Rowan Bailey

Reflecting on Thought Positions in Sculpture

Thought Positions in Sculpture is a project which has used the exhibition environment as a platform and starting point for considering the sculptural facets of thinking activity. The exhibition opened on the 16 October 2015 at Huddersfield Art Gallery and ran until 09 January 2016. In the lead up to the exhibition selected contemporary artist-practitioners were presented with an opportunity to engage with some specific archives and/or to articulate a sculptural focus to archival material. Whether interpreting existing works of sculpture from Leeds Museums and Galleries Sculpture Collection, archival material from the Henry Moore Institute, digitised archival material from the Tate, audio material from the British Library and other archival sites, some of which are inventions by the artists themselves, the exhibition has served as a research platform and context for the emergence of narratives of sculptural thinking in and through differing modes of research practice. 

Thought Positions in Sculpture is part of an Arts Council Funded project called ROTOR; an initiative which seeks to engage new audiences in art and design research at the University of Huddersfield through a curatorial platform. ROTOR’s establishment of a public engagement network, with the aim of generating new ways of understanding the specific issues and concerns surrounding the nature of social and cultural values in the arts, inevitably draws upon research into cultural policy and the public value of art within the wider context and role of the civic university1. Research-curation in this particular exhibition environment is thus informed by the ways in which the specific material forms of the research have been disseminated to different audiences. In effect, the exhibition does not begin and end with itself but has served as an important arena for considering how specific research outcomes might be communicated to members of the public within and beyond the gallery context.

Figures 1 and 2

1For further details of cultural place-making in the context of the civic role of the university and public engagement, see Swindells & Powell, 2014.


The Archival Encounter

In 2014, I guest-edited an issue for the Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, which sought to stimulate collaborative exchanges, in and around what the archive is as a ‘concept’ and as a ‘form’, with the aim of expanding the archive out into the fields of creative practice. In the editorial for this issue, I wrote about the legacies of ‘archival art’; a term that gained currency in the 1990s and took hold in art practices that sought to appropriative the archive’s form and function so as to interrogate its order and logic. The dissemination of particular modes of approach to the archive can be found in projects like Deep Storage – an exhibition and book – housed at the Gallery der Kunst in Munich in 1994 (Schaffner and Winzen, 1998), the circulation of art-theoretical writing on the archive in edited collections such as Charles Merewether’s The Archive, produced for the Whitechapel Gallery’s Documents of Contemporary Art series (Merewether, 2006), within which feature the writings of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Paul Ricoeur and Carolyn Steedman, andmore recently, All This Stuff – Archiving the Artist (2012), edited by Judy Vaknin, Karyn Stuckey and Victoria Lane, engages with the archive as an expanded field, incorporating the artist as archivist, and includes different kinds of meta-archives generated by artists, including anti-archives and invisible collections (see also Tate, 2015).

The archival turn in the field of contemporary art registers a visual etymology that describes an act of material transformation1. The turn scrutinises the terrain of the familiar so as to think the archive otherwise and this includes further understanding of how, as a resource for artistic research, archival content has been registered, understood and worked with in the contexts of creative practice. One particular art critic and historian who registers this currency as an impulse is Hal Foster. The now well-renowned and established key text in discourses on art and archives, ‘An Archival Impulse’, was first published in the journal October in 2004. Foster describes how the ambitions of archival art can transform the archive into a utopia – a set of imagined states or places – where thinking about and through the past produces new forms and responses. This ‘archival imaginary’ has led to many exhibitions, events and writings on Foster’s reading of the counter-hegemonic and utopian character of archival art (Foster, 2004). As I argue, in The Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, over ten years have passed since the publication of this article and over twenty years since ‘archival art’ entered onto the stage of contemporary practice as an evocative and necessary ‘turn’. Perhaps the turn has indeed turned into a more established and embedded set of writing practices about research in, with and through the archive, and with this, an opening out of the ‘intensities of experience that can captured through the different creative mediums and methodologies deployed by each practitioner to access and re-trace the past’ (Bailey and Power, 2014: 355). This now has to include, in cultural and art discourses, further rigorous engagement with the ‘specific tensions that arise between the archive itself and the personal narratives that think with and through specific items and the impact of new technologies on modes of access, engagement and analysis of archival experiences’ (Bailey and Power, 2014: 355).

