Advertisement

Sensory Impact: Memory, Affect and Sensory Ethnography at Official Memory Sites

  • Shanti SumartojoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter locates the focus of inquiry in the senses, feelings, imaginations, and memories of visitors to memory sites. It discusses how research participants define such places in their own terms, with meanings contextualised by their thoughts and feelings. In doing so, it focuses on what photographs and video make possible in terms of understanding someone else’s experience of a memory site. It argues that the power of such an approach lies in its capacity to bring new knowledge into being that did not exist before, through the visual material created as a result of the encounter between researcher and research participant, and that this material helps carry the experience of the memory site forward into the future as people revisit and consider it.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research underpinning this chapter was supported by a visiting fellowship funded by the Foundation Aix-Marseille University and was conducted in collaboration with Matthew Graves. I also wish to thank all the research participants and the staff at the Camp des Milles, particularly Bernard Mossé, and colleagues Gilles Teulié and Sarah Pink.

References

  1. Anderson, B. (2014). Encountering affect: Capacities, apparatuses, conditions. Ashgate: Farnham.Google Scholar
  2. Crouch, D. (2015). Affect, heritage, feeling. In E. Waterton & S. Watson (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of contemporary heritage research (pp. 177–190). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drozdzewski, D., De Nardi, S., & Waterton, E. (2016a). Geographies of memory, place and identity: Intersections in remembering war and conflict. Geography Compass, 10(11), 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Drozdzewski, D., De Nardi, S., & Waterton, E. (Eds.). (2016b). Memory, place and identity: Commemoration and remembrance of war and conflict. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Edensor, T. (2005a). The ghosts of industrial ruins: Ordering and disordering memory in excessive space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23, 829–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edensor, T. (2005b). Industrial ruins: Space, aesthetics and materiality. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  7. Fors, V. (2013). Teenagers’ multisensory routes for learning in the museum. The Senses and Society, 8(3), 268–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman, L., Nienass, B., & Daniell, R. (2016). Memory, materiality, sensuality. Memory Studies, 9(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gillis, J. (1994). Memory and identity: The history of a relationship. In J. Gillis (Ed.), Commemorations: The politics of national identity (pp. 3–24). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Halilovich, H. (2016). Re-imaging and re-imagining the past after ‘memoricide’: Intimate archives as inscribed memories of the missing. Archival Science, 16, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howes, D. (2014). Introduction to sensory museology. The Senses and Society, 9(3), 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, O. (2011). Geography, memory and non-representational geographies. Geography Compass, 5(12), 875–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, O., & Garde-Hansen, J. (Eds.). (2012). Geography and memory: Explorations in identity, place and becoming. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  15. Lapenta, F. (2011). Some theoretical and methodological view on photo-elicitation. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of visual research methods (pp. 201–213). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Manning, E. (2016). The minor gesture. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muzaini, H. (2015). On the matter of forgetting and ‘memory returns’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40, 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Dell, T., & Willim, R. (2013). Transcription and the senses. The Senses and Society, 8(3), 314–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pink, S. (2013). Engaging the senses in ethnographic practice: Implications and advances. The Senses and Society, 8(3), 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pink, S. (2015). Doing sensory ethnography (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Pink, S. (2017). Technologies, possibilities, emergence and an ethics of responsibility: Refiguring techniques. In E. Gómez-Cruz, S. Sumartojo, & S. Pink (Eds.), Refiguring techniques in digital visual research (pp. 1–11). London: Palgrave Pivot.Google Scholar
  22. Sumartojo, S. (2015). On atmosphere and darkness at Australia’s Anzac day Dawn Service. Visual Communication, 14(2), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sumartojo, S. (2016). Commemorative atmospheres: Memorial sites, collective events and the experience of national identity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(4), 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sumartojo, S. (2017). Tweeting from the past: Commemorating the Anzac Centenary @ABCNews1915. Memory Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698017709873.
  25. Sumartojo, S., & Graves, M. (2018). Rust and dust: Materiality and the feel of memory at Camp des Milles. Journal of Material Culture.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183518769110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sumartojo, S., & Pink, S. (2017). Empathetic visuality: Go-pros and the video trace. In E. Gómez-Cruz, S. Sumartojo, & S. Pink (Eds.), Refiguring techniques in digital-visual research (pp. 39–49). London: Palgrave Pivot.Google Scholar
  27. Turner, J., & Peters, K. (2015). Unlocking the carceral atmospheric: Designing extraordinary encounters at the prison museum. Visual Communication, 14(3), 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Waterton, E., & Dittmer, J. (2014). The museum as assemblage: Bringing forth affect at the Australian war memorial. Museum Management and Curatorship, 29(2), 122–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Witcomb, A. (2013). Understanding the role of affect in producing a critical pedagogy for history museums. Museum Management and Curatorship, 28(3), 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RMITMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations