&
In this article the researchers O’Neill and Hubbard propose walking can be a practice combined with ethnographic biographical forms of doing research ‘Ethno – Mimesis’. Working specifically with refugees the researchers propose that walking can help participants articulate the sense of being home away from home while simultaneously producing knowledge about the rich cultural contributions and skills these particular migrants are bringing to arrange regions in the UK.
I think Ethno-Mimesis is particularly pertinent to sculpture students because the nature of the medium is to be actively engaged in the making of their work,,, they are already participating. In my own work I think about performers and audience as participants within a wider piece, the boundaries of object and subject are blurred.
I previously understand mimesis within an art historical context to refere to mimicry of the ideal, in fact I went to the British school in Rome last November to study ancient Greek and Roman sculpture in order to better understand toxic masculinity and the replication of the ideal in strongman politics through the study of sculpture such as the weary Hercules (for Farnese Hercules), Pollydoras and Laocoon. This paper reformes mimesis as a more sensuous understanding/knowing of experiences, memories and associations as a way to better embody narration, this is a transformative concept.
‘Ethno-mimesis is described by O’Neill et al. (2002) as a ‘politics of feeling’ given that the ethno-mimetic research process involves sensuousness and emotion in tension with reason, rationality and objectivity.’
The walks conducted by O’Neill and Hubbard in this paper demonstrated the power of embodied narrative. It made me think about how a dog tutorial may encourage embodied learning. I wonder if the shared act of conversation what’s the dog in the room will be enough to have a transformative effect?
Belonging
Considering belonging in the studio space, helps me think about how I might better support students who struggle with attendance, preferring to work in their room or on the kitchen table at home. As a tutor this is frustrating because I can see the students often taking the biggest steps forward are the ones who have access to the facilities and the dialogue that’s taking place in the studio. My first port of call it’s to bring up studio presence in a tutorial and then follow this up with student services support if necessary but knowing some students ‘just don’t feel comfortable’ haunts me. Trust and Belonging are key concepts here, in relation to establishing a sense of place I was particularly interested to read,
‘the act of walking and wandering is not simply about locating one’s self in place: it is an act of place-making, for ‘dwelling is accomplished not by residing but by wandering’ (Casey 1993, 115). To trace a walk is therefore not just to follow a line: it is to become involved in the doings and becomings that produce space and make place.’
What does it take to make a healthy, breathing studio space? It’s more than a desk in a room with other people. I’ve seen so many studio spaces that don’t work because there is no studio culture to be part of. But what about ‘becomings’ that make place? As I said in the past I’ve tried to support this by social events and by using the studios for other ways of making which are not always physical, is the studio also a state of mind as well as the physical site? Perhaps opening up a new space for less pressured diaologue could help.
‘The physical, embodied process of walkingremembering/feeling/sensing/being is inherently performative. It is relational/collaborative and opens up a discursive space. ‘
This paper also made me think about the power of phenomenological experience, how the impact of this walking activity is felt rather than measured. I think this raises some problems when trying to record the impact of these exercises and certainly when it comes to my dog tutorials this is something I need to think about with the questions I’m asking participants to complete. How can you measure an engagement which works on a phenomenological level? Perhaps students who have struggled with the sometimes Cartisian nature of academia (even in an art school) may find the opportunity to relate to a non-human inspiring and fulfilling. I’m also interested to know how the Cartisian/Phenomenological divide might work for sculpture student students who are often building on the complexities of how objects are read.
‘These participatory, sensuous approaches to social research – combining walks, arts/research workshops (ethno-mimesis) and art forms evolved praxis as purposeful knowledge. They tell us something about what it is to feel ‘at home’ and develop ‘a senseof belonging’ in a relational and phenomenological sense.’
‘walking is itself never simply about traversing a route from one place to another: the journey itself is performative, an act of place-making and an active engagement with the environment’.
I have thought about my session potentially being a dog walking session in open space, there is precedent for this and it could be a successful way to re-engage disengage students but my main inquiry is more focused on softening/adjusting the sometimes hostile nature of a shared studio space. After reading this paper I have an in-depth insight as to why Walking and Talking can be a powerful way to create belonging and a sense of feeling heard, asserting an individual’s identity.