Thinking Through Art The Social Body Min
Thinking
through
Art:
the
Social
Body
Mind
Maps
‘We
are
led
to
believe
that
problems
are
given
ready-‐made,
and
that
they
disappear
in
the
response
or
the
solution…We
are
led
to
believe
that
the
activity
of
thinking,
along
with
truth
and
falsehood
in
relation
to
that
activity,
begins
only
with
the
search
for
solutions
…
According
to
this
infantile
prejudice,
the
master
sets
a
problem,
our
task
is
to
solve
it,
and
the
result
is
accredited
true
or
false
by
a
powerful
authority…
As
if
we
would
not
remain
slaves
so
long
as
we
do
not
control
the
problems
themselves,
so
long
as
we
do
not
possess
a
right
to
the
problems,
to
a
participation
in
and
management
of
the
problems.’
(Deleuze,
1994:
158)
‘I’m
not
so
interested
in
single
things;
I
like
the
collision
between
things.
I’m
not
so
interested
in
straight
lines
of
thought;
I
prefer
collisions
of
different
lines
of
thought.
That
strikes
me
as
a
more
“social”
mode
of
construction,
less
the
product
of
a
unitary
voice.’
(Kelley,
2006:
361)
What
is
thinking
in
art?
The
exclusion
of
Art
&
Design
from
the
Ebacc,
with
the
detrimental
effects
that
have
followed
(diminution
of
art
classes,
less
resourcing,
etc.)
is
a
stark
indication
of
its
perceived
lower
status
as
a
curriculum
subject.
Whilst
art,
along
with
other
creative
subjects
such
as
music
and
drama,
may
be
praised
for
nurturing
talent,
developing
technical
and
aesthetic
skills,
and
enabling
self-‐
expression,
it
is
clearly
not
seen
as
educationally
equal
to
the
supposedly
more
academic
subjects
that
make
up
the
Ebacc
(Maths,
English,
Foreign
Language,
History,
Geography
and
the
Sciences).
Such
a
view,
I
would
claim,
has
at
least
something
to
do
with
prejudices
(rather
than
realities)
as
to
what
thinking
is
in
education
–
namely,
thinking
understood
as
an
assimilation
of
pre-‐
established
knowledge
‘rediscovered’,
remembered
or
perfected
by
the
learner,
often
in
the
form
of
solutions
to
problems
posed
by
an
external
authority
(teacher,
exam
board).
Defending
art
education
in
terms
of
intuitive
as
opposed
to
conceptual
learning
simply
reinforces
the
dualism
between
art
and
other
Ebacc
subjects,
and
does
little
to
counter
the
view
of
thinking
as
problem
solving.
In
fact
it
strengthens
the
conviction
that
assessment
is
key
to
learning,
requiring
art
to
have
clear,
commonly
applicable,
pre-‐set
criteria
according
to
which
we
can
reflect
upon
work
done
and
measure
progress.
Here
I
would
like
to
make
the
case
for
art
as
a
form
of
rigorous
thinking,
one
where
intuitive
and
cognitive
processes
cannot
be
opposed,
any
more
than
reflection
should
be
separated
from
production,
for
example
in
the
form
of
‘self-‐evaluation’.
I
will
do
this
through
the
example
of
a
workshop-‐based
diagrammatic
tool
I
have
called
the
Social
Body
Mind
Map
(SBMM)
–
something
I
have
used
with
A-‐Level,
Foundation
and
MA
level
art
students.
Through
this
creative
thinking
tool,
I
hope
to
show
the
profound
capacity
art
has
to
open
up
different
ways
in
which
we,
as
desiring
individuals,
connect
to,
and
are
caught
up
in,
intricate
social
networks
of
influence
and
possibility.
Key
to
this
capacity
is
a
necessary
shift
away
from
the
idea
of
a
‘self’
as
a
pre-‐established
identity
from
where
artworks
spring
(whether
from
a
brain,
innate
talent,
personality,
cultural
background,
etc.),
and
away
from
artistic
projects
that
serve
to
reinforce
already
known
identities
by
steering
expression
and
personal
interest
back
to
a
self.
Genuine
thought
is
never
transparent
to
itself,
and
in
this
sense
it
is
the
artwork,
rather
than
the
artist-‐subject,
which
‘thinks’.
This
conception
moves
thinking
into
unknown
and
unrecognized
territory,
with
the
possibilities
this
offers
for
questioning
and
subjective
transformation.
Gilles
Deleuze
(1994)
calls
this
creative
power
‘the
new’
or
‘difference’,
that
which:
calls
forth
forces
in
thought
which
are
not
the
forces
of
recognition,
today
or
tomorrow,
but
the
powers
of
a
completely
different
model,
from
an
unrecognised
and
unrecognisable
terra
incognita.
(p.136)
Rather
than
simply
recognizing
something
that
already
exists,
thinking
and
learning
is
always
a
question
of
exploration;
of
seeking
to
understand
something
about
our
life
as
a
productive
act
which
alters
both
the
sense
of
what
we
are
capable
of,
and
a
sense
of
how
we
are
part
of
the
world,
with
possibilities
for
articulating
the
problems
that
need
addressing,
rather
than
simply
responding
to
pre-‐set
questions.
The
Social
Body
Mind
Map
Diagrams
are
familiar
tools
in
education,
used
for
both
didactic
and
heuristic
learning.
According
to
John
Cussans
(2012):
Diagrams
–
or
more
generally,
visualizations
of
non-‐apparent
systems,
concepts,
relationships,
processes
and
ideas
–
help
students
to
recognise
and
understand
parallels
and
structural
correlations
between
things
in
the
world;
their
constitutive
natures,
their
internal
structures
and
relationships;
the
systems
of
which
they
form
a
part,
and
the
processes
they
are
involved
with;
as
well
as
their
own
physicality
and
subjectivity;
the
coming-‐into-‐being
of
all
of
these
through
time
and
space;
and
hypothetical
explanations
for
these
becomings.
(p.1)
The
Social
Body
Mind
Map
is
a
diagrammatic
learning
tool
to
enable
critical
reflection
on
previous
or
current
creative
practice,
with
a
view
to
future
work.
Students
draw
a
‘map’,
which
begins
with
an
image
of
an
artwork
or
part
of
an
artwork
(sculpture,
drawing,
film,
etc.)
that
they
have
made,
are
making,
or
are
thinking
about
making.
The
name
itself
can
be
broken
into
separate
combinatory
parts:
the
‘social-‐body’
combination
signals
the
fact
that
the
‘individual’
is
not
a
separate,
indivisible
entity
but
is
always
embedded
within
a
social
reality,
but
that
equally
‘society’
should
not
be
conceived
as
an
abstraction
independent
of
the
actual
bodies
that
make
it
up;
the
‘body-‐mind’
combination
signals
that
ideas
do
not
spring
ready-‐formed
from
the
mind,
but
are
the
effect
of
distinctly
bodily
and
affective
processes
–
sensations,
emotions,
desires,
and
so
on,
even
though
ideas
and
artworks
cannot
be
reduced
to
these
processes.
‘Mind-‐map’
is
meant
to
give
the
exercise
a
familiarity
for
students,
who
have
usually
done
mind
mapping,
brain
storming
and
spider
diagram
exercises
in
classroom
situations.
The
big
difference
between
these
exercises
and
the
SBMM
is
that
the
latter
begins
not
with
a
named
topic,
concept,
or
person
(‘me’),
around
which
a
map
or
diagram
forms,
but
from
an
‘unknown’,
‘alien’
object,
which
resists
articulation
through
words.
This
mysterious
thing
is
the
student’s
artwork.
This
may
seem
odd
–
surely
a
student’s
work
is
something
very
well
known
and
recognized,
after
all
they
have
made
it
themselves,
and
are
subjectively
invested
in
it
in
all
kinds
of
ways
which
speak
of
agency,
interests,
pride,
or
even
feelings
attached
to
something
done
under
compulsion.
However
everything
in
this
exercise
depends
on
the
student’s
‘alienation’
from
their
work,
on
it
becoming
‘estranged’
from
them,
in
order
that
it
can
play
the
role
not
of
reinforcing
an
identity
and
personality,
but
of
opening
the
student
up,
beyond
a
‘self’,
to
the
complex
interrelations
that
affect
their
lives,
and
the
possibilities
they
have
for
creative
invention.
The
artwork
is
seen
here
not
as
a
reflection
of
a
predetermined
subject,
nor
as
an
answer
to
a
pre-‐set
problem
or
exercise,
but
is
rather
generative
of
a
subject,
and
of
thought.
In
drawing
their
map,
this
thinking
occurs
through
the
estranged
artwork
that
is
placed
at
the
centre
of
the
map,
such
that
what
has
been
produced
by
means
of
the
idiosyncratic
energies
of
the
artist
–
the
work
of
each
student
is
singular,
‘different’
from
any
other
student’s
work
on
account
of
the
way
manifold
influencing
factors
are
manifested
–
appears
as
radically
external,
an
effect
of
forces
beyond
the
artist’s
conscious
control.
Workshop:
Part
1
The
workshop
begins
with
a
conceptual
framework
mapped
out
on
the
board,
a
series
of
conditioning
factors
for
the
production
of
art.
This
framework
can
be
thought
of
as
a
cognitive
map,
which
will
open
up
speculation
stemming
from
the
artwork
to
natural
and
social
realities,
and
so
prevent
the
risk
that
reflection
upon
the
artwork
will
result
in
a
repetition
of
what
is
already
known
or
assumed
(deep
set
beliefs,
clichés,
responses
which
students
presumes
may
be
expected,
etc.).
Such
repetition
is
a
danger
of
spider
diagrams
and
mind
maps,
where
a
normative
account
of
a
topic,
issue,
concept
or
human
subject
may
be
reinforced,
rather
than
deconstructed,
through
connections
that
spring
most
readily
to
mind
when
a
word
is
viewed
in
isolation.
Rather
than
a
limitation
on
thinking,
the
conditioning
factors
act
as
a
compass
to
navigate
thinking
towards
the
non-‐immediate
and
‘non-‐apparent
systems,
concepts,
relationships,
processes
and
ideas’
(Cussans
2012)
that
operate
unconsciously
and
abstractly
to
influence
and
affect
our
actions,
ideas
and
creative
endeavours.
Meanwhile,
the
insistence
on
the
mystery
of
the
artwork
(as
imagined
in
its
drawn
representation),
prevents
the
risk
of
determinism
–
that
the
artwork
could
be
fully
explained,
its
meaning
or
origin
re-‐discovered,
in
any
specific
social,
biological
or
psychological
factor
(class,
ethnicity,
family,
memory,
gender,
medical
condition,
etc.).
It
is
precisely
a
clearer
understanding
of
the
effect
of
influences
outside
of
immediate
consciousness
that
turns
the
student’s
artwork
from
something
familiar
to
him
or
her,
into
something
strange
and
unknown.
