Geo/Graphic Design

  • Alison BarnesEmail author


Non-representational theory suggests that representations, especially those that are text-based, are incapable of communicating the affective, multisensory experiences of everyday life, privileging the text rather than the experience. However, it is possible to reframe one’s understanding of print to see it as experienced in four dimensions and offering the opportunity to design its material form in a way that prompts memories and triggers affective and emotional responses. This approach to print is illustrated via Barnes’ discussion of a small experimental book, Stuff, that has been developed and designed using a geo/graphic design process. Drawing on theory and practice from cultural geography and graphic design, work of a geo/graphic nature offers the reader an individual, interactive and multisensory experience that reflects contemporary geographic conceptualisations of place.


  1. Barnes, A. (2010). Stuff. Unpublished experimental book.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, A. (2013). Geo/graphic design: The liminal space of the page. Geographical Review, 103, 164–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, A. (2018). Creative representations of place. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, C. P. (2017). Research poetry and the non-representational. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 16, 210–223.Google Scholar
  6. Butz, D. (2011). The bus hub: Editor’s preface. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 10, 278–279.Google Scholar
  7. Carrion, U. (2001). The new art of making books. Nicosea, Cyprus: Aegean Editions.Google Scholar
  8. Cresswell, T. (2013a). Geographic thought: A critical introduction. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Cresswell, T. (2013b). Displacements: Three poems. Geographical Review, 103, 285–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cresswell, T. (2015). Place: An introduction. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Crouch, D. (2010). Flirting with space: Thinking landscape relationally. Cultural Geographies, 17(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, G., & Dwyer, C. (2007). Qualitative methods: Are you enchanted or are you alienated? Progress in Human Geography, 31, 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Leeuw, S. (2015). Skeena. British Columbia, Canada: Caitlin Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dirksmeier, P., & Helbrecht, I. (2008). Time, non-representational theory and the “performative turn”—Towards a new methodology in qualitative social research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9, Article 55.Google Scholar
  15. Eco, U. (1989). The open work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Eshun, G., & Madge, C. (2016). Poetic world-writing in a pluriversal world: A provocation to the creative (re)turn in geography. Social and Cultural Geography, 17, 778–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallagher, M., & Prior, J. (2014). Sonic geographies: Exploring phonographic methods. Progress in Human Geography, 38, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garrett, B. (2011). Videographic geographies: Using digital video for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 35, 521–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hawkins, H. (2012). Geography and art. An expanding field: Site, the body and practice. Progress in Human Geography, 37, 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawkins, H. (2017). Creativity. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hecht, A. (2001). Home sweet home: Tangible memories of an uprooted childhood. In D. Miller (Ed.), Home possessions: Material culture behind closed doors (pp. 123–145). Oxford, UK: Berg.Google Scholar
  22. Hetherington, K. (2003). Spatial textures: Place, touch, and praesentia. Environment and Planning A: Society and Space, 35, 1933–1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: A brief history. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Latham, A. (2003). Research, performance and doing human geography: Some reflections on the diary-photograph, diary-interview method. In P. L. Price & T. S. Oakes (Eds.) (2008). The cultural geography reader (pp. 68–76). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lorimer, H. (2005). Cultural geography: The busyness of being “more-than-representational”. Progress in Human Geography, 29, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lorimer, H. (2008). Poetry and place: The shape of words. Geography, 93, 81–182.Google Scholar
  28. Malpas, M. (2017). Critical design in context: History, theory and practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marks, L. U. (2000). The skin of the film: Intercultural cinema, embodiment, and the senses. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Massey, D. (1994). Space, place and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  31. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Mau, B., & Mermoz, G. (2004). Beyond looking: Towards reading. Baseline, 43, 33–36.Google Scholar
  33. McDermott, L., Boradkar, P., & Zunjarwad, R. (2014, August 13–16). Interdisciplinarity in design education: Benefits and challenges. Proceedings of the IDSA International Conference & Education Symposium. Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  34. Meier, L., Frers, L., & Sigvardsdotter, E. (2013). The importance of absence in the present: Practices of remembrance and the contestation of absences. Cultural Geographies, 20, 423–430.Google Scholar
  35. Mermoz, G. (1995). On typographic reference: Part 1. Emigre, 36, no pagination.Google Scholar
  36. Mermoz, G. (2002, July 9–12). On typographic signification…. Mind the map: Third International Conference on Design History & Design Studies. Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  37. Meskimmon, M. (2003). Women making art. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Meyer, M. (2012). Placing and tracing absence: A material culture of the immaterial. Journal of Material Culture, 17, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morison, S. (1930). First principles of typography. In S. Heller & P. Meggs (Eds.) (2001). Texts on type: Critical writings on typography (pp. 170–177). New York, NY: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  40. Nash, C. (2000). Performativity in practice: Some recent work in cultural geography. Progress in Human Geography, 24(4), 653–664.Google Scholar
  41. Pink, S. (2015). Doing sensory ethnography. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Pollack, S. (2011). The rolling pin. In S. Turkle (Ed.), Evocative objects: Things we think with (pp. 225–231). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Proust, M. (2013). In search of lost time, volume 1: Swann’s way. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Seremetakis, N. (1994). The memory of the senses, part 1: Marks of the transitory. In N. Seremetakis (Ed.), The senses still: Perception and memory as material culture in modernity I (pp. 1–18). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Springer, S. (2017). Earth writing. GeoHumanities, 3, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sutton, D. (2001). Remembrance of repasts: An anthropology of food and memory. London, UK: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Vannini, P. (2015). Non-representational research methodologies: An introduction. In P. Vannini (Ed.), Non-representational methodologies: Re-envisioning research (pp. 1–18). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the Arts LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations