135.full

http://phg.sagepub.com/Progress in Human Geography

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/36/1/135The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0309132510393318 2012 36: 135 originally published online 28 February 2011Prog Hum Geogr

Divya P. Tolia-KellyThe geographies of cultural geography II: Visual culture

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Progress in Human GeographyAdditional services and information for

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Feb 28, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jan 19, 2012Version of Record >>

at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Progress report

The geographies of culturalgeography II: Visual culture

Divya P. Tolia-KellyDurham University, UK

AbstractGeography is a visual discipline and as such holds a complex relationship with visual culture. In the last twodecades the collaborations between geographers and artists has grown exponentially. In an era where publicimpact and engagement are politically encouraged, there is a risk of collapsing the differences between visualculture as a discipline and the visual as an accessible mode of research communication. This paper reviews theways in which collaborations between geographers and visual artists have taken shape, and argues for acareful and respectful engagement between them.

Keywordscollaborations, discipline, geography, (geo)politics, public engagement, visual culture

I Geography and visual culture

Geography as a visual discipline has a special

relationship with art and visual culture (M.

Crang, 2003a; Driver, 2003; Matless, 2003;

Rose, 2003; Ryan, 2003). Geography is also

responsible for a body of work on visual meth-

odologies (M. Crang, 2010a; Rose, 2007) and a

continuing heritage of doing and engaging

with imagery well beyond visual analysis (e.g.

M. Crang, 2010b; DeSilvey, 2007; Dickens,

2008; Doel and Clarke, 2007; Gilbert, 2009;

Morris, 2005; Nayak, 2010; Parr, 2006; Rose,

2004, 2009). Contemporary research collabora-

tions between a visual culture and geography

represent almost a new orthodoxy within the

discipline. In this, my second report, I outline

the geographies of visual culture and art within

cultural geography. Included here is my over-

view of the field and three key reflections. First,

I highlight a seemingly neo-visual turn that

represents a new disciplinary orthodoxy in its

drive towards participatory research, impact and

engagement within the academy. Second, there

is a call for the need to be able to differentiate

between art and visual culture within the

ongoing overlapping work in cultural geogra-

phy. Finally, I end the review with some

thoughts on the (geo)politics of visual culture

within current approaches to research. The chal-

lenges I highlight are about moving forward

from geography as a discipline exploiting its

own historical archive; for geography not just

to see art as an easy component of the impact

agenda; and for geography to celebrate the

mutual benefits of cross-pollination of the

aesthetics, politics and sites of collaboration,

dialogue and exchange (including the page,

map, diagram, vision or walk). This review

attends to the entanglements and collaborations

Corresponding author:Department of Geography, Durham University, ScienceLaboratories, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UKEmail: [email protected]

Progress in Human Geography36(1) 135142

The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav10.1177/0309132510393318

phg.sagepub.com

that are trans-, inter- and intradisciplinary. Just

outside its core focus is the geographical

research on individual artists (Bauman, 2007;

Fiona et al., 2006; Housefield, 2007; Matless

and Cameron, 2007; Peters, 2006; Rycroft,

2005; Vasudevan, 2007; Yusoff and Gabrys,

2006), their identity-practices (Bain, 2004a,

2004b; Macpherson, 2008), and the work on

relationships between the body, landscape and

art practice (Abrahamsson and Abrahamsson,

2007; Bartram, 2005; Biggs, 2005; Butler,

2006; Cant and Morris, 2006; Parr, 2006).

II Public engagement

The Royal Geographical Society is one site

where geographical research collaborations

exemplify the new orthodoxy of the visual

within the realm of creative public geographies

(P. Crang, 2010: 196). Here, two exhibitions

entitled Moving Patterns (May 2009) and

Hidden Histories of Exploration (December

2009) were held at the RGS exhibition space.

In the second, the curators extended the now

familiar critique of the Victorian lens in field-

work to include the evaluation of others who

have traditionally been outside the interpretive

roles and the exhibitionary spaces of South

Kensington (see http://hiddenhistories.rgs.org/

index.php/exhibition/introduction and http://

www.patternpatois.co.uk). This nowmore inclu-

sive field of vision and situated interpretation

has been initiated by the RGS in its exhibitions

programme since 2005, led by Vandana Patel.