We
need
the
beginnings
of
a
cognitive
map
to
help
guide
us
towards
terra
incognita.
This
initial
guide,
as
I
have
conceived
it,
consists
of
four
category
headings:
Capacities,
Motivations,
Resources
and
Organisations.
CAPACITIES
MOTIVATIONS
RESOURCES
ORGANISATIONS
Perception
(5
senses)
Will
Materials
School,
College
Imagination
Pleasure
Tools/machines
Galleries/Museums
Conception
Boredom
Space
to
work
Media
Imagination
Inspiration
Teacher/assistant
Shops
Memory
Interest
Friends
Manufacturers
Strength
Instruction
Books,
films,
etc.
Government
Dexterity
(motor)
Deadline/pass
exam
Dreams
Funding
Bodies
Intuition
Friends
Other
art
Auction
Houses
Emotion
For
someone
else
Life
experiences
Job
Centre
The
elaboration
of
the
category
headings
is
an
interactive
group
activity
where
the
overriding
question
is:
‘where
might
an
artwork
come
from?’
‘What
makes
it
possible?’
As
terms
are
listed,
definitions
and
examples
can
be
given
(I
see
your
head,
perceive
it
with
my
eyes,
but
I
can
imagine
your
head
floating
above
your
shoulders,
growing
wings,
etc.),
along
with
elaborations
on
how
they
might
make
possible
the
production
of
art
(because
I
can
perceive
your
head
and
imagine
it
with
wings,
I
can
then
use
my
haptic
abilities
or
dexterity
with
my
hands
to
draw
something
grotesque
or
fantastic
with
a
convincing
likeness).
The
table
above
is
not
meant
to
be
comprehensive,
and
students
should
be
encouraged
to
propose
Capacities,
Resources,
etc.
themselves.
Whilst
it
is
an
aid
to
the
creative
work
the
students
are
about
to
undertake
in
drawing
their
Social
Body
Mind
Maps,
the
students
should
already
be
thinking
about
their
own
artworks
when
proposing
influencing
factors:
the
terms
listed
under
the
category
headings
do
not
pre-‐exist
any
actual
artwork
in
some
ideal
philosophical
space,
and
so
new
terms
(and
even
new
category
headings)
can
always
be
added
if
reflection
upon
how
anyone’s
artwork
came
into
being
justifies
it.
The
point
is,
through
critical
reflection,
to
construct
a
preliminary
cognitive
map
of
multifarious
influencing
factors
that
points
each
student
to
their
own
artwork’s
expanded
reality
beyond
a
‘self’
or
the
immediate
context
of
its
making.
Human
‘Capacities’
seem
to
come
from
nature,
whilst
‘Motivations’
appear
more
psychological,
an
effect
of
both
‘internal’
and
‘external’
factors
(inspiration
after
seeing
an
artist’s
work;
instruction
from
a
teacher).
‘Resources’,
meanwhile,
belong
to
the
world
of
things
or
other
people,
whilst
‘Organisations’
bring
into
the
picture
a
more
abstract,
institutional
reality
belonging
to
a
social
world
beyond
one’s
immediate
environment.
It
is
possible
that
some
terms
appear
in
more
than
one
category:
friends
may
be
the
‘Motivation’
for
taking
a
photograph
of
a
certain
subject;
they
may
also
be
a
human
‘Resource’
(I
may
take
a
photo
of
my
friend
for
my
coursework,
or
they
may
help
me
set
up
the
camera
and
tripod).
‘Resources’
can
include
physical
things
(clay
or
tripods),
physical
space
to
work
(an
art
classroom,
or
studio),
people
(a
teacher
or
classroom
assistant);
but
they
might
also
be
immaterial
–
the
Surrealists
made
use
of
their
dreams,
not
just
for
inspiration,
but
also
for
subject
matter.
‘Resources’
will
also
include
tools,
or
machines
such
as
computers
and
the
things
that
run
on
them
–
software
programmes,
internet
search
engines,
etc.
Such
‘resources’
themselves
must
come
from
somewhere,
and
there
must
be
reasons
for
‘Organisations’
to
supply
or
provide
materials,
tools,
etc.
An
economic
world
of
complex
interdependency
is
opened
up:
the
running
of
the
museum
or
gallery,
where
you
saw
that
painting
which
inspired
your
own
work.
And
so
on.
Workshop:
Part
2
After
the
lists
of
influencing
factors
has
opened
up
a
more
expansive
way
of
thinking
about
an
artwork,
I
then
give
a
demonstration
of
a
Social
Body
Mind
Map
starting
with
a
big
question
mark
in
the
middle
of
the
board,
setting
the
stage
for
the
‘alien’
object
which
is
about
to
inhabit
that
space.
That
question
mark
becomes
a
drawing
of
one
of
my
own
artworks
(a
sculpture),
the
example
for
the
exercise
the
students
are
about
to
do.
(The
sculpture
grows
appendages
which
stretch
out
centrifugally
like
branches
connecting
to
bodily
senses
–
a
hand,
an
eye;
to
the
work
of
an
artist
who
inspired
me;
to
material
from
the
art
supply
shop;
to
the
art
college
which
trained
me;
a
book
from
the
library
which
gave
me
an
idea;
the
exhibition
deadline
which
‘Motivated’
me
to
actually
complete
this
work,
etc.)
Each
student
works
from
a
large
sheet
of
paper,
and
draws
a
sketch
of
an
artwork
(or
part
of
an
artwork),
and
then
makes
connections
to
the
conditioning
factors
which
enabled
and
effected
its
coming
into
being.
