies. They set out to ask a lot of questions – what are these environmental sensing engagements in terms of the imaginaries of environmental citizenship? What does it mean to have this technologically led engagement? What are the trajectories of these initiatives in that they imagine may lead to actions? How might having data somehow change the air quality? How do they articulate an environmental relationality? What does it mean to see sites in terms of data gathering?
Part of the project is about looking at existing environmental monitoring practices as well as new technologies. They are also looking at how these technologies are moving into urban settings – imaginaries and implemented sensing networks in situ (ie. London underground senses). A further part of the method involves building kits and holding workshops, trying out the devices and asking – what does it mean to DIY? What kinds of skills, capacities and labour is involved and what kinds of communities do you entangle with as a result of using these devices? Jennifer and her research team are testing claims of these off-the-shelf technologies. In many cases the claims do not match the practical realities.
Nerea presented one particular sensing device and the linked phone app which she had been using to record the air, sound and heat quality in walks undertaken around local area. She told us how it often captured unintended data – an interesting entanglement – such as when it overheated internally or captured the noise of leaves as higher than local traffic. The design of the kits are also interesting in that sometimes they operate to overheat the device and there are limited nature of instructions available to troubleshoot these issues.
Alex Taylor joined the speakers at the front of the room to chair the discussion on the practice of entanglements. He talked about being inspired by both projects because they were actively doing many of the entangled things that STS often talks and grapples with.
– A lot of materials today have been urban centric and very particular views related to particular places. This is a question about local expertise – different levels as it relates to tech in each project – and also about how it relates to places and people? What do some projects come to life in certain places?
Jennifer responded by saying that they try not to work to closely in categories of amateur and professional. Different people work with different levels of kit. Many people fumble around and respond to demands being made on them in different contexts. Other forms of expertise come from people moving into different fields -such as public health – and develop different responses of data and publics and discourse. Its about relationships between kinds of expertise – not a singular response but about taking on different capacities when needed. A shifting landscape of entanglements.
– How do you think about citizen science? And (thinking about how a sociologist might walk with a device) how is data an atmosphere?
The term is problematic, provocative and deliberately chosen as the title of project and this particular practice. It is a project therefore that reviews, analyses, critiques, participates and observes. Part of the investigation is to push at the idea of the narrowly drawn contour of what constitutes a citizen and the practices involved in this. How do technologies become enrolled in this? What are the limitations? How is this potentially problematic?
– How do you think about these devices after their use? – ie. the loop constructed by purchasing a device that senses how badly the world is polluted that will itself become part of the problem.
This issue relates to Jennifer’s first book ‘Digital Rubbish: a natural history of electronics. For this new project they have been scavenging waste to build their sensing devices and working with recycled materials. They are very aware that everything they build has an environmental footprint, a labour footprint, draws on energy, its past manufacturing history and its future life. She said that they haven’t drawn on much material yet but it is something they will have to grapple more on as the project develops. One response has been a move to more analogue devices as the new digital ones as as problematic as they are empowering. They cause us to rethink what it means to use monitoring as a practice of engaging with environmental change.
– A question of expectation. What is the expectation if people offer this labour? If there is a frustration of things not changing, what is the impact on people? How do they manage expectations – of devices, practices and imaginings?
It is a major issue with fracking for example. There is a double bind – people feel they brought it on themselves, from selling the rights to frack their land, and there is an expectation that the data might have an impact. Communities work with health experts to address key agendas and policy makers but there is also a lot of bad data out there or data that doesn’t have the impact that people would like it to have. It is about the expectations of data. Many people have tried everything and have discovered that personal accounts are not work much so many hope that data will somehow mean more. We want to challenge the capacity of the data to provide ‘real evidence’.
– Does the focus on data somehow delegitimise the value of personal accounts? Does it reinforce the idea that personal experience is worthless? Is it possible to turn personal experiences into data rather than saying that data is outside of bodies?
No. Jennifer has written on this about how these issues of experience can brought into ideas of what matters or counts as data and this might then have a different relationship to what data is if as a citizen you go into court that instigates different actions. There are no singular ways of thinking about and doing data. This is also a community that is fed up with doing diaries. They want to do something. It is interesting having these conversations. They are also working with health experts and medical doctors and are interested in other ways of mobilising their concerns.
Again we moved into the back room and outside for coffee, tea, biscuits and fresh air.
Throughout the day Rachel, Britt and I were busy finishing garments for the exhibition opening the next day. The entailed a lot of handsewing of hems, attached buttons and the somewhat curious making of leggings ‘festooned’ with ribbons for one of the patented garments. To be sewing and crafting during critical conversations about crafting, making and performing data added another layer to the day. (And some people like Sarah joined in with their own sewing!)
Li brought along a device from her design experiments in her nearly finished PhD called Urban Animals and Us which explores relationships between animals -in this case birds – and the senior citizens in a local residential home. There are a number of different devices – such as a Bird Flute that enabled people to call out to birds in the environment around the home. In this way they became more bird like themselves.
They also designed a BirdCam – an interface for birds to photograph the practices of the people inside the home. This is the device that Li brought today and it is made from off the shelf components. It has a spy camera that films and you add food. The birds pick up the Birdcam and provide a completely different perspective on urban life – a bird view of the city
Jen’s practice combines sociology and fine arts. The object she brought is a speculative app. We thought it would be interesting to GPS map you and your social network at the same time. It was made prior to apps like Four Square etc. Jen and her team were interested to see what people would use it for and gave it to different groups to monitor how they were experiencing different parts of the city.
One group wanted to map noise pollution and GPS mapped each other walking from a central point until they could not longer hear the noise. When they came back together they then speculated on why and where people had stopped at different distances. It triggered conversations about what each meant and experienced as sound pollution. They would project the data onto a wall and people would annotate what they had experienced at different times. This was a form of collaborative analysis.
The app was also available on the app store so people downloaded it all over the world. Jen and her team contacted many of these users to find out what they were using it for and created data portraits.
We think of it as a way of making GPS as a technology that people can play with in an app that is slightly more visible than it is in our everyday life.
Phil isa first year Visual Sociology PhD student and her work is on the politics of the claim to realism and discourses about crime and focusing on UK and US realist criminology. She also writes fiction and she is developing participatory writing exchange project. She recently prepared a piece for Goldsmiths event – The Future of Art is Urban. Today she performed it live – ‘Grand Design’.
Beckie Coleman, the course convenor and lecturer on the MA Visual Sociology at Goldsmiths, introduced the third and final session of the day. The course is in its first year, designed to explore visual methods and ways of engaging with the social world but also to push what we might mean by the visual into thinking about things like atmosphere, how sociology might be performed and performative.
Following on the style Speed Methods talks at the last conference and the Live Transmissions sessions this time, we invited MA Visual Sociology students to show and tell their current work-in-progress and invited comments and feedback from the group. The students who presented had been awarded small bursaries from the Transmissions & Entanglements project to help with their final dissertations and final show and more broadly to further support and encourage experimental and provocative forms of sociology.
Roz Mortimer | MA Visual Sociology
Roz is developing work she has been doing in Southern Poland for a few years. Focusing on areas of mass graves, she is working with people who either witnessed the massacres or who live with memory of trauma and memory. In particular she has been interested in one particular local story of a woman who refused to die. She has written more about this project here. She plans on exploring haunting through film and has been experimenting with how to represent and translate trauma and collapse time. She has used pin hole cameras and digital cameras, but her frustration has been that the cameras have always been from a human perspective. So she has been thinking about how to visualise a more spectral presence. She is purchasing, with help from the bursary, a drone camera to fly above specific sites.