The Crossing Continents: Connecting Commu-

nities programme exemplifies a point at which

Geographys interface with the public was refi-

gured. Here, the public are no longer passive

observers. Instead, they are now redefining

(through interpretation) and adding to the collec-

tions (Royal Geographical Society with Institute

of British Geographers, 2009). This project

demonstrates a changing relationship between

academic geography and our society aca-

demic geography has become personal

geography and the discipline has taken an active

role in the development of discourse between

academia and the public (Pereira, 2009: 29).

III Art for arts sake

One problem I continue to encounter is the pro-

blematic use of the term art and the growing

need to make a distinction between this and

visual culture (Smith et al., 2002). This is not

about a geographically informed art history

(Rogoff, 2001; Way, 2006), but our disciplines

distinction between the academic cultures and

practices of art and visual culture. The position-

ing of art within the discipline has been rooted

in the art historical interpretation of 17th-century

landscape painting using a cultural materialist

politics (Cosgrove, 1984). The defining of art

is contested and problematic in both political

and philosophical realms. For the purposes of

this report, art is defined as that which is pro-

duced and determined by the practitioner of art

where art is a way of life and vocation. (This

has its own problematic in terms of hierarchical

differences between high, vernacular, popular,

community, fine and performance arts, etc).

Visual culture, the discipline, is a dynamic

and practically orientated account that can

incorporate new modes of visual production,

consumption and vocabularies, beyond the art

history academy and the proverbial white-

cubed gallery. The distinctions that I am advo-

cating are between respecting the integrity of

disciplinary art (and practice) and the almost uti-

litarian role that visual culture plays as part of a

methodological process of academic research,

be that producing visual material through

approaches such as participatory use of photo-

graphy, videos, film-making, visual art and dia-

gramming, or addressing the visual stuff that

always already surrounds people. Geographys

engagements are often in three layers: an associ-

ation with artists or community, the production

of art, and the engagement with the public via

dissemination through visual texts or an

136 Progress in Human Geography 36(1)

exhibition. The proliferation of geographers

researching, analysing and indeed producing

material through research are often better

defined within the realms of visual culture than

as art. In these exchanges the visual text and/

or the process of production becomes secondary

to the intellectual reflection on what does it

do? and to what effect? (M. Crang, 2003b;

Horschelmann, 2008; Rose, 2001). Visual meth-

odologies have been designed as an empowering

mode of communication beyond writing,

talking, mapping and survey (see Alexander

et al., 2007; Kindon, 2003; ONeill, 2008; Pain

et al., 2007). The visual cultures of geographical

research are often a move towards producing

research markings that are meaningful as they

operate against, beyond and more-than text.

However, very few of these formations, produc-

tions and practices are located within art rather

than visual culture. The difference is marked

and thus deserves distinction (see Sava and

Nuutinen, 2003; van Alphen, 2005). In light of

this problem, I will employ the term visual

culture to encompass research forays towards

the production of paintings, drawing, installa-

tions, exhibitions, performances and/or indeed

collaborations with practitioners.

In the last decade there has been a significant

increase in the proliferation of collaborations

between artists and geographers as well as an

expansion in the research that overlaps between

these two disciplines focus on visual culture and

cultural geographies. The spectrum of work

bridging, and engaging, the visual and geogra-

phical includes several distinct orientations,

including scholarship about architecture as art-

space (Kraftl, 2009); the relationship between

the visual and material (Bailkin, 2005; Battista

et al., 2005; Rose and Tolia-Kelly, 2009); the

politics and economies of public art in the urban

scene (Chang, 2008; Hall, 2007; Kim, 2007;

Markusen, 2006; Mathews, 2008; Molototch

and Treskon, 2009; OCallaghan and Linehan,

2007; Pinder, 2005; Sharp, 2007); and in shaping

national identities (Berelowitz, 2005; Crang and

Tolia-Kelly, 2010; Doubleday and Mackenzie,

2004; Pollock and Sharp, 2007; ONeill, 2008).