The
point
is
to
break
the
immediate
link
between
the
student
and
the
work
and
to
see
the
object
or
image
from
a
new
perspective,
with
‘fresh
eyes’,
as
something
that
we
do
not
recognise.
‘It’s
like
a
detective
story’
one
sixth-‐form
student
said
as
she
began
–
this
is
true,
except
one
where
the
‘crime’
is
less
likely
to
be
solved,
than
new
‘crimes’
committed
(new
problems
posed,
new
questions
generated).
She
drew
an
image
of
a
wardrobe
that
she
had
made
a
painting
of,
and
connected
it
to
a
big
toe
–
the
toe
she
had
painfully
stubbed
against
the
wardrobe
in
the
middle
of
the
night
(a
collision
not
only
with
a
piece
of
furniture,
but
between
what
she
thought
she
‘perceived’
in
the
dark,
and
what
was
actually
there
–
as
her
toe
related
painfully
to
her
brain;
a
collision
which,
consciously
or
unconsciously,
triggered
the
work).
As
reflection
through
art
production
is
a
dialectical
process
of
making
and
articulation
(language
and
concepts
generated
by,
and
generative
of,
making),
it
is
best
to
communicate
with
each
of
the
students
individually
as
they
draw
their
maps.
(Ideally
concentrated
solitary
production
should
not
be
interrupted
at
this
stage
by
general
group
discussion,
which
may
subsume
subjective
difference
under
common
criteria).
What
I
found
with
the
A-‐level
class
in
a
school
is
that
the
students
tended
to
answer
the
question
of
why
they
made
that
particular
artwork
by
saying
things
like
‘it’s
part
of
my
project’,
or
‘sir
said
I
should
do
this’.
In
this
respect
the
purpose
of
the
exercise
is
to
give
agency
back
to
the
students
as
artists,
by
estranging
them
from
their
identity
as
school
pupils
(via
the
mediation
of
the
now
alien
object
or
image).
When
the
work
takes
on
a
life
of
its
own,
detached
from
the
immediate
context
of
schoolwork,
new
possibilities
arise.
Other
interests
and
passions
can
be
drawn
in,
but
rather
than
being
the
originating
idea
or
‘theme’
of
a
project,
the
former
are
discovered
for
the
first
time
through
the
creative-‐interpretive
process
itself,
like
hidden
roots
‘dug
up’
from
beneath
the
ground
(another
student
started
making
connections
between
a
drawing
she
was
working
on
and
the
horror
films
she
was
a
fan
of
–
her
images
revealing
something
their
‘author’
didn’t
know).
As
the
SBMM
is
a
heuristic
tool
to
generate
reflection
through
production,
and
vice
versa,
there
can
be
no
‘wrong’
or
‘bad’
maps,
only
maps
that
are
more
or
less
engaged,
more
or
less
developed.
Talking
through
ideas
with
a
student
as
they
are
drawing
their
maps,
encouraging
interesting
pathways,
and
referring
their
specific
linkages
to
concrete
determining
forces,
enables
more
confidence
in
‘letting
go’,
letting
the
diagrammatic
machine
they
are
constructing
‘think’
for
them.
And
just
as
reflection
shouldn’t
be
separated
from
production,
neither
should
content
be
separated
from
expression.
How
the
various
Capacities,
Motivations,
Resources
and
Organisations
link
up
to
the
artwork
represented
at
the
centre
is
as
much
a
part
of
the
thinking
process
as
the
‘content’
and
the
abstract
mapping
of
its
formal
relations.
One
student
designed
her
map
as
a
tattoo
spreading
outwards
over
the
very
body
that
she
initially
drew
as
a
representative
element
of
her
artwork;
another
(from
a
foundation
workshop)
imagined
her
furry
sculpture
to
be
equipped
with
articulated,
skeletal
arms,
reaching
out
to
different
aspects
of
her
life.
Conclusion
The
Social
Body
Mind
Map
is
not
a
map
of
something
that
pre-‐exists
its
making,
but
the
discovery
or
invention
of
something
new.
The
artwork,
which
forms
the
starting
point
for
the
map,
is
affectively
invested
by
the
student
who
made
it,
and
yet
conceptually
separable
from
them
as
a
self-‐conscious
author.
This
separation
from
the
self,
which
is
simultaneously
a
complex
interconnection
with
others
and
with
the
world,
enables
a
type
of
art
production
that
doesn’t
reinforce
identity,
but
encourages
the
creative
production
of
a
subject.
Production
of
this
kind
is
‘a
more
“social”
mode
of
construction’,
an
effect
of
‘collisions
of
different
lines
of
thought’,
to
quote
the
artist
Mike
Kelley
on
his
preferred
working
process.
Unfortunately,
an
understanding
of
reflection
as
inseparable
from
artistic
production
goes
directly
against
the
current
assessment
culture
that
compels
many
art
teachers
to
constantly
check
‘performance’
against
pre-‐
determined
‘learning
objectives’,
turning
creative
discovery
into
a
recipe
of
sequential
steps
to
success,
rewarding
presentation
over
exploration,
and
making
reflection
a
matter
of
confirmation
–
matching
what
happened
against
what
was
expected
(‘show
that
you
have
understood’).
By
contrast,
the
SBMM
doesn’t
offer
clarity,
in
the
sense
of
assimilated
knowledge
or
universally
applicable
solutions,
but
promises
agency
through
the
invention
and
control
over
problems,
as
we
voyage
further
into
the
unknown.