Marina Silva | MA Visual Sociology
Marina has also been thinking about this project for a while and using the MA to explore it in depth. She is from São Paulo and has a design background. In 2007 a law was passed in the city to remove all ‘visual pollution from the urban landscape’. This meant that it was illegal to advertise in the city. It raises fascinating questions: What is beauty? What is the role of the city? What is and isn’t pollution? Where has the ‘visual pollution’ gone as a result of being ‘cleaned’ from the street’? Marina showed pictures from a local photographer who has documented the structures left from the advertising industry – empty frames, signs etc . She talked about the comments linked to his images that debate the nature of advertising versus communication and express a spectrum of responses from joy at the cleaner, more beautiful city to disgust at the heavy handed nature of state control.
Katie Knapp | MA Visual Sociology
Katie is from advertising and communications and comes from a background in agriculture and farming cultures. Her project is about how society visualises farming. She is struck by the overlaps, complexity and entanglement with how the media, lobby groups, consumers and farmers often use the same images to represent the production of food and yet put forward conflicting messages. She is interested in how people curate a visual of farming – different scenarios – and curate this into an object as a final piece of work.
Ali Eisa | MA Visual Sociology
Ali talked about the end of year MA Visual Sociology show in September which provides an opportunity for students to showcase the work they have been doing to the public, prospective students and also in relation to each other – the bursary is helping to support this event. This is a critically important event because although the course requires students to hand in a written text, the process by which they have made and expressed their work in other forms has greatly informed their processes, methods and understandings of Visual Sociology. It also deepens and enriches their exhibition and curation skills for ways of making their work open to a range of publics. Ali also talked about his own work which ethnographically explores hacker space culture and in particular things that don’t work. He passed around a 3D object that its maker considered a failure and yet talked about how other discussions with people revealed that it could be so many other things – ie. a part for a space ship!
Session III QUESTIONS/ COMMENTS
– What exactly is Visual Sociology? How are you imagining the visual in sociology – is it creative, or pertaining to optics?
All the students are from backgrounds – design, communications, advertising, film – that have the visual deeply embedded within it. Having visual added to sociology is something they have debated throughout the year. The course equips students to interrogate the visual and and how they situate what they are already engaged in a sociological contexts.
It is more about inventive approach. It doesn’t have to be visual.
– Why do the visual histories of the future look the same? – ie. The fixity of the kinds of shapes in Thingyverse. Why do we imagine the future in specific ways – the similarities and lack of flexibility?
Ali talked about the homogeneity of 3D printed objects and is curious within his study to expl0re the themes that emerge. He is also interested in craft, consumption and technology and especially ideas of customisation which is a dominant theme in 3D printing – what is customisation?
To The Pub!
HUGE thankyou’s to everyone for making Live Transmissions a terrifically stimulating and fun event.
Till next time…… : )
It’s been a busy start to the year so I’m only just catching up on some event documentation. Late January I was very pleased to be invited to attend a DiY Networking seminar: An interdisciplinary approach organised by Panayotis Antoniadis (ETH Zürich, CH), Jörg Ott (Aalto University, FI) and Andrea Passarella (CNR – Pisa, IT). The event was hosted at the Leibniz Centre for Informatics at Schloss Dagstuhl.
Usually the preserve of an international community of computer scientists, this event was unique in that the organisers worked hard to bring together a range of academics and practitioners dealing with a similar topic – DiY Networking. As a result, in addition to computer scientists there were researchers with backgrounds in engineering, activism, art, sociology, anthropology and HCI. Due to the shared nature of the topic, the event provided a valued opportunity to catch up with old colleagues as well as meet new ones from many parts of the globe (Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany,Greece, Italy, Sweden, UK and US). In terms of gender, as you can see from the group photo, things were less diverse with 6 women out of 32. But, this was viewed as unusually high and we were made very welcome.
For three and half days we stayed in a castle, yes a castle! – in a remote forest located a 30min cab ride, 2.5 hour train journey and a flight from London. Despite good internet access, there was definitely a collective (and valued) sense of getting away from other work and pressures. The castle was incredibly well equipped for this kind of event with comfortable lodgings, character filled working rooms (some in turrets), games and musical equipment (including piano, cello and violins) and a handy wine cellar. There were bikes to borrow and printed running maps for nearby trails. You could say it was a unique experience.
Although discussions were expansive and interesting for the first day and a half, and the walk-shop around the local village and forest was great, the event became really productive for me when groups shrunk in size and conversations shifted to more specific topics. I joined group of computer and social scientists who focused on failure – Christian Becker, (Universität Mannheim, DE), John Cowcroft (Communication Systems, Cambridge), Paul Dourish (Informatics, UCI), Kevin Fall (Software Engineering, Carnegie Mellon), Alison Powell (Media & Comms, LSE), and Irina Shklovski (ITU, Copenhagen),
Failure is rich topic for discussion as it holds multiple shifting meanings, is culturally shaped and manifest in diverse assemblies of practice. We shared very different experiences from our fieldwork and practice, talking about how failure some contexts was the key to success and the start of innovative journey; failure in the form of disaster sometimes operates as a catalyst for invention (but things need to be available before); success as an exception.
What is failure?
How is it avoided?
Who is allowed to fail? Who isn’t?
How is failure understood, subverted and explored?
How is it represented? How has this changed over time/ in different places?
In what ways/contexts/articulations is failure reviled? Cleaned up? Ignored? Celebrated?
Drawing on previous experiences of building Enquiry Machines I suggested we build these ideas into a ‘Failure Machine’. Enquiry Machines are a series of performed artefacts made in collaboration with others that explore ideas or methods. The point is less about materializing answers or prototyping ideas and more about formulating new critical approaches and literally seeing and touching methods in new ways. EMs are not meant to be finished or polished objects that speak for themselves. In fact, most fail in some way. They remind us that mistakes and tangents are just as important to our insights as the things that ‘work’.
It seemed a good idea in this context as it would help to ground the discussion and unite our wide-ranging discussion into something physical. Also, the delightful thing about working on failure is that anything we made or failed to make would be productive. Plus Enquiry Machines are fun to make.
These are pics from a Sociology Hack Day I ran with Dan Macquillan where computing, sociology and anthro students made machines which generated discussions on privacy, data snooping, location sensing, future selves and citizenship, electronic freedoms and more. As I said….. weird yet productive.
Also, it seemed to fit, albeit with a stretch, the broader aims of the Dagstuhl event:
– To enable the productive interactions in such a diverse community it will take for sure a significant amount of time and effort. We hope that this seminar will set the basis and make three concrete steps toward this direction
– The sharing of objectives, values, methodologies, and challenges those different fields of research and practice face today
– The definition of a research framework that will allow today disconnected disciplines to exchange knowledge and interact toward the design of successful do-it-yourself networking applications; and
– The definition of next steps toward a shared experimentation platform (e.g., code for mobile devices) and the setting up of a venue for sharing artistic, experimental, and research results.
We started by simply talking more, writing down ideas, quotes and drawing things that popped up in conversation. Then we coded these bits of paper according to themes, creating more consolidated taxonomies.
This working session moved into the evening and was accompanied by some nice local wine, in fine company and to the background of acoustic guitar played by John and Kevin. It’d be nice to work like this more often.
Bits of paper, pens and the whiteboard were the tools of choice. Magazines, coloured paper, tape, string and scissors were soon recruited.
During the session I talked a bit about my recent obsession with châtelaine. Châtelaines were practical and decorative devices worn on the belt and hung with a series of short chains at the end of which were objects related to the task at hand. I’ve been thinking a lot about Châtelaines, after being introduced to these fascinating technologies by Genevieve Bell. They were worn by women from the 16th to 19th Centuries, from lower socio-economic workers to aristocracy. Nurses wore châtelaines with clocks, thermometers, bandages and scissors. Seamstresses had bobbins of thread, thimble cases and needles on the end of their châtelaine chains. Society ladies’ châtelaines featured highly decorative perfume bottles, purses, fans and even dance cards.
Genevieve has talked about them in her work as early examples of wearable technology.
Here’s a pic of one I have since found in the British Museum. It is a simple châtelaine made for the purpose of holding an early example of a seconds dial silver and tortoiseshell watch by Charles Gretton, London in 1670. It also features the key for winding the watch.
We decided to make our ‘Machine of Enquiry’ into a digital châtelaine.
We called it ‘The Battery Operated Wind-Up Merchant‘, playing on the ideas about technological lineage, pointing to larger dependent ecologies of use and using humour as a deliberate device to bring to life multiple ideas about failure and also the slightly ridiculous method.
There was a lot of DiY hands-on material adaptation going on. We scoured the castle for string and in its absence made use of tape, scissors, some raffia and a plastic bag.
The châtelaine featured a series of filters or apps hanging from each chain that reflected some of the critical themes and ideas generated in our discussions.
We talked about the apps having both independent and potential interrupting characteristics, so they might overlap, tangle and otherwise interfere with one another causing even more noise in the system/process.
The apps included ‘Dial of serendipity’, ‘Dial of missed opportunities’, ‘Lens of temporality’, ‘Latency creator’, ‘(Un)Archiver’, ‘Moral concern unburdener’ and many more.
The process and presentation of the machine to the larger group was productive and enjoyable. Although making ideas material constituted a different method for some in our group, everyone was buoyed by the experience of collectively approaching the multiplicity and messiness of failure via gendered, historic, cultural and social actors as well as the technical ones. There was even talk of potentially furthering this as an interdisciplinary project and making the Failure Machine again in different, more developed materials.
‘Inventive Enactments of the Social’, the second event in the project ‘Transmissions and Entanglements’, was held in London 13-15th June. It built on the half-day symposium/ workshop held at ISTC in April on ‘Uses of Inventive Methods’ that was concerned with the many issues and challenges surrounding making, representing and distributing knowledge. A core group of faculty and students from ISTC and Goldsmiths participated in both events – the aim being to develop a network of interdisciplinary scholars exploring this critical area of enquiry.
The London event was spread over three days, starting with a public lecture of two invited keynotes and a respondent at Goldsmiths, followed by drinks and a group dinner. The next day featured a full day symposium/ workshop. A brunch the following day at a local cafe provided a more relaxed opportunity to talk about the event and discuss future collaborations and projects.
In total, the London event featured 28 participants of which 21 were presenters from a range of disciplinary backgrounds and institutions – sociology, computer science, library and information science, medieval studies, anthropology, film, art and design. Presenters delighted the audience with a range of multi-media knowledge in the form of talk, performance, film, sound and objects. The event was supported by Intel, ISTC and studio INCITE (Incubator for Critical Inquiry into Technology and Ethnography) at Goldsmiths, University of London.
The following overview/write-up is an attempt to capture some of the many ideas shared, generated and discussed during the day while remaining mindful of ‘staying with the trouble’ (a key theme of the event) by not presenting polished/finished documentation. It is also quite detailed in keeping with the idea of rendering visible the processes by which knowledge is created, the mechanisms of production and modes of circulation.
Feedback, ideas, suggestions, criticisms or thoughts about potential collaborative experiments welcome!
Inventive Enactments of the Social
Friday 14th June 2013
The full day Inventive Enactments of the Social symposium/workshop was held at the aptly named Centre For Creative Collaboration (C4CC) in Kings Cross. The C4CC is an initiative of the University of London, working in collaboration with the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, Goldsmiths, University of London, and Royal Holloway, University of London. It provided a central London flexible space for a group of people to get together to talk, present and perform ideas. Although the structure of the day was largely comprised of site specific multi-media knowledge transfer in the form of talk, performance, film, sound and objects, the nature of the space (the centre is built directly over the tube) meant that the urban context was an active participant as well.
The day was divided in four sections. There were three key themes sessions of talks I. Entanglements with Knowledge, II. Atmospheres and III. Learning by Doing. Each was made up of three speakers: two talks and a response. This was followed by a speed ‘Knowledge Transmission’ session comprised of seven x eight minute presentations qhich provided a dynamic end to the day. In total, the symposium/workshop featured 17 speakers and 28 participants.
ENTANGLEMENTS WITH KNOWLEDGE
James Leach – Professor of Anthropology, University of Aberdeen
– ‘What is a body? Digital technologies, choreographic thinking, and the knowledge economy’
In the first talk James presented in-progress research about the body, technology and methodological practices in relation to a interdisciplinary collaborative HRC funded research project – Enhancing Choreographic Objects (EChO). He started by critiquing the idea of ‘knowledge producers’ and how this shapes and is shaped by ideas of economic value. Then, from an anthropological perspective he described (and visually illustrated via a dynamic website) an interest in the body in the context of choreographed dance.
He asked the audience to consider the richness of the body in the production and transfer of knowledge – What is a body? What is body intelligence? What is bodily responsiveness? How is our body always thinking, solving problems for us? What judgements and calculations are being made by bodies in the same space all the time? How can we not think with and through the body?
James agued that we can never catch all this richness, yet art can come closer to this task. One tool is the Choreographic Language Agent (CLA), which is software used by Wayne McGregor and his dancers as a creative tool in the studio to generate and investigate movement ideas in the studio. James discussed the challenges of bringing to life the emotional and kinaesthetic response of the body in dance, which goes beyond what is on the screen and the larger aim to ‘make something beautiful, to make something compelling to be with’.
In addition to critique, the project involves an exhibition of choreographic objects at the Welcome Trust, which aims to reveal to a broader audience some of the ‘thinking involved in dance making’. The aim is not an ‘instrumental outcome’ but rather one that is ‘relational and processual’ and that ‘informs and draws people into the process of knowing in this way’ and ‘shares something of our practice’. More here.
Mel Gregg – Principal Investigator & Researcher in Residence, ISTC, UCI
– ‘Finding Composure’
Mel presented a self reflective piece that started with the interweaving of a discussion about a new skillset required for her new position as Researcher in Residence at Intel’s ISTC and previous training in literary studies. She raised the issues of ‘sharing terms in common’ and ‘an understanding of what we want language to do’ in the organisation and in broader research. There are tensions to overcome not only in these contexts but also in relation to her training in sociology and cultural studies. She talked about the first ‘Transmissions and Entanglements’ event at UCI in April and how a conversation with Nina and I shaped her talk today. She revealed how she wants to be ‘entangled in the moment’ of research but that it feels necessary to be ‘free of the entanglement in order to transmit, to say what I did, to make the research palatable, consumable or understandable’. She also wants to learn ‘new ways to talk to different audiences’. This is the tension – usually we think we should be clear of entanglement in order to transmit knowledge. Yet, from the last event she learned that ‘the point it to transmit in the process of being entangled’. In response, she has tried to do ‘things differently. She gives ‘a paper that is not a paper’. She shows ‘things that are in progress’ and reveals the ‘way that I do research’.
Mel drew on two works-in-progress: her blog Home Cooked Theory, which she explained is an important part of how she ‘practices her research publicly’ and her current research around time management. She talked about a ‘split self’ – the desire to show and tell but also to keep it ‘to myself until it is ready’. She discussed how these methodological approaches ‘impact on the forms of scholarship available in public and also the kinds of scholarship I think we should be fostering and allowing people to experiment with’. Mel then drew on her project ‘Counterproductive: A short history of time management’ which focuses on time management manuals post the 70s and the repeating patterns of recommendations – such as the ‘critical apparatus’ of the list. She also revealed her own time management list of notes confessing that she is a ‘failed subject of my own research’ which she argues ‘is the point because you have to reform yourself’. Ultimately she argues that she is ‘trying to enact what the earlier conversation taught me about the messiness of the research’ and also the ‘point of the research’. Rather than staying in the ‘realm of pure critique’ she instead drew on what Meaghan Morris has called ‘the practice of sympathetic criticism’ where ‘you try in the moment of the encounter with the object to see it as criticism of your automatic presumptions’.
Mel: “In adopting the principles of this project about transmissions and entanglements what I am trying to do is take on the moment of the encounter as a serious way of confronting my own prejudices and ideological position.”
So what has changed? Mel argued that the critic and the reader are not in a ‘hierarchical situation’. This is what she calls ‘lateral research’ which is more about participation and less about observation.
Michael Guggenheim – Senior Lecturer, Sociology Department, Goldsmiths
Michael took the floor tasked with responding to the first two talks in the session: Entanglements with Knowledge. He told the audience that he ‘prepared a list to keep his composure’ and proceeded to entangle insights, quotes and references from both talks – namely ideas about choreography, the body and dance with time management, lists and academic knowledge exchange.
The ‘list’ numbered 1 though to 33 and Michael performed each task – a response that involved not only a piece of paper, but also his body, voice, right shoe, sock, pen, a volunteer, a collaborator, phone… and of course the avid attention of the audience. Much to our delight, his response inventively performed, enacted, adressed and commented on both talks.
A sample of the points on the list:
Point #1. Do a list
Point #2. Manage the list
Point #3. Manage the list later
Point #4. Do violence to the list
Point #5. Re-organise the list, now
Point #6. Switch on the choreography tool and engage in real change
Point #26. Step outside of academia (which involved a choreographed bodily move) – ‘Balance on your right and relax. Balance on your right and relax.
Point #27. Was point #26 an enactment of sociology? If so, why not? Discuss and not: If not, why not.
Point #28. Disseminate the insights on point #26 and #27. How?
Point #32. Cook your theory!
Point #33. Never talk longer than your allocated time slot.
(Apparently Michael gave Mel the actual list – I hope to post up a pic of the artefact).
James, Mel and Michael took chairs at the front of the room to answer questions and comments about the session.
Q. How do we keep the multiples alive? How do we stay with the trouble? Knowledge travels, how do you keep it embodied and flesh like and yet accept that at time that it has to be travel and it is productive to travel?
James talked about the opportunity to distribute knowledge brings potential benefit but can also obscure what we value and do. Acknowledging that means finding ways to find value through objects that might be abstracted but the idea is to provide a critique of that process.
Q. Where is your body in the study of the body? How do you think about your own body in your research?
James talked about how he has become aware of bodies/physical presence in a new way. He drew on his research in Papua New Guinea where people ‘explicitly put bodies together’ and ‘make them appear’. In the new dance project, he said that he thought he was going to learn about new digital technologies by spending time with expertly skilled digital artists and choreographers but ‘what they taught me was about the body’.
Mel talked about productivity app developers who interact on her blog and asked:
– ‘What would be the appropriate response if I was going to take their practice to learn from too? Make an app? Keep blogging to attract more app designers and talk to them? Create a public event?
– Should all research about making, make something as a way of understanding the communities they are talking about?’
– What is the researcher’s responsibility? How do we create opportunities for people to have critical literacy when they are not naturally distributed evenly?
Q. What kinds of knowledge work did Michael’s performance enable/produce?
Nina commented on the theoretical act of ‘just in timeness’ of the academic response. She noted how in James’ talk about dance we didn’t see any dancers; we saw inscriptions of dance in software. Michael used his body to interpret ideas and Nina talked about how her imagination operated in a way to see what was absent in the software – the richness, the viscerality of the body.
Craig Martin – Senior Lecturer, Design Context, University of Edinburgh
– ‘Between the Digital and the Elemental: Placing Atmospheric Immersion’
Craig outlined his general interest in atmospheres in terms of the relationship between vernacular design and elemental forces and in particular, architectural forces in the outer Hebrides and the role of weathering on traditional Black Houses (as well as other ruins). Today, however, he focused on cultural atmospherics and relation to the digital and made two key points: ‘the spatiality of atmospheres critiques the geometries of separation’ (see Sloterdijk’s work) and how the ‘oncoming power of weather based atmospheric phenomena is akin to the immersive power of the digital’.
Craig: “This paper addresses the potential relationships between digital space and atmospheric phenomena, specifically the ‘weather world’. It does so by firstly articulating the role of atmospheres in conceptualising new forms of spatial awareness, notably in relation to forms of immersion and entanglement. It then directly addresses the affect of elemental experiences, including the constant presence of weather conditions, be this a stilled moment or tumultuous force.”
The aim of the paper was to ‘try to utilize the notion of the atmospheric as an intermediary for understanding the complexity of contemporary digital spatialities’. Craig considered atmosphere as a ‘form of feeling’, ‘sense of place’, ‘environment and built space’ and ‘feeling of sensational experience’. He talked about the use of the intermediary as an important methodological tool to navigate through contemporary spatialities (see Michel Serres).
Nina Wakeford – Reader in Sociology, Goldsmiths
-‘Here Comes Experience! Making atmosphere out of sociology’s ‘raw’ materials’
Nina began by blocking the projector lens with a book and telling the audience about the structure of the piece. Like the film Momento, where the story is told in reverse, Nina started with a 9min audio piece featuring a woman speaking in English and Cantonese and finished with a story about how/where the project began. She framed her talk about arguments of ‘certainty and knowledge’, starting with how sociological texts in the 60s ‘exuded an air of confidence about the validity of concepts and methods’ and the ‘degree to which sociology could adequately analyse and explain social phenomena’. Drawing on Savage (2010), this could be seen as ‘the moment of sociology’. A shift in sociology is marked from a focus on subject (deviance) to methods (objective). Nina argued that while the 60s were about epistemic optimism’, the 80s in contrast where marked by a ‘profound scepticism’ which still exists today. Now, the ‘moment of sociology’ is being considered the ‘moment of digital sociology’ and draws attention to how attitudes towards the production of knowledge by sociologists ‘are highly variable’.
Nina: “There are broad changes in sociological moods over time. If we can work out how certain we want to be our ideas about sociology having this level of certainty we can perhaps get a better grasp on how open, ongoing and even ambiguous our sociological enterprises might be (which starts to gesture towards the inventive agenda that I have been working with).”
Nina talked about the sound piece as an ongoing investigation in terms of ‘luring’ (see Fraser 2009) and an ‘affective contagious form of transmission between worlds’ (see Sloterdijk’s ideas of foam – a multiplicity of spheres and their relationships to each other). She also drew on Kathleen Stewart’s (2009) ‘atmospheric attunements’.
Nina: “I want to suggest that sociology might think more about the kinds of ambiguity and openness which such an output embeds which transforms what I will call tactically but controversially its raw material. I want to argue for a reconceptualisation of sociology’s materials in line with work done by colleague Michael Guggenheim (and his sock!). In particular the need to think about how the discipline might better understand and how it constructs the rawness of materials that are generated in the course of research….. what might this rawness have the capacity to enact.”
Nina’s sound piece fits with what is termed a ‘non-traditional output’ in sociology. It was produced using materials from interviews, ethnography and secondary research.
Nina: “For me, for sociology to be inventive it must be more materially innovative. That is for all the concern with performativity, enactment and entanglement there is actually very little on how we pay attention to the affordances to treating our data as raw material that they may be inventively transformed.”
Goetz Bachmann – Senior Lecturer, Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths
Goetz responded to the session by drawing on Nina’s reversed presentation style, starting with an immediate personal story and ending with his prepared response to the papers. His story comprised a personal narrative about his response to Nina’s audio piece, raising memories of past emotional entanglements. The atmosphere generated for Goetz from the session was such that he felt his body commenting as much as his mind.
Goetz highlighted key ideas emerging in the session – the idea of rawness and of developing a methodology around digital atmospheres – and how both have strong yet opposite narratives around atmospheres. He identified four layers of thinking around digital and atmospheres:
1. How do we research atmospheres? (while avoiding the flaneur)
2. Using atmospheres to understand other things (a way into other things)
3. Using atmospheres as a means of encountering something more than comms… something affective
4. Putting atmospheric conditions in all of this (framing atmosphere)
Goetz talked about these might appear simple steps but complexity emerges when combined and entangled.
He then showed his original notes in his notebook (drawing inspiration from Mel) and talked through extra references and ideas (Sloterdijk, Schmidts, Bollnow, Bermer(?)).
Craig, Nina and Goetz took chairs at the front of the room to answer questions and respond to comments. Many thanks to Mel for chairing this session, as I had to check on lunch!
Q. What does it mean to insert power, oppression, access and reach into the vocabulary about atmosphere? Does it matter if we lose some of those words, or the meaning of those words? (Mel talks about how affect is often used in a way that avoids discussions about power, structure and oppression).
Craig agrees that this absence is part of the weakness of affect and why Kathleen Stewart’s book is so useful because it addresses everyday affect. Drawing on Lovink’s work, the ‘cultural familiarity of weather’ is always there and always oncoming – another reason why it needs investigating. This is the ‘centrality of affect’.
Mel pointed out that the digital is not omnipresent for everyone (re: Stewart’s communities that had not access to digital tech). ‘How much does the language of omnipotence buys into the same imperialism?’ ‘Is it reaching over everyone, touching everyone?’ ‘Do we need to resist that?’
Goetz suggests the need to ‘spell out these questions a little more’ and ask ‘what actually does change?’ He thinks we need to ‘shift out ideas about atmosphere’ and tells us about the Japanese translation of a similar concept – 雰囲気 Fun’iki – as being ‘possibly closer to the digital atmosphere’ and ‘a richer semantic level’, ‘what should happen next at the moment’, ‘you constantly negotiate’ and ‘that which is between us that tells us what to do next’. It always changes. Although debated at length in Japan and elsewhere, it provides access to new ways of thinking about atmospheres that are more ‘temporal’ and ‘semantic’.
Q. In transdisciplinary research you become aware of all the potholes in method – how do you not turn back to certainty?
Nina responded with a story about a large pothole in her street that the local council refuses to mend. When it rains, the residents put rubber ducks in it and it has become an installation. So, ‘sometimes you do not have to fill in the holes with tarmac’.
A gourmet vegetarian buffet, featuring locally sourced produce, was provided by Leon Lewis.
LEARNING BY DOING
Matt Ratto – Assistant Professor and Director of the Critical Making lab in the
Faculty of Information at the University of Toronto
– ‘Critique and the Textual Doppelgänger: Critical making and the academic enterprise’
Matt could not join us in London, so he did the next best thing – he and his team produced an impressive single-take video featuring a tour of the Critical Making Lab, introductions to the aims and objectives of the group, theoretical framings and current projects. The structure of the talk – what matt called it’s ‘seamfulness’ – was highly appreciated by the group for its material critique of knowledge exchange. ie. Powerpoint ‘slides’ of key quotes and titles were stickytaped around the Lab. The video also added another multi-media dimension to the palette of representational modes throughout the day.
Matt talked about how the group were ‘engaged in making as part of a scholarly practice of critique where the making is there to serve as a resource for unpacking and understanding concepts and not as a creating of objects for exhibition or for display, so it is a very process oriented type of thing’.
The lab includes space for four postdocs, faculty offices, computer equipment, critical gaming and critical making lab. Critical making provides a way of ‘geting past some of the determinisms that are associated with technological work’ and realised he ‘need to get closer to the technologies themselves’ and started to see ‘the role of making as an under utilised part of critical reflection on technology and society’.
He and colleagues talked about ‘geting back to the moment of making’. This is not about making things critical, ie for exhibition and making objects to speak for themselves but rather is about ‘thinking through critical making’ and ‘using material properties to support that work’.
Drawing on Schon (1987), Matt made reference to institutional structures that enable and limit different kinds of methodological approaches. Ie. the separation of linguistic and making work that is built into different academic enterprise. He talked about the challenges of getting others to recognise and legitimise the work of making as part of the humanities and social sciences and for resources to reflect and support this practice.
Bernd Kräftner – Principal Investigator Shared Inc. &
Senior Lecturer University of Applied Arts, Dept. Science & Art / Vienna
– ‘Best regards from the Syndrome Archipelago: Excerpts from a family album’
Bernd talked about research into the syndrome ‘Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome’ (a state of prolonged coma that calls for 24 care attendance) – a project that brings into focus a range of larger socio-technical entanglements in the Austrian health care system. He described Shared Inc’s ‘long-term ethnographic and artistic research that investigates the question of how to contribute unusual and experimental practices of care’.
Bernd tells us that he attempts to ‘depowerpointificate’ his presentation which involves subverting the linear slide system and layering pages instead. He introduces the ‘Muragga’ as a means of explaining this approach. The Muragga is a persian word for ‘a patched garment traditionally work by sufi’s that consists of a patchwork of imagery.
Bernd: “During the years we gathered many materials and fragments of knowledge. We are currently attempting to stitch together our version of the syndrome.”
Bernd discussed how this ‘stitching as a practice could enact alternative versions of what it means to be a “family”‘. The ‘family album’ interweaves the family of participants (patient, family, nurses, doctors, researchers), the family of methods (observing, representing and intervening) and the material form of research (drawings, collage, photos, maps, fables, objects such as the ‘Squirrel Pillow’).
Bernd: “A collection of heterogeneous materials form various times and places representing and intervening. We currently try to make from those nine years of collecting materials with different methods to put together a kind of a Muragga. We don’t know yet if this is a book or something which is electronic or more dispersed.”
Beckie Coleman – Sociology lecturer, Lancaster University
Beckie started by telling the group that although she would respond to Matt’s and Bernd’s presentations, her response would also touch on key themes emerging throughout the day:
– a process of getting closer to the object, technology and how we do that through making
– the creation of objects not for an exhibition but as a means of process
– the complexity of finding out and mess
– how objects gets entangled with ways of knowing and ways of doing
– what is this relationship through thinking and making
– idea of immediacy, ‘or what Craig or Nina might call ‘immersion with experience’. The idea of process is about being in the midst of something
So how do we think about this? How is this a method? How does this allow us to think about relations and inter-relations in new ways? For example in Bernd’s work, Beckie asked about what this meant for the family. She saw it as an opening up of the family, not just traditional kinship networks but of the researcher and others involved in daily care as part of the family
Beckie raised the question of ‘how the idea of getting close to something is a move away from the discourse to the making’ and if this was a ‘shift from writing to making’ which opens up productive ideas about the differences between ‘discourse and matter’. How much can we think about writing as making? Is it the same as making physical objects? This has links to how interdisciplinary projects happen.
– How might these be considered to be getting closer to a research question in a way that writing perhaps isn’t?
– How might writing be considered a distancing from a research problem?
– What is the distinction between materials and materiality?
– How do we think about are things that are in the making?
– Critique, critical making, critical thinking – what does this mean in different contexts/disciplines
– How does critique get the researcher closer to something, not distancing them, but emerging in the process?
– Do we need to rethink critique?
– What are the institutional challenges/difficulties? How is making valued in different places?