Geographers also face an increase in and intensi-

fication of critiques of the visual, while the

expansion of visual technologies continually

extends, refigures and provides newly formed

scopic regimes in the everyday.

Simultaneously, university funders are

bounding towards a culture of impact and public

engagement, which is weighted towards the

visual realm, thus fuelling the new orthodoxy.

This disciplinary expansion has a multifaceted

presence in its media forms, role and relation-

ship to geographys methodological practice

and aspirations towards policy change, social

inclusion, participatory action research, visual

practice and public presence of geographical

knowledges sometimes within the departmental

sites themselves. Cultural economies effectively

shape research collaborations. In the case of

artists in residence, artists as fellows, or indeed

those funded through research grants, the

ethics of practice and intention can widely dif-

fer, between, and within these collaborating

cohorts and are often not funded for the longer

term (Foster and Lorimer, 2007: 426). A longer

investment would arguably enable a less

resource-led set of outcomes, but elicit naturally

evolving (longitudinal) grammars, practices and

interdisciplinary theory-culture.

IV Geography/visual artistscollaborations

Ongoing research relationships between geogra-

phers and visual artists are often based on each

researcher modestly sticking within their exper-

tise. Sometimes the nature of the collaboration is

straightforward: the artists provide visual exper-

tise to assist in dissemination of, augment or

indeed communicate the research process and

outcomes. Often, very little is about the geogra-

pher practising or doing the visual, or indeed the

artist taking on the body of work of the geogra-

pher. This is often inevitable due to professional

Tolia-Kelly 137

passions, funding and time; however, the shape,

politics and dialogue of the collaboration is often

tacitly shaped by the chemistry between folk

rather than a natural synthesis between the gram-

mars of working. Of these numerous relation-

ships, I would like to highlight a few that have

distinctly different outcomes and aims. There

is a political purpose to visual artist/geographer

collaborations within the realms of this new

orthodoxy. For Cook et al. (2000), rather than

practising an art, their research process raises

awareness of the unjust and violent nature of

the capitalist system of setting international

exchange values for goods without fairness or

humanitarian values at their heart: artist

means bigger than that. It means we can shape

our world!(p. 342). Also aiming to inspire polit-ical change, Campbell and Lovells (2009) doc-

umentary film critiques Chinese laws which

discriminate against internal migrants access

to basic human rights.

Political projects of other shapes and hues

have been ongoing, includingmy own collabora-

tions with artists Melanie Carvalho and Graham

Lowe (Anderson et al., 2001; Tolia-Kelly, 2007,

2008, 2010) aimed to include racial minorities

views within cultural representations of land-

scape. There is also a proliferation of artists turn-

ing to cartography as a mode of practice,

including Nash and Prendergast, which has led

to both written publications and exhibitions

(e.g. Nash, 2005). For them, the politics has been

about mapping emotion, elevating those seeming

non-places on themap to disrupt the grammars of

the map form, resulting in the democratization of

place and centring feminist ways of seeing the

landscape and mapmaking. Nash subsequently

led the ambitious project of Landing (2002), a

recording of the collaborative process between

artists and geographers while they were thinking

landscape and the visual. The exhibition, con-

tained in a cabinet, garnered a strange conserva-

tivism reflecting the deep gravity of this

challenging process of intellectual exchange and

production between artist practitioner and

geographer. In contrast, Lovejoy and Hawkins

(2010) project output, in the form of an artists

notebook, is almost an attempt to expose the

midway point of collaboration. Lovejoy and

Hawkins argue that they do not seek to sweep

away their differences in finding a joint pathway

of production; the artwork/note book provokes

the engager/viewer/public to create a framework

of seeing. The reader works through the visual

grammars of Lovejoy and Hawkins exchanges

and reflects on theways ofmaking it meaningful:

an innovative, delightful, non-patronizing, non-

affected challenging strategy that remains artful.

Foster and Lorimer (2007) describe an organic

synthesis between artist and geographer, and

note the serendipity of this meeting of creative

enthusiasms and skills: it was an exciting pro-

cess to discover substantially overlapping

themes, and then find different ways to articulate

and present them in joint-work (p. 426).