Figures 3 and 4

1The etymological register of the ‘turn’ stems back to ancient Greek and to the turning motion of the lathe.

‌Archives, practice and the exhibition environment - cultivating objects of knowledge

Thought Positions

Image above: Archival Interventions in Sculpture. Session Convenor: Rowan Bailey. AAH 2014. 40th Anniversary Conference and Bookfair, Royal College of Art. 10-12 April 2014. 

Thought Positions in Sculpture is both an affirmation of sculpture’s historic and aesthetic determinants and a necessary diversion from them through the intensities of an archival experience. ‘Experience’ is a necessary and inevitable operative dimension of the ‘turn’ in different modes of research. In effect, the exhibition has acted as a force field of exchanges between archival experiences and modes of making. As a site for the dissemination of thinking activity the exhibition environment may be conceived as the necessary container for enabling the turn of the turn in the staging of a thought position.

However, with an ever growing wealth of discourses on the intersections between practice-led research and archival engagement, there is a certain distraction from sculpture itself as a medium with its own historic and aesthetic histories. Opening the door to critique with a willingness to scrutinise the norms and conventions of existing and established practices of thinking and doing is, in this context, a way of gaining deeper insights into the experiences of encountering archival material about the practices of making sculpture and/or to examine sculptural objects as documentary records in and of themselves.

In April 2014, I organised and chaired a panel entitled ‘Archival Interventions in Sculpture’ for the annual Association of Art Historians conference at the Royal College of Art. Bringing together art historians, archivists, curators and sculptors, the panel explored the role of the archive in sculptural practice and examined how works of sculpture are in and of themselves archival (AAH, 2014). Some of the papers presented at this conference now feature as essays in the Henry Moore Institute Essays on Sculpture series, issue no 73, entitled ‘Active Archives’. As part of this publication, I wrote a short piece which drew attention to different sculpture archives and what, as resources, they can offer to the study and exploration of sculpture. My primary focus lay in firstly, addressing how archival resources can disclose different histories of sculptural thinking and making, which we in turn, can scrutinise and explore, and secondly, how practitioners may use existing archival collections of sculptural materials and artefacts to think with and through the object of sculpture itself as a documentary record. The archives selected for consideration in Thought Positions in Sculpture stem from this written account (Bailey, 2015).

Active Archives

The first archive is the National Life Stories project, Artists’ Lives, which is a part of the British Library’s oral history collection, and runs in association with Tate Library and Archive. It features interviews with British sculptors such as Phyllida Barlow, Anthony Caro, Tony Cragg, Garth Evans, Bruce McLean and Richard Wentworth. The second archive is Tate’s recent development of a Creative Commons licensed online platform of artists’ archives of sketchbooks and photographic records. It forms part of a major digitisation project called Transforming Tate Britain: Archives and Access, which now has over 52,000 archival items published online. The third archival resource is the Henry Moore Institute which houses a sculpture archive and which maintains, in collaboration with Leeds City Art Gallery, a sculpture collection, some works of which have been loaned as part of this exhibition, including pieces from Henry Charles Fehr, Kenneth Armitage and Geoffrey Clarke.

Image right: Henry Moore Institute, 40pp, 228mm x 168mm, 19 illustrations (15 colour), ISSN 2047-2471, ISBN 978-1-905462-50-6, 2015.

Many of the contemporary works in Thought Positions in Sculpture have explored one or more of these archival resources, whilst others have worked with the archive as an expanded term to be found on Google, within the landscape and inside specific museum and gallery contexts. Each thought position on this website presents an experience shaped out of different approaches to working with archival material.

