Micro-Geographies of the Studio

  • Christian EdwardesEmail author


Edwardes provides an account of the creation of a studio in a shared household space. He maps the indeterminate thresholds of the studio through autobiographic accounts of the production of work, alongside three materialist and non-representational examples of theorising the studio. As an artist with an interest in the spaces in which art is made, the temporary annexation of part of a room for the production of a series of works provides a useful point from which to navigate the impositions and intersections of art making. Drawing on different articulations of mediation, intercession, and atmosphere, Edwardes describes the passage of materials and dispositions that cut through experiences of inside and outside.


  1. Agamben, G. (2009). The coming community (M. Hardt, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. (2016). Encountering affect: Capacities, apparatuses, conditions. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B., & Harrison, P. (2010). The promise of non-representational theories. In B. Anderson & P. Harrison (Eds.), Taking-place: Non-representational theories and geography (pp. 1–36). London, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Ash, J. (2016). Theorizing studio space. In I. Farias & A. Wilkie (Eds.), Studio studies: Operations, topologies and displacements (pp. 91–104). London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blunt, A., & Dowling, R. M. (2006). Home. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bolt, B. (2004). Art beyond representation: The performative power of the image. London, UK and New York, NY: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  8. Bourriaud, N. (2003). Topocritique: L’art contemporain et l’investigation géographique. In P. de Tokyo (Ed.), GNS, Global Navigation System: Palais De Tokyo, Site De Création Contemporaine (pp. 9–39). Paris, France: Cercle d’art.Google Scholar
  9. Cieraad, I. (Ed.). (2006). At home: An anthropology of domestic space. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coles, A. (2012). The transdisciplinary studio. Berlin, Germany: Sternberg.Google Scholar
  11. Cresswell, T., & Merriman, P. (Eds.). (2011). Geographies of mobilities: Practices, spaces, subjects. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, J., Bondi, L., & Smith, M. (2007). Introduction: Geography’s ‘Emotional Turn’. In J. Davidson, L. Bondi, & M. Smith (Eds.), Emotional geographies. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Davidts, W., & Paice, K. (2009). Introduction. In W. Davidts & K. Paice (Eds.), The fall of the studio: Artists at work (pp. 2–20). Valiz, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and New York, NY: Antennae.Google Scholar
  14. Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations, 1972-1990. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Douglas, M. (1991). The idea of a home: A kind of space. Social Research, 58, 287–307.Google Scholar
  16. Edwardes, C. (2008a). West [C-type print]. Collection of the artist.Google Scholar
  17. Edwardes, C. (2008b). Nadir [C-type print]. Collection of the artist.Google Scholar
  18. Griffero, T. (2016). Atmospheres: Aesthetics of emotional spaces (S. de Sanctis, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gouma-Peterson, T. (1997). Miriam schapiro: An art of becoming. American Art, 11, 10–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grosz, E. (2008). Chaos, territory, art: Deleuze and the framing of the earth. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Grosz, E. (2013). Habit today: Ravaisson, Bergson, Deleuze and us. Body & Society, 19, 217–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawkins, H. (2014). For creative geographies: Geography, visual arts and the making of worlds. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hennion, A. (1989). An intermediary between production and consumption: The producer of popular music. Science, Technology and Human Values, 14, 400–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hennion, A., & Farìas, I. (2016). For a sociology of maquettes: An interview with Antoine Hennion. In I. Farìas & A. Wilkie (Eds.), Studio studies: Operations, topologies and displacements. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, C. A. (1996). Machine in the studio: Constructing the postwar American artist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kontturi, K.-K. (2013). From double navel to particle-sign: Toward the a-signifying work of painting. In E. Barrett & B. Bolt (Eds.), Carnal knowledge: Towards a ‘new materialism’ through the arts. London, UK and New York, NY: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  27. Kwon, M. (2004). One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lippard, L. R. (1998). The lure of the local: Senses of place in a multicentered society. New York, NY: New Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lorimer, H. (2005). Cultural geography: The busyness of being ‘more-than-representational’. Progress in Human Geography, 29, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Madigan, R., & Munro, M. (1999). The more we are together: Domestic space, gender and privacy. In T. Chapman & J. Hockey (Eds.), Ideal homes? Social change and the experience of the home. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Manning, E., & Massumi, B. (2014). Thought in the act: Passages in the ecology of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  32. Massey, D. B. (2005). For space. London, UK and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Massumi, B. (Ed.). (2002). A shock to thought: Expressions after Deleuze and Guattari. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Massumi, B. (2011). Semblance and event: Activist philosophy and the occurrent arts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. McCormack, D. P. (2008). Geographies for moving bodies: Thinking, dancing, spaces. Geography Compass, 2, 1822–1836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Merriman, P. (2014). Rethinking mobile methods. Mobilities, 9(2), 167–187.Google Scholar
  37. O’Sullivan, S. (2006). Art encounters Deleuze and Guattari: Thought beyond representation. Basingstoke, UK and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Perry, G. (2013). Playing at home: The house in contemporary art. London, UK: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  39. Pollock, G. (1988). Vision and difference: Femininity, feminism, and histories of art. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Reed, C. (Ed.). (1996). Not at home: The suppression of domesticity in modern art and architecture. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  41. Rodriguez, V. (2002). L’atelier et l’exposition: Deux espaces en tension entre l’origine et la diffusion de l’oeuvre. Sociologie et sociétés, 34, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thrift, N. J. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. Abingdon, Oxon and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Winkenweder, B. (2010). The kitchen as art studio: Gender, performance, and domestic aesthetics. In M. J. Jacob & M. Grabner (Eds.), The studio reader: On the space of artists. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wood, N., Duffy, M., & Smith, S. J. (2007). The art of doing (geographies of) music. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25, 867–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arts University BournemouthPooleUK

Personalised recommendations