VThe (geo)politics of visual culturein research

One evolving aspect of geography/visual culture

research is where there is a commitment and

focus to the politics of visual media. Visual cul-

ture in research becomes for some a means to

empower voices and peoples, and to make

tangible many others in the academy (see

Huss, 2008; Kilby, 2004) including history.

Many others challenge the moral geographies

of producing, seeing, interpreting and experien-

cing political discourses embedded in the visual

world around us. ONeill and Hubbards (2007

2010) Making the connections is a case in

point. They set up a regional network to examine

the transformative role of arts and culture in

fostering integration for asylum seekers and ref-

ugees. Visual culture in this research becomes a

catalyst for dealing with identity, voice, trauma

and political notions of self-determination and

civic rights for migrants living in the East

Midlands. In modern times, this constituency

of British residents that are under surveillance


is an example of the myriad ways in which all

of us are exposed to multiple forms of visual

scrutiny under the auspices of securitization

(see Amoore, 2006, 2009; Amoore and Hall,

2009). Continuing in this geopolitical tradition,

Livingstones (2010) research on iconic carto-

graphy unravels the promotion of race categories

in the map form. Here, the Evolution of Races

is traced from early 20th-century accounts to

modern-day representations of genetic mapping

using mitochondrial DNA. Shifting from static

racial visualizations (see also Winlow, 2001,

2006) to the photographic exotic, Campbell

(2007) reminds us that the oppressive politics

of the camera lens resonate in the imaging of

Darfur and post-9/11 visualizations (Campbell

and Shapiro, 2007). The realm of visual geopo-

litics extends into various modes of unpacking

geopolitics: cinema (Power and Crampton,

2007); the rhythms of engagement with the

micro-geographies of the comic (Dittmer,

2010); the observant practice in geopolitical

encounters with sights and spectacles (MacDo-

nald, 2006); and gaming (Shaw and Warf,

2009). The production of art in the map form

(see also InIVA, 2010) is a realm of geography

where artists are involved. Grayson Perry, in the

British Librarys (2010) exhibition Magnificent

Maps, challenges the imperial craft of cartogra-

phy and its masculinist lens in his Map from

Nowhere (2008). Perry returns the gaze and

offers us a way of seeing that is both artful and

craft(y). The final outcome engages visually,

intellectually, publically and politically, without

being complacent about the history and moral

geographies of doing the visual. Being locked

into conservative art historical grammars of

writing, and performing academic knowledges

is exactly what the contemporary visual cultures

of cultural geography are not about. However, a

careful account and distinction between art and

the visual requires retention and reflection,

always. Visual cultures looser lexicon of prac-

tice, which is perhaps more about pattern, design,

impression rather than a self-consciously lived,

artistic expression, is the location of geographys

visual research edge.

Acknowledgements

A special thank you goes to Mike Crang for his care-

ful support and to Hamzah Muzaini who collated

publications for this review.

References

Abrahamsson C and Abrahamsson S (2007) Cultural geo-

graphies in practice: In conversation with the body con-

veniently known as Stelarc. Cultural Geographies

14(2): 293308.

Alexander C, Beale N, Kesby M, Kindon S, McMillan J,

Pain R, et al. (2007) Participatory diagramming: A crit-

ical view from north east England. In: Kindon S, Pain

R, and Kesby M (eds) Participatory Action Research

Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Partic-

ipation and Place. Abingdon: Routledge, 12231.

Amoore L (2006) Biometric borders: Governing mobili-

ties in the war on terror. Political Geography 25(3):

336351.

Amoore L (2009) Lines of sight: On the visualization of

unknown futures. Citizenship Studies 13(1): 1730.

Amoore L and Hall A (2009) Taking people apart:

Digitized dissection and the body at the border. Envi-

ronment and Planning D: Society and Space 27(3):

444464.

Anderson P, Carvalho M, and Tolia-Kelly DP (2001)

Cultural geographies in practice: Intimate distance: Fan-

tasy islands and English lakes. Ecumene 8(1): 112119.