In the context of the exhibition environment itself what these ‘objects’ embody is always already in relation to a prior referential encounter in the archive and how they operate in relation to each other provides a space for the juxtaposition of ideas. This is not quite the context to consider research-curation in full nor to fully explicate the notion of ideas-led/ideas-laid curation1. But, it is necessary to signpost the curatorial turn – in the spirit of turning – and to emphasise that exhibitions as spaces for experimentation are now a well-known feature of the legacy of the curator-as-artist and the artist-as-curator. Harald Szeeman’s 1969 ground-breaking exhibition When Attitudes Become Form: works, concepts, processes, situations, information and in particular, the expanded field of curation and its different modes of public experimentation cannot go unnoticed within the field of contemporary art practices.The exhibition environment for Thought Positions in Sculpture, however, sits inside perimeters which are institutionally framed by the contexts of higher education and the public museums and galleries sector. The exhibition has staged a context for research into sculptural thinking with and through the archival encounter. Primarily, it is the material manifestations of thought positions in sculptural form that provide this condition of research possibility.

Therefore, the co-correspondences between the work on display in the exhibition environment and the narrative explications formed by the contemporary practitioners featured on this website has necessarily paid attention to the histories of sculptural making that have come before. The site of historic and aesthetic determinants is never more present than in one’s attempts to access the past from the cultural conditions of the present. This has involved thinking about the sculptural as a necessary object of investigation. The sculptural does not necessarily reside within sculpture per se. It is an oblique formation – where dedication to something resides in the efforts undertaken to examine a practice or object – in many spaces, places, iterations and formations. So whereas some practitioners have acknowledged the work of others as important sources of influence for thinking through shape, space, time, dimension, motion and materiality, others refer to and interpret the wider historical and cultural contexts within which allusions to sculptural forms may appear. All of these engagements are oblique registers, because as modes of thinking, they are necessarily evocations of how practice is a research process in and of itself.

1There are many insightful sources on this topic. See in particular Kaniari and Wallace, 2009 and Kaniari, 2014.

Re-thinking the Thought Position

Within the context of creative practice, how research – as a process and material outcome – manifests itself in different modes and forms of sculptural activity has been underpinned by an idea of thinking-through-making. This enacts the premises of practice-led/practice-based enquiries (see Barrett and Bolt, 2010 and 2012). Research into the sculptural both relies upon the historic and aesthetic determinants of what has come before – within the wider remit of sculpture as an art historical legacy, set of artistic practices and/or cultural forms – and interpretation and engagement with the resources and sources of a given avenue of investigation – the sculptural thinking in, with and through the archive as a site where these historic and aesthetic determinants may be found.

Thought Positions in Sculpture thus seeks to engage with archival materials as the focal point for practice-led thinking and doing and its experimentation lies in the transmission of meaning through making, where the researcher is able to engage in self-reflexive thinking about the objects and materials under their investigation. It is necessary, therefore, to firstly address how this approach to research might operate in and through an exhibition platform and for what purpose?

A triangulation – an abstract formation of the complexities at hand – serves to help establish the goals of the research itself:


These three interconnected points form the framework for this project: the archive as the site of history, the practice-led strategies and approaches deployed to draw upon and interpret archival content and the thought positions formed in response. This triangle demarcates a field where thinking can potentially take shape in and through creative practice.

Triangulations operate at the site of most research activities. Intersecting approaches within the framework of history, practice and theory meet within a triangle to help constitute the questions of research. The defining criteria for such a framework shifts according to different bodies of practice, methods of interrogation and making, interpretation and critical reflection. The approaches that emerge through the thinking process necessarily rely on the ways in which material, spatial and visual practices generate different outcomes. Research practice thus operates and negotiates a demarcated field of points – history, practice, theory – but understands that these terms are culturally loaded and subject to scrutiny through the modes of thinking activity. The challenge lies in the articulation of this activity in an exhibition environment and how this can illuminate a body of practices in new ways.  

According to John Rachman in ‘Art as a Thinking Process: New Reflections’:

[…] vital to the process of thinking in art, and in its forms of research, is something raw and wild, given by things one cannot quite identify or see or say, creating a kind of blindness or muteness combined with a sense of an inchoate necessity that causes or forces one to think – or rethink – often opening up in the process new unanticipated relations with others.