After placing the laptop open to Skype on a chair between the speakers, I invited Bernd and Matt to respond to Beckie’s questions. Bernd started by talking about the ‘family’ in the research, how it involved a family of syndromes, ‘living’ with a group of people and making a range of materials. He discussed the challenge of avoiding instrumentalising others as well as themselves in the process – to put it back into an art system and to ‘leave it like it is’. He talked about a reluctance to go back into ‘big institutions and get eaten up with how these things are processed’.
James said he thought there was something ‘quite honorable and admirable’ about the two pieces of work. Referencing a conversation with Nina in the break, he said they had discussed how she was:
James: “…attempting to hold open the space where knowledge does not become one thing or another, that does not easily slip into either being artistic expression of something or scientific instrumentalised version of it. And to hold open that space requires effort, a conscious effort and I think I am getting out of this day are examples, different as they are, of what Matt and you are doing is that you are putting the effort into holding that space open and its difficult and therefore its honorable. You are both fulfilling some sense of obligation….and not allowing that to collapse into something that is instrumental or an expression of something and that is a way of honouring it.”
Matt responded by saying he appreciated that comment. To him, holding open is the move he is trying to with his work, even more so than getting closer to it. He talked about a deliberate discursive move in his work to ‘distance it from art and design’. He does that because of the easy way it closes down the significance… the role of it, the position of it in society’. He said that he thought the initial issue in this kind of work was going to be how ‘making very easily gets situation in values of technology, the instrumental technical rationality or what Bill gaver talks about management of work, optimisation rhetoric’ but he has also found the ‘aestheticization of it, from an artistic ad design perspective to be equally problematic . To respond he ‘pushes back on overly structural ways that doesn’t do credit to art of technical work but is an attempt o hold open a space to operate’.
Q. How easy/ hard is it to get funding re: institutional structures? Does this contradict the very spaces you are attempting to critique? What does it mean in terms of your daily work?
Matt says that the difficulty is less about funding and more about what work it does, ensuring that it doesn’t reproduce the standard rhetoric around making. By this he means pushing on the idea that making is a universalising force for transforming everyone into a maker. He articulates the challenge that lies in communicating how making is legitimate not because it creates new makers but because it ‘helps people resolve a deep anxiety of having to do with an out of control feel they have’. He positions it in terms of developing ‘critical socio-technical literacy’:
Matt: “In the same ways we needed media literacy in regards to the highly constructed images and soundscapes and so forth of a previous generation and we needed textual literacy to deal with issues of bias in printed works, we now need a socio-technical literacy to deal with the ways in which code and technology impacts on us, not just in terms of the ways in which we experience and understand the world but like architecture structures out everyday lives. I position this work and critical making more generally as having an outcome of socio-technical literacy that is seen as necessary for the functioning of democratic society. And that seems to resonate.”
– ‘A knowledge transmission proposal, process or problem’
The brief for each presenter of this session was to speak for 8 minutes only on a research topic and methodological challenge in relation to the mode of knowledge transmission of their work (actual or anticipated). They focused on a current problem/impasse they are tackling, with regards, for example, to data collection/analysis, connecting with respondents, sharing, communicating, making, presenting or circulating results. Given the theme of the workshop, speakers were encouraged to explore the possibilities of re-imagining ‘inventive’ modes of transmitting knowledge.
1. Lara Houston, PhD Candidate, Sociology Department, Lancaster
– Ethnographic study of mobile phone repair practices in Kampala, Uganda
Lara set up her talk by asking how her work could join conversations about repair. She started with a short repair story, pointing out the tools and materials of a repairer’s work space, then moved to an analysis of the discourse about making and repair, remixing manifestos of this movement and finally outlined her concern with ‘the things that get lost in the telling of repair stories’ and how they might be explored in knowledge exchange.
Lara: “I want to think about how we can produce an outcome, a text (such as a PhD), that invites repair. What might that mean when my examiners are sitting down with my thesis? Can I ask them to use a toothbrush and some petrol to sweep across the page to reveal the text? Could I ask them to take two wires and plug them into a battery as the technicians do to boot up my thesis? What kinds of other material ways of interacting with this textual objects might be generative and interesting? What might it mean to obscure and invite the reader to reveal?”
2. Nerea Calvillo, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths
– ‘ In the air’
Nerea offered the audience two options for her presentation. She started by showing images and video and asked “So, what is it about?” A participant suggested the images were of ‘carbon monoxide pollution’. Nerea said, “Ok, great Number 2” and started her presentation. The performance of choice signalled alternate ways of presenting knowledge. She then talked about an international interdisciplinary project that set out to ‘test in what ways we could visualise the air’ and ‘what are the specificities of the mediums that allow us to say different things’. She talks about the development of visual tools to represent data and the contrasting responses when they took it to various stakeholders such as policy makers, scientists, artists, citizens and activists etc. She questions why it did not find purchase – is it an aesthetic problem? Is it transmission? Entanglement? Disciplinarity? Nerea concludes by asking:
How does one account for the affordances of the device to make a difference in the world?
How can we account for the atmospheric attunements that the object produces?
Do we have to?
Are we responsible?
3. Alexandra Lippman, PhD Candidate, Cultural Anthropology, UCI
– ‘ Entanglement with Collaboration: Sound ethnography project’
Alexandra talked about her research about funk carioca from the favelas in Rio de Janeiro. She showed how maps of the area often ‘silence’ this soundscape – favelas are often erased from the city to look like a hill or park. This ‘visual erasure’ however does not stop favelas, where mobile sound systems and thousands of people combine to creates an ‘acoustic community’. She played music and talked about her sound ethnography project whereby she publishes pieces of her own sound project and also invites people to submit contributions to her website – www.soundethnography.com
Alexandra: “What kinds of new results, theories, methods can be generated when anthropologists listen and also incorporate sound recordings into their work that is different from the typical use of sounds recordings. ie.interview, field recordings and write about it?”
4. Silvia Lindtner, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Intel’s Science and Technology Centre for Social Computing
– ‘Making with China’
Silvia talked about collaborations in her fieldsites in China (across six cities) in the area of DiY, hacker and making communities. In particular she is interested in how ‘making goes together with manufacturing’. Partnerships initiated by DiY makers include collaborations with local Governments, local manufacturers and foreign and Chinese venture capitalists. She talked about how makers publish their work in similar spaces to researchers such as conferences, public lecturers and journals, are funded by similar institutions and frame their approaches and arguments with similar theoretical framings. Silvia drew on what Mel talked about earlier in the day – ‘the lateral move’ of working alongisde fieldsites and subjects and how she responds by organising workshops as method, being part of a collective of scholars and makers and producing an art exhibition.
5. Felipe Palma Irarrazaval, PhD Candidate, Visual Sociology
– ‘ Magnitude’
Felipe makes a single point about the ‘problem of translation in the social sciences’ – magnitude – in the context of his research into the copper mining industry. Using images of mines and how the industry visualises the future through the scale of the infrastructure, he asks, ‘How can you understand the size of it?’. He argues that a way of dealing with the complexity of magnitude is to ‘use other kinds of supports’. He shows a short film. The wall fills with a golden visual of the sun setting through the web of steel of mining architecture The lens pans up and down the structures, zooming in and out to reveal the scale of humans in this socio-technical assemblage. He explains that his hand-made film is attempts to ‘explain the scale of these processes’.
Felipe: “To express, configurate or translate a complex phenomenon it is useful to use several mediums, to over lap them and see how they recreate a configuration of the scale you are working with.”
7. Youngsuk Lee, ISTC Researcher and Research Assistant,
School of Informatics and Computing, IU, Bloomington
– The ‘Suicidal Object’ and the ‘Hatching Scarf’
Youngsuk is an artist and Human Computer Interaction designer researcher and presents some of her recent work in these interdisciplinary fields. She presents short videos of her work – abstract, kinetic sculptures that combine interactive and digital art: The ‘Suicidal Object’ and also the ‘Hatching Scarf’. Her aim is to create everyday computational objects and explore art and design as a medium to communicate ideas between artists, designers and viewers.