Bailkin J (2005) Indian yellow: Making and breaking the

imperial palette. Journal of Material Culture 10(2):

197214.

Bain AL (2004a) In/visible geographies: Absence, emer-

gence, presence, and the fine art of identity construc-

tion. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale

Geografie 95(4): 419426.

Bain AL (2004b) Female artistic identity in place: The stu-

dio. Social and Cultural Geography 5(2): 171193.

Bartram R (2005) Nature, art and indifference. Cultural

Geographies 12(1): 116.

Battista K, LaBelle B, Penner B, Pile S, and Rendell J

(2005) Exploring an area of outstanding unnatural

beauty: A treasure hunt around Kings Cross, London.

Cultural Geographies 12(4): 429462.

Bauman Z (2007) Liquid arts. Theory, Culture and Society

24(1): 117126.

Tolia-Kelly 139

Berelowitz JA (2005) The spaces of home in Chicano and

Latino representations of the San Diego-Tijuana bor-

derlands (19682002). Environment and Planning D:

Society and Space 23(3): 323350.

Biggs IA (2005) Towards a polytheistic relationship to

landscape: Issues for contemporary art. Landscape

Research 30(1): 522.

British Library (2010) Magnificent Maps: Power, Propa-

ganda, Art 2010. Exhibition held 30 April to 19

September.

Butler T (2006) A walk of art: The potential of the sound

walk as practice in cultural geography. Social and Cul-

tural Geography 7(6): 889908.

Campbell D (2007) Geopolitics and visuality: Sighting the

Darfur conflict. Political Geography 26(3): 357382.

Campbell D and Lovell S (2009) Living in the shadows:

Chinas internal migrants. Available at: http://vimeo.-

com/4273757.

Campbell D and ShapiroMJ (2007) Securitization, militar-

ization and visual culture in the worlds of post-9/11.

Security Dialogue 38(2): 13137.

Cant S and Morris NJ (2006) Geographies of art and envi-

ronment. Social and Cultural Geography 7(5): 857861.

Chang TC (2008) Art and soul: Powerful and powerless art

in Singapore. Environment and Planning A 40(8):

192143.

Cook I et al. (2000) Cultural geographies in practice:

Social sculpture and connective aesthetics: Shelley

Sacks Exchange Values. Ecumene 7(3): 338343.

Cosgrove DE (1984) Social Formation and Symbolic

Landscape. London: Croom Helm.

Crang M (2003a) The hair in the gate: Visuality and geo-

graphical knowledge. Antipode 35(2): 238243.

Crang M (2003b) Qualitative methods: Touchy, feely,

look-see? Progress in Human Geography 27(4):

494504.

Crang M (2010a) The death of great ships: Photography,

politics and waste in the global imaginary. Environ-

ment and Planning A 42(5): 10841102.

Crang M (2010b) Visual methods and methodologies.

In: Delyser D, Herbert S, Aitken S, Crang M, and

McDowell L (eds) The Handbook of Qualitative

Geography. London: SAGE, 208224.

CrangM and Tolia-Kelly D (2010) Nation, race and affect:

Senses and sensibilities at National Heritage sites.

Environment and Planning A 42(10): 23152331.

Crang P (2010) Cultural geography: After a fashion.


DeSilvey C (2007) Art and archive: Memory-work on a

Montana homestead. Journal of Historical Geography

33(4): 878900.

Dickens L (2008) Placing post-graffiti: The journey of the

Peckham Rock. Cultural Geographies 15(4): 471494.

Dittmer J (2010) Comic book visualities: A methodologi-

cal manifesto on geography, montage and narration.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers

35(2): 222236.

Doel MA and Clarke DB (2007) Afterimages. Envi-

ronment and Planning D: Society and Space 25(5):

890910.

Doubleday N and Mackenzie AFD (2004) Reimagining

sustainable cultures: Constitutions, land and art. The

Canadian Geographer 48(4): 389402.

Driver F (2003) On geography as a visual discipline.

Antipode 35(2): 227231.

Fiona A, Mackenzie D, and Taylor SJ (2006) Claims to

place: The public art of Sue Jane Taylor.Gender, Place

and Culture 13(6): 605627.