Bibliography
Cussans,
J.
‘Diagram
as
Thinking
Machine.
Art
as
Metapractice’,
paper
for
DRUGG
(Diagram,
Research,
Use
and
Generation
Group)
Symposium,
UCL
(2012),
available
at:
http://diagramresearch.wordpress.com/symposia/
Deleuze,
G.
Difference
&
Repetition
(1994),
New
York:
Columbia
University
Press.
Kelley,
M.
‘Mike
Kelley
God,
Family,
Fun,
and
Friends:
Mike
Kelley
in
Conversation
with
John
C.
Welchman’
in
Welchman,
J
(ed.)
(2006)
Institutional
Critique
and
After:
Volume
2
of
the
SoCCAS
(Southern
California
Consortium
of
Art
Schools)
Symposia,
Zurich
:
JR/Ringier.
through
Art:
the
Social
Body
Mind
Maps
‘We
are
led
to
believe
that
problems
are
given
ready-‐made,
and
that
they
disappear
in
the
response
or
the
solution…We
are
led
to
believe
that
the
activity
of
thinking,
along
with
truth
and
falsehood
in
relation
to
that
activity,
begins
only
with
the
search
for
solutions
…
According
to
this
infantile
prejudice,
the
master
sets
a
problem,
our
task
is
to
solve
it,
and
the
result
is
accredited
true
or
false
by
a
powerful
authority…
As
if
we
would
not
remain
slaves
so
long
as
we
do
not
control
the
problems
themselves,
so
long
as
we
do
not
possess
a
right
to
the
problems,
to
a
participation
in
and
management
of
the
problems.’
(Deleuze,
1994:
158)
‘I’m
not
so
interested
in
single
things;
I
like
the
collision
between
things.
I’m
not
so
interested
in
straight
lines
of
thought;
I
prefer
collisions
of
different
lines
of
thought.
That
strikes
me
as
a
more
“social”
mode
of
construction,
less
the
product
of
a
unitary
voice.’
(Kelley,
2006:
361)
What
is
thinking
in
art?
The
exclusion
of
Art
&
Design
from
the
Ebacc,
with
the
detrimental
effects
that
have
followed
(diminution
of
art
classes,
less
resourcing,
etc.)
is
a
stark
indication
of
its
perceived
lower
status
as
a
curriculum
subject.
Whilst
art,
along
with
other
creative
subjects
such
as
music
and
drama,
may
be
praised
for
nurturing
talent,
developing
technical
and
aesthetic
skills,
and
enabling
self-‐
expression,
it
is
clearly
not
seen
as
educationally
equal
to
the
supposedly
more
academic
subjects
that
make
up
the
Ebacc
(Maths,
English,
Foreign
Language,
History,
Geography
and
the
Sciences).
Such
a
view,
I
would
claim,
has
at
least
something
to
do
with
prejudices
(rather
than
realities)
as
to
what
thinking
is
in
education
–
namely,
thinking
understood
as
an
assimilation
of
pre-‐
established
knowledge
‘rediscovered’,
remembered
or
perfected
by
the
learner,
often
in
the
form
of
solutions
to
problems
posed
by
an
external
authority
(teacher,
exam
board).
Defending
art
education
in
terms
of
intuitive
as
opposed
to
conceptual
learning
simply
reinforces
the
dualism
between
art
and
other
Ebacc
subjects,
and
does
little
to
counter
the
view
of
thinking
as
problem
solving.
In
fact
it
strengthens
the
conviction
that
assessment
is
key
to
learning,
requiring
art
to
have
clear,
commonly
applicable,
pre-‐set
criteria
according
to
which
we
can
reflect
upon
work
done
and
measure
progress.
Here
I
would
like
to
make
the
case
for
art
as
a
form
of
rigorous
thinking,
one
where
intuitive
and
cognitive
processes
cannot
be
opposed,
any
more
than
reflection
should
be
separated
from
production,
for
example
in
the
form
of
‘self-‐evaluation’.
I
will
do
this
through
the
example
of
a
workshop-‐based
diagrammatic
tool
I
have
called
the
Social
Body
Mind
Map
(SBMM)
–
something
I
have
used
with
A-‐Level,
Foundation
and
MA
level
art
students.
Through
this
creative
thinking
tool,
I
hope
to
show
the
profound
capacity
art
has
to
open
up
different
ways
in
which
we,
as
desiring
individuals,
connect
to,
and
are
caught
up
in,
intricate
social
networks
of
influence
and
possibility.
Key
to
this
capacity
is
a
necessary
shift
away
from
the
idea
of
a
‘self’
as
a
pre-‐established
identity
from
where
artworks
spring
(whether
from
a
brain,
innate
talent,
personality,
cultural
background,
etc.),
and
away
from
artistic
projects
that
serve
to
reinforce
already
known
identities
by
steering
expression
and
personal
interest
back
to
a
self.
Genuine
thought
is
never
transparent
to
itself,
and
in
this
sense
it
is
the
artwork,
rather
than
the
artist-‐subject,
which
‘thinks’.
This
conception
moves
thinking
into
unknown
and
unrecognized
territory,
with
the
possibilities
this
offers
for
questioning
and
subjective
transformation.
Gilles
Deleuze
(1994)
calls
this
creative
power
‘the
new’
or
‘difference’,
that
which:
calls
forth
forces
in
thought
which
are
not
the
forces
of
recognition,
today
or
tomorrow,
but
the
powers
of
a
completely
different
model,
from
an
unrecognised
and
unrecognisable
terra
incognita.