7. Bonnie Mac, Assistance Professor, Medieval Studies, University of Illinois
– ‘Cabinet of Curiosities’
Bonnie started by positioning herself as an interdisciplinary scholar in an interdisciplinary program (Medieval Studies, School of Library and Information Science). She works with a collaborator, Julia Pollack, to explore ‘what a humanities publication might look like if it is not embodied in the conventional form of prose?’ For the past year they have been experimenting with ‘communicating a scholarly argument’ in new ways. Challenges emerge not only in relation to this task but also how this kind of work is ‘shared, peer reviewed and indexed’. The project she focuses on is ‘A Cabinet of Curiosity: The Library’s Dead Time‘.
Bonnie: “For this exhibition we made a series of sculptures that explored how the materiality of information affects the transmission of knowledge.”
Further to explaining this fascinating project, Bonnie focused on the mundane practical mobility of the artefact, asking: ‘How were we to circulate it and share it with others in the same way that a journal article or a book might be shared and circulated?’
Bonnie and Julia built a portable version in the form of a box (the size dictated by ‘carry on luggage’), and it was filled with miniaturised objects – a translation of their argument on a different scale. However, there were various ‘banal, real world’ issues; it was heavy and awkward to carry, it was made of wood so it wasn’t allowed on some planes, it required taxis and postal services etc. Bonnie also interwove experience of writing about the box in the talk, describing how excised arguments and words from the peer-review process feature in the newest instantiation of the box.
Paul Dourish, Professor Informatics, Information and Computer Science, UCI
– End of day response
Paul was landed with the unenviable task of responding to/ synthesising the event in some way and he did it with his typical aplomb and trademarked ‘productive grumpiness’ which was expansive, generous and much appreciated.
– What is the studio? What is the laboratory?
– What happens when we recognise the romance of the studio and the romance of design when we engage in trying to do other things?
– What is produced and for whom?
– The problem of scalability? Cultural differences? The challenges of producing more than one-off objects is harder in some places than in others (see Silvia’s talk – here the notion of ‘scaling up’ looks radically different).
– Circulation? The notion that we sometimes fall into is that design is somehow inherently open and engaged with large audiences unlike traditional outputs. Yet, some kinds of design only touch one person. Sometimes academic design papers reach more people about design than the designs themselves.
– What can engagement with design practices be? Also objects, where do they go? Looking beyond the romance of studio. What happens to the stuff afterwards? How does it touch people?
– What is it that we are doing through a variety of mechanisms available for us in communicating our experiences, our insights?
– As academics we make things (see Bonnie’s talk). While we celebrate art and making practices, it is important not to erase the making that we do, the making of arguments, papers, publications, the crafting of analysis alongside other kinds of making that we are bringing into the frame.
– Responsibilities? We often hear talk of the responsibility a designer/artist has to their materials. We also have a responsibility, a particular and heightened responsibility in communicating and critique (See Matt’s video). Here, the design is something you use and engage on the way to something. It’s not the result.
Paul: “The ideas that we have been exploring today, and also other work that comes from other places that has lead to this moment is deeply concerned with instrumentalisation of academic practice with the closing down of broad examination through the traditional languages in which we talk (paywalls etc). It is absolutely important and critical that we find alternatives that both allow for a greater degree of provisionality, that leave open to question their own meaning and significance, so we focus on showing rather than telling, we focus on inviting rather than forcing upon people, we focus on evoking rather than communicating. But at the same time it is important to recognise what we as academics can do, what we have a responsibility to do.”
“What is it in the tremendously interesting and evocative mode that we’ve been talking about through today that opens up opportunities for doing what Laura Nadar calls ‘studying up’? Not just in speaking truth and power but in taking the operation of power as an ethnographic object, an ethnographic site and actually looking at the processes, regulation, control and so forth that doesn’t partner with the subjected in order to show the plight but rather explicitly goes in and examines the systems of status of domination and power as ethnographic objects themselves.”
“This raises questions of participation. We have been very interested in the opportunities for ‘non-traditional ouputs’ to potentially invite people to participate in new kinds of ways, in an open inclusive gathering. It is important to recognise that a lot of this starts from a position of scepticism and should do. It might be interesting to ask what it might be to consider non-traditional forms of engagement in work that not only does, but must, come from a position of scepticism and sceptical enquiry.”
“To try to open up some questions about how the kinds of inventive methods we’ve been discussing live alongside concern with the sort of critique and politics of critique within the academy. We’ve seen many compelling examples of ways in which inventive methods can open up new areas for discussion and can provide people with alternative ways of thinking about them and create new kinds of conversations. But I what to try to think about how we do that not only incorporates what is inherently designerly about design practice, or inherently artistic about art practice, but retains what is inherently academic about academic practice.”
THE PUB !
– Thank you to everyone for making the event
Last week we held our mobile mobilities workshop – Performing the city: mobility, space and subjectivity. (This is the call for contributions). The event was quickly over subscribed and we selected ten fascinating talks/tours that covered topics from the History of Crossing the Road, Horse Cabs in Victorian London to Mobility Scooters and Electromobilities. Each talk took place in, around or on the way to specific locations which meant that speakers told stories about moving things on the move. In total 25 of us took to the streets in early December.
It was a challenge to piece together a schedule that accommodated a range of talks and attended to the logistics of a mobile workshop. The event took place in two main journeys; the morning (north/central London) and afternoon (south-ish London). We made our way between places on various forms of mobility, with some of these journeys provided the space/subject matter for talks. We stopped for sustenance and a well earned beverage at the end. Everyone enjoyed themselves and no one got lost or run over. There were many variables, notwithstanding the weather in early December and the reality of trying to present research to 25 people while walking or travelling on a moving vehicle….. Overall though, people were excited and open to the idea of the experimental nature of the event.
It was a bright-ish 10c wintery day which provided a good foundation for 8 hours of wandering around the city. We were concerned that planning an outdoor event in early December in London could have been icy, or snowy or otherwise pretty uncomfortable. As it was, it required significant stamina and we want to convey again our thanks to everyone involved for their participation, engagement and enthusiasm for the idea.
Following is an review of the day.
The day started at 10.30 at the bike cafe and workshop ‘Look Mum No Hands’ for coffee, cake and introductions. Their bike-oriented Christmas decorations were highly appreciated.
Justin and I ran through the schedule. We did health and safety talk which ostensibly asked everyone to stick together and avoid getting run over. Eschewing name badges as were going to be out in public all day, speakers and participants instead introduced themselves to the group.
We then set off for the first talk by Damien Ó Tuama – Dublin cycling (in London!). It was located at a Bike Hire docking station a few blocks from the cafe. As Damien talked about the bike hire scheme in Dublin, cars and pedestrians passed by and someone even docked their bike. Questions and discussion about Dublin and London cycling schemes continued in the walk to another docking station where Damien concluded his talk.
We walked on, tracing a bike path to kings Cross where Thomas Birtchnel talked about Mobility Scooters and Electromobilities.
Thomas enfolded the location of the talk into his talk. He talked about how some pedestrian spaces are inaccessible to some forms of pedestrian mobility and discussed the idea of in-between/ liminal qualities of the mobility scooters. We were passed by people on foot and on bike. We could hear birds and the tree branches move in the wind. Thomas illustrated his talk with photos on his kindle which involved walking around the group.
We walked to St Pancras station for Silvia Gullino to talk about Train stations, everyday life and mobility: the fluidity of social sustainability. Although this was a static talk, we were part of a mobile space, an atmosphere of people moving around which brought to life elements of Silvia’s presentation. At one point we were approached by a woman in a uniform. I initially thought she was security wanting to move us along but she was a Eurostar employee enquiring if we were travelling today.
It was time for our first bus journey. We luckily spotted the Number 17 arriving as we walked up Caledonian Road and jumped on. The driver gave us a smile as 26 of us boarded and headed to the top floor. With everyone safely seated, we took the opportunity to distribute some snacks (muesli bars, sweets, biscuits) and I talked about my 73urban journeys; bus research project. Although I had prepared written notes, it turns out that presenting to a group of people while standing in the aisle of a moving bus requires the use of both hands. I talked about material iterations of a particular part of the project that gathered 73, 73 words stories about the 73 bus and handed out copies of my bus boxes.
We departed the bus at Mansion House and walked to the Royal Exchange for Amy Thomas to talk about Making Markets: Walking between fact and fiction in the alleyways of Cornhill. Amy gave us a guided tour of the alleys of Cornhill stopping at various points to discuss contemporary, historic and fictional characteristics of these spaces. The narrow and blind alleys, passing inhabitants and sonic landscape brought the storytelling to life.
We walked to the Barbican and met with Harriet Bell who presented What’s so special about that? She talked about the special characteristics of this Grade II heritage listed building and also the special ways in which she materially and physically encounters it as a result of having multiple sclerosis.
We walked back to LMNH for a hearty lunch of pies and salad. Justin and I did some quick recallibrations of the schedule to accommodate a slippage in timing. The morning had become the afternoon and we still had five talks to go before 6pm. We appreciated how several speakers adapted their talks/tours/locations on the fly.
We all caught the Number 63 bus from Farringdon Road to Ludgate for Morag Rose to talk to us about the Loiterer’s Resistance Movement. She chose a spot under the gaze of security cameras in an alleyway off a main road. Although static in nature, it was enlivened by Morag’s dynamic story telling and the fading light; the city felt like it closed in and became less visible.
We walked passed the Tate towards the Millennium Bridge for Robin Kim to present From St Paul’s Cathedral to Tate Modern: Socio-spatial Integration of Central London Saint Paul’s to the Tate. He chose a spot between these iconic landmarks to talk about how the joining up of parts of London is achieved. Being able to see all the way down the bridge helped to materialise that idea of drawing/ stitching the city together.
Richard Hornsey was next with his talk and tour on A Brief History of Crossing the Road, 1925-1939. It was now fully dark and Richard made use of multiple spaces at St Pauls and Westminster. His talk was split between places and distributed by a journey on the tube. His talk was enlivened by being able to see, hear the traffic and touch the traffic signals. He also handed out images drawing the past into the present and engaged us in role play.
We walked to Trafalgar Square for the final two talks. Alan Rice and Lubaina Himid at the fourth plinth for Historic Absences; Ghostly Presences: An African Atlantic Trafalgar Square. Alan and Lubaina talked about the plinth and what it meant and in doing so moved the past into the present via the contested materiality of the monument. They had to compete with a Christmas choir on one side and cleaners using a jet powered hose on the other.
Vincent Chen was our final speaker on Horse cabs in Victorian London. Vincent conjured up London as a space of horse drawn mobility and immobility. He told stories about the everyday life, conflicts and interactions of 10,000 horse cabs in central London.
It was close to 6pm, we were all quite cold and with tired legs we headed to a nearby pub to warm up and celebrate the end of the adventure filled workshop. Although we had planned the schedule, twice walked/bused/tubed through the plan, Justin and I were not entirely sure what might happen on the day. When you invite the city to be part of your event, you can never what know might transpire. Thankyou again to everyone for adapting and energising the event.
Justin and I are very excited by the enthusiastic response to the call for contributions to our upcoming Mobilities Workshop – Performing the city: mobility, space and subjectivity
Thankyou to everyone who registered their interest to be a participant or submitted abstracts/positioning statements for talks. The quality was high and it was difficult to make the final selection of speakers. We were impressed by how many people rose to the challenge set in the brief. We had banned powerpoint and the conventional idea of a single/static workshop location and instead asked speakers to talk/walk through themes central to their work. We encouraged people to think about incorporating places, movement, forms of mobility and/or materials in their presentations.
We have selected ten fascinating talks/tours that cover topics such as the History of Crossing the Road, Horse Cabs in Victorian London and Mobility Scooters and Electromobilities. Each talk will take place in, around or on the way to specific locations which means that speakers will tell stories about moving things on the move. In total 25 of us will take to the streets in early December. Justin and I have our fingers crossed that it works!
It has been a challenge to piece together a schedule that accommodates the range of talks and attends to the logistics of a mobile workshop. Currently the event takes place in two main journeys; in the morning (north/central London) and afternoon (south-ish London). We will make out way between places on various forms of mobility, with some of these journeys providing the space/subject matter for talks. We will stop for sustenance and a well earned beverage at the end. Everyone will enjoy themselves and no one will get lost or run over. That is the plan at least. There are many variables, notwithstanding the weather in early December and the reality of trying to present research to 25 people while walking or travelling on a moving vehicle….. Overall though, people seem excited and open to the idea of the experimental nature of the event.
The program is as follows:
Morning – North/Central London
|10.30||Everyone||Coffee and briefing at LMNH||49 Old St, EC1V 9HX
|11.05||Damien Ó Tuama
|Dublin cycling (in London!)||Walk from LMNH past Sadler’s Sport centre docking station on Goswell Road, up Skinner Street past Tyose Street Docking Station, to Margery Street Docking Station in Clerkenwell.
|Mobility Scooters and Electromobilities
|Across King’s Cross Road, left at Calthorpe St, right at Pakenham St, left up Frederick Street, right up Gray’s Inn Rd, left at Argyle St and right at Argyle Square.
|Train stations, everyday life and mobility: the fluidity of social sustainability||Through underpass to Kings Cross Station (toilets). Talk in and around Station.
|12.00||Kat Jungnickel||73 Urban Journeys: Reflecting on the London Routemaster bus (tbc)||#17 Bus from Caledonia Rd to Mansion House. Transition talk during bus journey.
|Making Markets: Walking between fact and fiction in the alleyways of Cornhill
|5 minute walk from Mansion House to Cornhill. Walk around Cornill. Walk up Princes Street/ Moorgate, left on London Wall to Barbican.
|What’s so special about that?||Walk round Barbican. Walk up Aldersgate to Old Street.
|13.30– 14.30||Everyone||Lunch LMNH||49 Old St, EC1V 9HX|
Afternoon – South-ish London
|Loiterer’s Resistance Movement
|Walk from LMNH to Farringdon Road. Catch Number 17 bus towards St Pauls. Talk/walk around St Paul’s.|
|15.15||Robin Kim||From St Paul’s Cathedral to Tate Modern: Socio-spatial Integration of Central London
|Walk from St Paul’s, down Peter’s Hill to Millennium Bridge, across Bridge to Tate Modern.|
|15.45||Richard Hornsey||A Brief History of Crossing the Road, 1925-1939||Walk from Tate down GT Suffolk Street and Scoresby Street to Southwark Tube. Jubilee Line Northbound to Westminster (2 stops). Exit 6 (Parliament Square).
|16.15||Vincent Chen||Horse cabs in Victorian London||Walk from Parliament Square up Horseguards Parade.
Walk up to Trafalgar Square.
|16.45||Alan Rice and Lubaina Himid||Historic Absences & Ghostly Presences: An African Atlantic Trafalgar Square
|Walk round Trafalgar Square|
|17.15||Everyone||Drinks||Sherlock Holmes or Ship and Shovel (both off Northumberland Avenue).