Foster K and Lorimer H (2007) Cultural geographies in

practice: Some reflections on art-geography as colla-

boration. Cultural Geographies 14(3): 425432.

Gilbert E (2009) Eye-to-eye: Biometrics, biopower and the

body politic. In: McDonald F, Dodds K, and Hughes R

(eds) Observant States: Geopolitics and Visual Cul-

ture. London: IB Tauris, 225246.

Hall T (2007) Artful cities. Geography Compass 1(6):

13761392.

Horschelmann K (2008) The limits of meaning reflec-

tions on the use of visual methods. Poster presentation,

RGS-IBG Annual Conference.

Housefield J (2007) Sites of time: Organic and geologic

time in the art of Robert Smithson and Roxy Paine.


Huss E (2008) Shifting spaces and lack of spaces: Impover-

ished Bedouin womens experience of cultural transition

through arts-based research. Visual Anthropology 21(1):

5871.

InIVA (2010) Whose map is it? Exhibition held at Riving-

ton Place, July.

Kilby J (2004)Withdrawn vision: Art, realism and the scene

of incest. Journal for Cultural Research (Special Edi-

tion: Visual Culture, Trauma and Ethics) 8(3): 217334.

Kim H (2007) The creative economy and urban art clus-

ters: Locational characteristics of art galleries in Seoul.

Journal of the Korean Geographical Society 42(2):

258279.


Kindon S (2003) Participatory video in geographic

research: A feminist practice of looking? Area 35(2):

142153.

Kraftl P (2009) Living in an artwork: The extraordinary

geographies of Hundertwasser-Haus, 1 Vienna. Cul-

tural Geographies 16(2): 111132.

Livingstone DN (2010) Cultural politics and the racial car-

tographies of human origins. Transactions of the Insti-

tute of British Geographers 35(2): 204221.

Lovejoy A andHawkins H (2010) insites a notebook. Exe-

ter and Falmouth: private publication (limited edition).

MacDonald F (2006) Geopolitics and the vision thing:

Regarding Britain and Americas first nuclear missile.


31(1): 5371.

Matless D (2003) Gestures around the visual. Antipode

35(2): 222226.

Matless D and Cameron L (2007) Geographies of local

life, Marietta Pallis and friends, Long Gores, Hickling,

Norfolk. Environment and Planning D: Society and

Space 25(1): 75103.

Morris A (2005) The cultural geographies of abstract

expressionism: Painters, critics, dealers and the produc-

tion of an Atlantic art. Social and Cultural Geography

6(3): 421437.

Macpherson H (2008) Cultural geographies in practice:

Between landscape and blindness: Some paintings of

an artist with mascular degeneration. Cultural Geogra-

phies 15(2): 261269.

Markusen A (2006) Urban development and the politics of

a creative class: Evidence from a study of artists. Envi-

ronment and Planning A 38(1): 19211940.

Mathews V (2008) Artcetera: Narrativising gentrification in

Yorkville, Toronto. Urban Studies 45(1): 28492876.

Molototch H and Treskon M (2009) Changing art: SoHo,

Chelsea and the dynamic geography of galleries in New

York City. International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research 33(2): 517541.

Nash C (2005) Mapping emotion: Longing and location in

the work of Kathy Prendergast. In: Cullen F (ed) A

Shared Legacy: Essays on Irish and Scottish Art and

Visual Culture. Farnham: Ashgate, 225245.

Nayak A (2010) Race, affect, and emotion: Young people,

racism, and graffiti in the postcolonial English suburbs.

Environment and Planning A 42(10): 23702392.

OCallaghan C and Linehan D (2007) Identity, politics and

conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: Eur-

opean Capital of Culture. Cities 24(4): 311323.

ONeill M (2008) Transnational refugees: The transforma-

tive role of art? Qualitative Sozialforshung/Forum:

Qualitative Social Research 92(3): 112127.

ONeill M and Hubbard P (20072010)Making the connec-

tions: Arts, migration and diaspora regional network.

Available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/

global_refugees/index.html.

Pain R, Askins K, and Kitoko G (2007) Connecting places,

connected lives: An anti-bullying art project. Report,

DurhamUniversity. Available at: http://www.geography.

dur.ac.uk/Projects/LinkClick.aspx?linkConnectingBooklet.pdf&tabid2515&mid4126.

Parr H (2006) Mental health, the arts and belongings.


31(2): 150166.

Pereira C (2009) From the margins to the mainstream. In:

Crossing continents: Connecting communities (exhibi-

tion project). London: Royal Geographical Society/

Institute of British Geographers.

Peters K (2006) The contemporary landscape in art.

Middle States Geographer 39(1): 117125.

Pinder D (2005) Arts of urban exploration. Cultural


Pollock VL and Sharp JP (2007) Constellations of identity:

Place-ma(r)king beyond heritage. Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space 25(5): 10611078.

Power M and Crampton A (2007) Cinema and Popular

Geo-Politics. Abingdon: Routledge.

Rogoff I (2001) Terra Infirma Geographys Visual

Culture. London: Routledge.

Rose G (2001) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to

the Interpretation of Visual Materials. London: SAGE.

Rose G (2003) Family photographs and domestic spacings:

A case study. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 28(1): 518.

Rose G (2004) Everyones cuddled up and it just looks

really nice: The emotional geography of some mums

and their family photos. Social and Cultural Geogra-

phy 5(1): 549564.

Rose G (2007) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to

Interpreting Visual Materials, second edition. London:

SAGE.

Rose G (2009) Who cares for which dead and how: British

newspaper reporting of the bombs in London, July

2005. Geoforum 40(1): 4654.

Rose G and Tolia-Kelly DP (2009) Visuality/materiality:

Reviewing theory, method and practice. International

Conference held at RIBA, 911 July.

Tolia-Kelly 141

Royal Geographical Society with Institute of British

Geographers (2009) Crossing continents: Connecting

communities (exhibition project). London: RGS/IBG.

Ryan J (2003) Whos afraid of visual culture? Antipode

35(2): 23237.

Rycroft S (2005) The nature of op art: Bridget Riley and

the art of nonrepresentation. Environment and Plan-

ning D: Society and Space 23(3): 351371.

Sava I and Nuutinen K (2003) At the meeting place of

word and picture: Between art and inquiry. Qualitative

Inquiry 9(4): 515534.

Sharp J (2007) The life and death of five spaces: Public art

and community regeneration in Glasgow. Cultural


Shaw IGR and Warf B (2009) Worlds of affect: Virtual

geographies of video games. Environment and Plan-

ning A 41(6): 13321343.

Smith M, Morra J, and Guins RA (2002) What is

visual culture studies? Journal of Visual Culture 1(2):

56.

Tolia-Kelly DP (2007) Fear in paradise: The affective reg-

isters of the English Lake District landscape re-visited.

Senses and Society 2(3): 329351.

Tolia-Kelly DP (2008) Motion/emotion: Picturing

translocal landscapes in the Nurturing Ecologies

Research Project. Mobilities 3(1): 117140.

Tolia-Kelly DP (2010) Landscape, Race and Memory.

Farnham: Ashgate.

Vasudevan A (2007) The photographer of modern life:

Jeff Walls photographic materialism. Cultural Geo-

graphies 14(4): 563588.

Van Alphen E (2005) What history, whose history, history

to what purpose?: Notions of history in art history and

visual culture studies. Journal of Visual Culture 24(4):

191202.

Way J (2006) Imaginings of geography. Third Text 20(2):

223232.

WinlowH (2001) Anthropometric cartography: Construct-

ing Scottish racial identity in the early twentieth cen-

tury. Journal of Historical Geography 27(4): 507528.

Winlow H (2006) Mapping moral geographies: W.Z. Rip-

leys races of Europe and theUnited States.Annals of the

Association of American Geographers 96(1): 119141.

Yusoff K and Gabrys J (2006) Time lapses: Robert Smith-

sons mobile landscapes. Cultural Geographies 13(2):

444450.


/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 200 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > > /FormElements true /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.125000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

135.full

Documents

Transcript of 135.full