(Rachman, 2013: 196)

It is this possibility that makes the creative act a process that does not necessarily set out to achieve a set of prescribed objectives. Furthermore, this process of thinking generates a capacity to forge relations with other objects of investigation and other audiences. It does not simply reside within the experience of the artist-researcher. How we position ourselves in relation to this otherness, and indeed, how others are positioned by this experience, plays an important role in the exhibition environment. Rachman’s account of the thinking process in art resonates with what Mika Hannula, Juha Suoranta and Tere Vadén describe as the ‘democracy of experiences’ or ‘experiential democracy’ (Hannula, Suoranta and Vadén, 2005). In their book Artistic Research. Theories, Methods, Practices, they account for a necessary circularity for artistic research which follows a line of hermeneutical enquiry. This is focused on the idea of the ‘continuum of experience’ where self-reflexive examination of the conditions of encounter are opened up to further scrutiny. This allows for the ethical dimension of hermeneutical research to be registered and understood in the context of artistic research activity. Their account provides an insight into the thinking and re-thinking borne out of the ‘inchoate necessity’ Rachman describes is part of the ‘process of thinking in art’:

The continuum of experience has to be approached in a way that is thoroughly hermeneutical: in practice-based research experience looks at experience and thereby produces new experience. This is the basic assumption underlying something like experiential democracy. In research, experience looks at itself in a circular way, thereby also reorganising itself

(Hannula, Suoranta and Vadén, 2005: 44)

There is always a necessary epistemological bias in artistic research – the subjectivities of experience and the intersubjective relations they give rise to, is part of the multi-relational exchanges generated between practice and context. However, this bias can only be arrived at through the circularity of experience. We may start out from a set of given interpretations – historic and aesthetic determinants, let’s say – knowing that this is the start of thinking through of what has come before: an examination of a given object of investigation in context. These interpretations require different cogitating modes: the search for understanding, close observation and analysis, reflection and questioning. But how these modes of thinking operate in and through pre-existing determinants – at the level of practice itself – necessarily opens the field out to multi-directional approaches, and this allows for an ‘ideal of openness between theory and practice’ to be critically staged. Hannula, Suoranta and Vadén describe this condition in the following way:

Criticality in the context of the democracy of experiences means specifically: i) multi-directionality, ii) lack of ultimate foundations, and iii) admitting circularity and, therefore, also the ethical nature of the interpretation. […] Admitting circularity corresponds with the fact that in artistic research one must also tell others about the meaning of the presented information with regards to skills and artistic practices as well as their individual and social connections. This interaction between the research and research object forms the ethical dimension of the research

(Hannula, Suoranta and Vadén, 2013: 59-60)

This account adequately describes the function of the triangle at the core of Thought Positions in Sculpture. To reiterate the goals of the research, but this time taking on board ‘criticality in the context of the democracy of experiences’:

Triangulation 2

In effect, the formation of a position is always already open to adaptation and change through the co-relational exchanges shaped between others. The practice and the context are in circulation: ‘an inquiry is not only positioned as part of a tradition, but also points to new intersubjectively accessible experiences and their conceptualisations’ (Hannula, Suoranta and Vadén, 2005: 32). As positions – standing grounds for thinking – the works on display act as propositions: outward facing material manifestations activated through different modes of sculptural thinking. A position can act as a standing stone for the ways in which we may choose to think with and through the sculptural qualities of matter, form and process, but to cogitate on these means to activate the dormant: to start up, lift off and set thinking into motion.