(p.136)
Rather
than
simply
recognizing
something
that
already
exists,
thinking
and
learning
is
always
a
question
of
exploration;
of
seeking
to
understand
something
about
our
life
as
a
productive
act
which
alters
both
the
sense
of
what
we
are
capable
of,
and
a
sense
of
how
we
are
part
of
the
world,
with
possibilities
for
articulating
the
problems
that
need
addressing,
rather
than
simply
responding
to
pre-‐set
questions.
The
Social
Body
Mind
Map
Diagrams
are
familiar
tools
in
education,
used
for
both
didactic
and
heuristic
learning.
According
to
John
Cussans
(2012):
Diagrams
–
or
more
generally,
visualizations
of
non-‐apparent
systems,
concepts,
relationships,
processes
and
ideas
–
help
students
to
recognise
and
understand
parallels
and
structural
correlations
between
things
in
the
world;
their
constitutive
natures,
their
internal
structures
and
relationships;
the
systems
of
which
they
form
a
part,
and
the
processes
they
are
involved
with;
as
well
as
their
own
physicality
and
subjectivity;
the
coming-‐into-‐being
of
all
of
these
through
time
and
space;
and
hypothetical
explanations
for
these
becomings.
(p.1)
The
Social
Body
Mind
Map
is
a
diagrammatic
learning
tool
to
enable
critical
reflection
on
previous
or
current
creative
practice,
with
a
view
to
future
work.
Students
draw
a
‘map’,
which
begins
with
an
image
of
an
artwork
or
part
of
an
artwork
(sculpture,
drawing,
film,
etc.)
that
they
have
made,
are
making,
or
are
thinking
about
making.
The
name
itself
can
be
broken
into
separate
combinatory
parts:
the
‘social-‐body’
combination
signals
the
fact
that
the
‘individual’
is
not
a
separate,
indivisible
entity
but
is
always
embedded
within
a
social
reality,
but
that
equally
‘society’
should
not
be
conceived
as
an
abstraction
independent
of
the
actual
bodies
that
make
it
up;
the
‘body-‐mind’
combination
signals
that
ideas
do
not
spring
ready-‐formed
from
the
mind,
but
are
the
effect
of
distinctly
bodily
and
affective
processes
–
sensations,
emotions,
desires,
and
so
on,
even
though
ideas
and
artworks
cannot
be
reduced
to
these
processes.
‘Mind-‐map’
is
meant
to
give
the
exercise
a
familiarity
for
students,
who
have
usually
done
mind
mapping,
brain
storming
and
spider
diagram
exercises
in
classroom
situations.
The
big
difference
between
these
exercises
and
the
SBMM
is
that
the
latter
begins
not
with
a
named
topic,
concept,
or
person
(‘me’),
around
which
a
map
or
diagram
forms,
but
from
an
‘unknown’,
‘alien’
object,
which
resists
articulation
through
words.
This
mysterious
thing
is
the
student’s
artwork.
This
may
seem
odd
–
surely
a
student’s
work
is
something
very
well
known
and
recognized,
after
all
they
have
made
it
themselves,
and
are
subjectively
invested
in
it
in
all
kinds
of
ways
which
speak
of
agency,
interests,
pride,
or
even
feelings
attached
to
something
done
under
compulsion.
However
everything
in
this
exercise
depends
on
the
student’s
‘alienation’
from
their
work,
on
it
becoming
‘estranged’
from
them,
in
order
that
it
can
play
the
role
not
of
reinforcing
an
identity
and
personality,
but
of
opening
the
student
up,
beyond
a
‘self’,
to
the
complex
interrelations
that
affect
their
lives,
and
the
possibilities
they
have
for
creative
invention.
The
artwork
is
seen
here
not
as
a
reflection
of
a
predetermined
subject,
nor
as
an
answer
to
a
pre-‐set
problem
or
exercise,
but
is
rather
generative
of
a
subject,
and
of
thought.
In
drawing
their
map,
this
thinking
occurs
through
the
estranged
artwork
that
is
placed
at
the
centre
of
the
map,
such
that
what
has
been
produced
by
means
of
the
idiosyncratic
energies
of
the
artist
–
the
work
of
each
student
is
singular,
‘different’
from
any
other
student’s
work
on
account
of
the
way
manifold
influencing
factors
are
manifested
–
appears
as
radically
external,
an
effect
of
forces
beyond
the
artist’s
conscious
control.
Workshop:
Part
1
The
workshop
begins
with
a
conceptual
framework
mapped
out
on
the
board,
a
series
of
conditioning
factors
for
the
production
of
art.
This
framework
can
be
thought
of
as
a
cognitive
map,
which
will
open
up
speculation
stemming
from
the
artwork
to
natural
and
social
realities,
and
so
prevent
the
risk
that
reflection
upon
the
artwork
will
result
in
a
repetition
of
what
is
already
known
or
assumed
(deep
set
beliefs,
clichés,
responses
which
students
presumes
may
be
expected,
etc.).
Such
repetition
is
a
danger
of
spider
diagrams
and
mind
maps,
where
a
normative
account
of
a
topic,
issue,
concept
or
human
subject
may
be
reinforced,
rather
than
deconstructed,
through
connections
that
spring
most
readily
to
mind
when
a
word
is
viewed
in
isolation.
Rather
than
a
limitation
on
thinking,
the
conditioning
factors
act
as
a
compass
to
navigate
thinking
towards
the
non-‐immediate
and
‘non-‐apparent
systems,
concepts,
relationships,
processes
and
ideas’
(Cussans
2012)
that
operate
unconsciously
and
abstractly
to
influence
and
affect
our
actions,
ideas
and
creative
endeavours.
