Weaving and flying: Fusion, friction and flow in collaborative textile research | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Arts & Communities
  4. Volume 10, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN: 1757-1936
  • E-ISSN: 1757-1944

Abstract

Anthropological research is qualitative, emergent, even intuitive. As Ingold proposes, in this regard, it has much in common with arts practice. Anthropologists often follow ‘foreshadowed problems’, joining in with the mundane, interconnected tasks of people’s daily lives in the communities where they are based. Textiles, like other crafts, fit well here, often bringing in ‘women’s work’, domesticity, stories of everyday life and extending across the traditional, the popular, the modern. What this brings (we hope) is texture, quality, a rich description and the voices of our field companions. Collaboration brings an extending and questioning of the boundaries. Where does standard participant observation end and collaboration and making textiles begin? When does practical engagement constitute an intervention? And does intervening, and thus changing local practices in the field, matter? How can collaboration affect the field-site, the textiles and their limits? Who writes the results, whose voices are heard? In my case, early fieldwork ranged from making felt textiles to mundane domestic tasks such as cooking and washing up. But as collaboration, it expanded into sending letters, making work together, cultural exchanges, even symposia. In this article, I draw on case studies from research in Kyrgyzstan and Scotland to explore how collaborations through textile work may (with rigour) enhance inter-community knowledge and communication and produce growth and cumulative understanding.

© 2020 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jaac_00010_1
2020-03-01
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andrae, C.. ( 1996), Mary Newcomb, London:: Lund Humphries;.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Belgrave, A.. ( 1995), How to Make Felt, Tunbridge Wells:: Search Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Blacking, J.. ( 1988;), ‘ Towards an anthropology of theatre. ’, Points of Contact Conference, Leicester Polytechnic, 30 September–2 October.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bruner, J.,, Jolly, A., and Sylva, K.. (eds) ( 1985), Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution, London:: Pelican;.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Caracciolo, M.. ( 2012;), ‘ Narrative, meaning, interpretation: An enactivist approach. ’, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11, pp. 367–84.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chemero, A.. ( 2013;), ‘ Radical embodied cognitive science. ’, Review of General Psychology, 17:2, pp. 145–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F.. ( 2004), A Thousand Plateaus (trans. B. Massumi.), London:: Continuum;.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Gibson, J.. ( 1986), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, NJ:: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Glaros, A.. ( 2013;), ‘ Turning the song: Music, power and the aesthetics of collaboration. ’, Collaborative Anthropologies, 6, pp. 130–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Heidegger, M.. ( 1962), Being and Time (trans. J. Macqarrie, and E. Robinson.), New York:: Harper and Row;.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hoban, R.. ( 1982), Riddley Walker, London:: Picador;.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Koestler, A.. ( 1967), The Ghost in the Machine, London:: Hutchinson;.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M.. ( 2008), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL:: University of Chicago Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Merleau-Ponty, M.. ( 1962), The Phenomenology of Perception (trans. C. Smith.), New York:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Polanyi, M.. ( 1967), The Tacit Dimension, London:: Routledge & Kegan Paul;.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ravetz, A.,, Kettle, A., and Felcey, H.. ( 2013), Collaboration Through Craft, London:: Bloomsbury;.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Thompson, E.. ( 2006;), ‘ Neurophenomenology and contemplative experience. ’, in P. Clayton. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;, C14, pp. 226–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Tomasello, M.. ( 2009), Why We Cooperate, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Turner, V.. ( 1970), The Forest of Symbols, Ithaca, NY:: Cornell University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Varela, F.,, Thompson, E., and Rosch, E.. ( 1991), The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Von Uexküll, J.. ( 1957), A Stroll through the Worlds of Animals and Men, New York:: International Universities Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Bunn, Stephanie. ( 2020;), ‘ Weaving and flying: Fusion, friction and flow in collaborative textile research. ’, Journal of Arts & Communities, 10:1&2, pp. 129–141, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/jaac_00010_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/jaac_00010_1
Loading
Weaving and flying: Fusion, friction and flow in collaborative textile research
Journal of Arts & Communities 10, 129 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1386/jaac_00010_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jaac_00010_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jaac_00010_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): accumulation; analogy; attention; flying; fusion; serendipity; weaving

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error