Figures 5 and 6

Concepts-in-the-making - narratives of experience

Figures 10 and 11

The works on display in Thought Positions in Sculpture bring the features of archival content alive in, with and through the production of new form positions. These positions are activated through the processes of making. Whether through assemblage, serialisation, weight and balance, physical movement, digital data capture, sound and listening, critical self-reflection, observation and displacement, they articulate a relationship to archival content. This might be the historical backdrop to the formation of a work of sculpture, to the documentary records and sketchbooks that reveal the features of a mode of sculptural making, the archival site where an experience is retrieved, or a reflection on the specific processes of archiving itself as a methodology for producing insights into the displacements of order and serialisation. As modes of cognitive understanding they serve as the precondition for a specific knowledge process which takes on sculpture as its referential register. But, these relations are differential and provide the exhibition with multi-directional approaches to the tangential, peripheral and sometimes unanticipated features of the making process. They are concepts-in-the-making. As a turn of phrase used by Erin Manning, concepts-in-the-making is an indispensable part of the creative process. It is also in operation through the framework of ‘research-creation’, a term used in academic circles in Canada.

Figure 12

SenseLab, Montreal – founded by Erin Manning in 2004 – has, with a partnership grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, extended its network out to ‘to 12 universities and 20 community arts partners in North America, Europe, and Australia, as well as informally connecting to a constellation of other groupings’ (SenseLab, 2015). For Manning, this research centre/lab ‘was borne out of a desire to build a supportive environment conducive to new modes of encounter and expression’ with the position that ‘concepts are never pre-programmed. Rather, they are experimental effects of an on-going process which emerge in the doing, and merge with making’ (SenseLab, 2015). The context of research-creation thus provides an opening for a consideration of sculptural thinking as that which engages ‘in the process of thinking by doing, always with the understanding that concepts are made in and through the event’ (SenseLab, 2015). In this respect, the concepts that have emerged in, through and out of the project Thought Positions in Sculpture have provided opportunities for further consideration of the complexities involved in the skills and practices of the thinking process. As singularities of experience the narratives on this website are reflections a posteriori – after the event. But it is only through the immanence of thought-in-the-making that has made them possible. In ‘Creative Propositions for Thought in Motion’ Manning writes:

Concepts are aspects of a creative process already active in the imminence of thought that can force the work to take form. Moving beyond fixed meaning, concepts gather and articulate the intensity that transduces the creative process from work to world.

To work with a concept is to explore what makes the work work.

(Manning, 2008: 11)

Figures 13 and 14

The democracies of experience - hoorah for creative commons!

Thought Positions in Sculpture has been working within the contexts of the archive, and in particular, archives that contain and store the objects and documents of sculptural practice. As cultural institutions these archive sites have the potential to generate new democracies of experience. I am pluralising democracies here rather than experience because modes and avenues of access to information are shaped and formed by the institutional spaces that host and contain the objects and materials of potential knowledge. And this pluralising potential, I would argue, is at the heart of public access to and engagement with archives, particularly within the context of creative commons licensing.

Creative Commons was founded in 2001 by Lawrence Lessig, Hal Abelson and Eric Aldred. With support from the Center for the Public Domain and a founding management team, which included Aaron Swartz, the first set of creative commons copyrights were released in December 2002. There are now over 880 million works licensed under creative commons licenses and the Open Access Movement has broadened its scope to include the Open Educational Movement and the Free Culture Movement in particular. These cultural shifts are significant for creating new opportunities for public access to resources for learning and research. That is why Tate’s Heritage Lottery Funded project Transforming Tate Britain: Archives and Access has potential scope for generating new kinds of experiences with art in and through the digitisation of archival documents – experiences that perhaps operate within and beyond the gallery context. Polly Christie, Project Manager for Transforming Tate Britain writes:

[…] we are exposing a wealth of unpublished, hidden stories, narratives and histories to a global audience for the first time. This enables Britain’s artistic heritage to be explored in new ways, and in so doing, exposes the potential and power that archives possess. We will work with partners across 5 regions of the UK, not only to test, embed and work with our new content and tools, but to look at, digitise and expose their own archives, enabling local communities to access, explore and appropriate them for themselves, and use them as a tool to explore their own cultural heritage. So alongside looking at Britain’s artistic heritage, other themes like public health, adult literacy and urban regeneration will be explored through the medium of community archives around the UK

(Christie, 2013)1

This project has sought to foster new cultural democracies of experience where the online digital platform provides an opening for community engagement with artistic heritage at a localised level. In effect, co-relational exchanges between artistic research and archival experiences are actively encouraged and enabled by this platform, but which also make cultural place-making possible. 