Meanwhile,
the
insistence
on
the
mystery
of
the
artwork
(as
imagined
in
its
drawn
representation),
prevents
the
risk
of
determinism
–
that
the
artwork
could
be
fully
explained,
its
meaning
or
origin
re-‐discovered,
in
any
specific
social,
biological
or
psychological
factor
(class,
ethnicity,
family,
memory,
gender,
medical
condition,
etc.).
It
is
precisely
a
clearer
understanding
of
the
effect
of
influences
outside
of
immediate
consciousness
that
turns
the
student’s
artwork
from
something
familiar
to
him
or
her,
into
something
strange
and
unknown.
We
need
the
beginnings
of
a
cognitive
map
to
help
guide
us
towards
terra
incognita.
This
initial
guide,
as
I
have
conceived
it,
consists
of
four
category
headings:
Capacities,
Motivations,
Resources
and
Organisations.
CAPACITIES
MOTIVATIONS
RESOURCES
ORGANISATIONS
Perception
(5
senses)
Will
Materials
School,
College
Imagination
Pleasure
Tools/machines
Galleries/Museums
Conception
Boredom
Space
to
work
Media
Imagination
Inspiration
Teacher/assistant
Shops
Memory
Interest
Friends
Manufacturers
Strength
Instruction
Books,
films,
etc.
Government
Dexterity
(motor)
Deadline/pass
exam
Dreams
Funding
Bodies
Intuition
Friends
Other
art
Auction
Houses
Emotion
For
someone
else
Life
experiences
Job
Centre
The
elaboration
of
the
category
headings
is
an
interactive
group
activity
where
the
overriding
question
is:
‘where
might
an
artwork
come
from?’
‘What
makes
it
possible?’
As
terms
are
listed,
definitions
and
examples
can
be
given
(I
see
your
head,
perceive
it
with
my
eyes,
but
I
can
imagine
your
head
floating
above
your
shoulders,
growing
wings,
etc.),
along
with
elaborations
on
how
they
might
make
possible
the
production
of
art
(because
I
can
perceive
your
head
and
imagine
it
with
wings,
I
can
then
use
my
haptic
abilities
or
dexterity
with
my
hands
to
draw
something
grotesque
or
fantastic
with
a
convincing
likeness).
The
table
above
is
not
meant
to
be
comprehensive,
and
students
should
be
encouraged
to
propose
Capacities,
Resources,
etc.
themselves.
Whilst
it
is
an
aid
to
the
creative
work
the
students
are
about
to
undertake
in
drawing
their
Social
Body
Mind
Maps,
the
students
should
already
be
thinking
about
their
own
artworks
when
proposing
influencing
factors:
the
terms
listed
under
the
category
headings
do
not
pre-‐exist
any
actual
artwork
in
some
ideal
philosophical
space,
and
so
new
terms
(and
even
new
category
headings)
can
always
be
added
if
reflection
upon
how
anyone’s
artwork
came
into
being
justifies
it.
The
point
is,
through
critical
reflection,
to
construct
a
preliminary
cognitive
map
of
multifarious
influencing
factors
that
points
each
student
to
their
own
artwork’s
expanded
reality
beyond
a
‘self’
or
the
immediate
context
of
its
making.
Human
‘Capacities’
seem
to
come
from
nature,
whilst
‘Motivations’
appear
more
psychological,
an
effect
of
both
‘internal’
and
‘external’
factors
(inspiration
after
seeing
an
artist’s
work;
instruction
from
a
teacher).
‘Resources’,
meanwhile,
belong
to
the
world
of
things
or
other
people,
whilst
‘Organisations’
bring
into
the
picture
a
more
abstract,
institutional
reality
belonging
to
a
social
world
beyond
one’s
immediate
environment.
It
is
possible
that
some
terms
appear
in
more
than
one
category:
friends
may
be
the
‘Motivation’
for
taking
a
photograph
of
a
certain
subject;
they
may
also
be
a
human
‘Resource’
(I
may
take
a
photo
of
my
friend
for
my
coursework,
or
they
may
help
me
set
up
the
camera
and
tripod).
‘Resources’
can
include
physical
things
(clay
or
tripods),
physical
space
to
work
(an
art
classroom,
or
studio),
people
(a
teacher
or
classroom
assistant);
but
they
might
also
be
immaterial
–
the
Surrealists
made
use
of
their
dreams,
not
just
for
inspiration,
but
also
for
subject
matter.
‘Resources’
will
also
include
tools,
or
machines
such
as
computers
and
the
things
that
run
on
them
–
software
programmes,
internet
search
engines,
etc.
Such
‘resources’
themselves
must
come
from
somewhere,
and
there
must
be
reasons
for
‘Organisations’
to
supply
or
provide
materials,
tools,
etc.
An
economic
world
of
complex
interdependency
is
opened
up:
the
running
of
the
museum
or
gallery,
where
you
saw
that
painting
which
inspired
your
own
work.
And
so
on.
Workshop:
Part
2
After
the
lists
of
influencing
factors
has
opened
up
a
more
expansive
way
of
thinking
about
an
artwork,
I
then
give
a
demonstration
of
a
Social
Body
Mind
Map
starting
with
a
big
question
mark
in
the
middle
of
the
board,
setting
the
stage
for
the
‘alien’
object
which
is
about
to
inhabit
that
space.