This, I would also argue, is another way of thinking about ‘democratic public engagement’, a term used recently by Montague, Powell and Swindells to describe the wider ambitions and complexities of cultural place-making in Huddersfield. In ‘Exploring Place and Public Memory: Huddersfield and the Regional North’ (2015), they discuss the multitude of different viewpoints and perspectives that may inevitably arise when local people are asked to consider how they might relate to culture. Similar to the account I have provided in the context of artistic research – of the multi-directional approaches in operation at the site of any prominent interpretation – what forms might these responses take, when different communities are confronted with a set of historic and aesthetic determinants?

According to Gilles Deleuze in The Logic of Sense:

Aesthetics suffers from a wrenching duality. On the one hand, it designates the theory of art as the reflection of real experience. For these two meanings to be tied together, the conditions of experience in general must become conditions of real experience; in this sense, the work of art would really appear as experimentation.

(Deleuze, 1990: 260)

This has been part of this project’s consideration of public engagement and how it might be facilitated within a gallery environment. As previously articulated, the works on display have served as the starting point for research and as objects within an exhibition are embodiments of a complex sculptural thinking process. In this respect they are works which – as experimentations in sculptural thinking – negotiate theory and context.

As a process therefore, sculptural thinking involves not only the gathering and use of material, ideas, concepts and technologies, but also collaborations with others. The mind is an archival resource of its own, where, over time it takes on specific patterns of retrieval – determinants – derived from the accumulation of lived experiences. These patterns can often fix the fluidity of free thinking as a potential. The ridge lines of our neural pathways can stubbornly resist the imagination’s desire to detour, deflect and divert the course we are on. As the philosopher Martin Heidegger puts it in his lectures ‘What Calls for Thinking’, first delivered at Freiburg University in 1951 and 1952, poets and the act of poieisis (making), provides us with an elusive kind of thinking, whose object steadily withdraws, with its own movement and direction. Attending to the ‘gathering of thought’ (Heidegger, 1993: 367) is crucial because, as another philosopher Jacques Derrida remarks in his very close reading of Heidegger’s words, it reveals how ‘thinking is what we already know we have not yet begun’ (Derrida, 1997: 93).

In this respect, there is a difference between being positioned and working towards arriving at a position, just as there is a difference between thought and thinking. As objects of investigation they are hard to grasp. But, the abilities of our own cognitive experiences, which we know, are creative acts in themselves, have the potential to form ideas and allow them to take shape in the world to be shared with others. As John Dewey, the educational reformer, explains in Experience and Nature (1925) and Art as Experience (1934):

Thinking is pre-eminently an art; knowledge and propositions which are the products of thinking, are works of art […] art is the most direct and complete manifestation there is of experience as experience.

(Dewey, 2008a: 28 and Dewey, 2008b: 301)

In the mind of received histories of know-how and their retrieval is also a recovery of the field of experiences in sculptural terms. This relies on giving shape to a moment of archival retrieval in the mind. Thus encounters with the sculptural – as a vehicle of and for new experiences – helps to coordinate the place of the thought position within the field of visitor reception. The thinking activity of the visitor, whose negotiation through an archive site of sculptural forms and responses, has the capacity to register the resonances of an encounter with the archival referent. Looking activates – through the mind’s creative play – new juxtapositions of shape and meaning in oblique form. Here, it is not the total form which takes precedence, but the sculptural particularities of a process which the spectator has to negotiate through their own democracy of experience.

Figures 15-17 Figures 18-20 Figures 21-23

1The partners are located in South Wales, Liverpool and Merseyside, Tyne & Wear, Margate and Greater London.

The self-generating Twitterbot

A final thought in regard to open access and dissemination. As part of the activities accompanying the exhibition, Rob Lycett, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Art and Communication at the University of Huddersfield, has curated his own Twitterbot of responses to the underlying themes, responses, and areas of exploration in Thought Positions in Sculpture. A Twitterbot programme is used to generate tweets at regular periods. Lycett has developed a coding system where words relating to the show are put-into-relation with each other to randomly generate concrete poetic forms every hour. These are tweeted out into the ether and have been in circulation since October 2015. To date – 11 January 2016 – over 2,162 thought positions have been posted through Sculptural Thinking (@thought position). As self-generating thought positions they are, necessarily, oblique registrations of the very ‘gathering of thought’. I would like to end my own thought position with some examples that seem to resonate with my own experience of the exhibition project:

Twitter 1-3 Twitter 4-6

Sculptural Thinking (@thoughtposition) (2015) #thoughtposition. Retrieved from:


Bailey, R. (April 2014) Archival Interventions in Sculpture [conference panel]. In. Art Historians Association Annual Conference at the Royal College of Art, London.

Bailey, R. and Power, J. (2014) ‘Editorial for ‘Re-writing the Archive’. Journal of Writing in Creative Practice. Vol.7, Issue 3: 353-358.

Bailey, R. (2015) ‘Archival Interventions in Sculpture’ In. Active Archives. Henry Moore Institute: Essays on Sculpture series. Published by Henry Moore Foundation.

Barrett, E. and Bolt, B. (eds.) (2010) Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Research Enquiry. London: I. B. Tauris.

Barrett, E. and Bolt, B. (eds.) (2012) Carnal Knowledge: Towards a New Materialism through the Arts. London: I. B. Tauris.

Christie, P. (2013) ‘Archives & Access project: An introduction’. 8 May. Retrieved from:

Deleuze, G. (1990) The Logic of Sense. trans. Mark Lester, ed. Constantin B. Boundas. New York: Columbia University Press.

Derrida, J. (1997 – corrected version) Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore; Maryland: John Hopkins University Press).

Dewey, J. (2008a) The Later Works of John Dewey. Vol. 1:1925, Experience and Nature, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dewey. J. (2008b) The Later Works of John Dewey, Vol. 10:1934, Art as Experience, ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Foster, H. (2004) ‘An Archival Impulse’, October. 110: Autumn: 3-22.

Hannula, Suoranta and Vadén, (2005) Artistic Research. Theories, Methods, Practices. Gothenberg; Helsinki, Finland: University of Gothenberg/Art Monitor/Academy of Fine Arts.

Heidegger, M. (1993) ‘What Calls for Thinking’ In. Basic Writings. Trans. David Farrell Krell. London: Routledge.

Kaniari, A. and Wallace, M. (eds.) (2009) Acts of Seeing – Artists and Scientists and the History of the Visual: a volume dedicated to Martin Kemp. Zidane Press.

Kaniari, A. (2014) ‘Curatorial Style and Art Historical Thinking: Exhibitions as Objects of Knowledge’. Procedia: Journal of Social and Behavorial Sciences. Vol. 147: 446-452.

Merewether, C. (ed.) (2006) The Archive. Whitechapel Gallery - Documents of Contemporary Art. London: Whitechapel.

Montague, L., Powell, A., and Swindells, S. (2015) ‘Exploring Place and Public Memory: Huddersfield and the Regional North’ CONTEMPPHOTO 15: International Visual Culture and Contemporary Photography Conference [conference paper].

Rachman, J. (2013) ‘Art as a Thinking Process: New Reflections’ In. Art as a Thinking Process: Visual Forms of Knowledge Production. Berlin: Sternberg Press: 194-205.

Manning, E. (2008) ‘Creative Propositions for Thought in Motion’ In. How is Research-Creation. Journal Inflexions May. 1.1. Retrieved from:

SenseLab, (2015) ‘About: The SenseLab is a Laboratory for Thought in Motion’. Retrieved from:

Swindells, S., & Powell, A. (2014). What is to be done?: Cultural Leadership and Public Engagement in Art and Design Education. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Tate (2015) The Archival Impulse Study Day audio recordings. 09 January. Retrieved from:

Vaknin, K., Karyn Stuckey, K. and Lane, V. (2012) All This Stuff: Archiving the Artist. Faringdon: Libri Publishing.