That
question
mark
becomes
a
drawing
of
one
of
my
own
artworks
(a
sculpture),
the
example
for
the
exercise
the
students
are
about
to
do.
(The
sculpture
grows
appendages
which
stretch
out
centrifugally
like
branches
connecting
to
bodily
senses
–
a
hand,
an
eye;
to
the
work
of
an
artist
who
inspired
me;
to
material
from
the
art
supply
shop;
to
the
art
college
which
trained
me;
a
book
from
the
library
which
gave
me
an
idea;
the
exhibition
deadline
which
‘Motivated’
me
to
actually
complete
this
work,
etc.)
Each
student
works
from
a
large
sheet
of
paper,
and
draws
a
sketch
of
an
artwork
(or
part
of
an
artwork),
and
then
makes
connections
to
the
conditioning
factors
which
enabled
and
effected
its
coming
into
being.
The
point
is
to
break
the
immediate
link
between
the
student
and
the
work
and
to
see
the
object
or
image
from
a
new
perspective,
with
‘fresh
eyes’,
as
something
that
we
do
not
recognise.
‘It’s
like
a
detective
story’
one
sixth-‐form
student
said
as
she
began
–
this
is
true,
except
one
where
the
‘crime’
is
less
likely
to
be
solved,
than
new
‘crimes’
committed
(new
problems
posed,
new
questions
generated).
She
drew
an
image
of
a
wardrobe
that
she
had
made
a
painting
of,
and
connected
it
to
a
big
toe
–
the
toe
she
had
painfully
stubbed
against
the
wardrobe
in
the
middle
of
the
night
(a
collision
not
only
with
a
piece
of
furniture,
but
between
what
she
thought
she
‘perceived’
in
the
dark,
and
what
was
actually
there
–
as
her
toe
related
painfully
to
her
brain;
a
collision
which,
consciously
or
unconsciously,
triggered
the
work).
As
reflection
through
art
production
is
a
dialectical
process
of
making
and
articulation
(language
and
concepts
generated
by,
and
generative
of,
making),
it
is
best
to
communicate
with
each
of
the
students
individually
as
they
draw
their
maps.
(Ideally
concentrated
solitary
production
should
not
be
interrupted
at
this
stage
by
general
group
discussion,
which
may
subsume
subjective
difference
under
common
criteria).
What
I
found
with
the
A-‐level
class
in
a
school
is
that
the
students
tended
to
answer
the
question
of
why
they
made
that
particular
artwork
by
saying
things
like
‘it’s
part
of
my
project’,
or
‘sir
said
I
should
do
this’.
In
this
respect
the
purpose
of
the
exercise
is
to
give
agency
back
to
the
students
as
artists,
by
estranging
them
from
their
identity
as
school
pupils
(via
the
mediation
of
the
now
alien
object
or
image).
When
the
work
takes
on
a
life
of
its
own,
detached
from
the
immediate
context
of
schoolwork,
new
possibilities
arise.
Other
interests
and
passions
can
be
drawn
in,
but
rather
than
being
the
originating
idea
or
‘theme’
of
a
project,
the
former
are
discovered
for
the
first
time
through
the
creative-‐interpretive
process
itself,
like
hidden
roots
‘dug
up’
from
beneath
the
ground
(another
student
started
making
connections
between
a
drawing
she
was
working
on
and
the
horror
films
she
was
a
fan
of
–
her
images
revealing
something
their
‘author’
didn’t
know).
As
the
SBMM
is
a
heuristic
tool
to
generate
reflection
through
production,
and
vice
versa,
there
can
be
no
‘wrong’
or
‘bad’
maps,
only
maps
that
are
more
or
less
engaged,
more
or
less
developed.
Talking
through
ideas
with
a
student
as
they
are
drawing
their
maps,
encouraging
interesting
pathways,
and
referring
their
specific
linkages
to
concrete
determining
forces,
enables
more
confidence
in
‘letting
go’,
letting
the
diagrammatic
machine
they
are
constructing
‘think’
for
them.
And
just
as
reflection
shouldn’t
be
separated
from
production,
neither
should
content
be
separated
from
expression.
How
the
various
Capacities,
Motivations,
Resources
and
Organisations
link
up
to
the
artwork
represented
at
the
centre
is
as
much
a
part
of
the
thinking
process
as
the
‘content’
and
the
abstract
mapping
of
its
formal
relations.
One
student
designed
her
map
as
a
tattoo
spreading
outwards
over
the
very
body
that
she
initially
drew
as
a
representative
element
of
her
artwork;
another
(from
a
foundation
workshop)
imagined
her
furry
sculpture
to
be
equipped
with
articulated,
skeletal
arms,
reaching
out
to
different
aspects
of
her
life.
Conclusion
The
Social
Body
Mind
Map
is
not
a
map
of
something
that
pre-‐exists
its
making,
but
the
discovery
or
invention
of
something
new.
The
artwork,
which
forms
the
starting
point
for
the
map,
is
affectively
invested
by
the
student
who
made
it,
and
yet
conceptually
separable
from
them
as
a
self-‐conscious
author.
This
separation
from
the
self,
which
is
simultaneously
a
complex
interconnection
with
others
and
with
the
world,
enables
a
type
of
art
production
that
doesn’t
reinforce
identity,
but
encourages
the
creative
production
of
a
subject.
Production
of
this
kind
is
‘a
more
“social”
mode
of
construction’,
an
effect
of
‘collisions
of
different
lines
of
thought’,
to
quote
the
artist
Mike
Kelley
on
his
preferred
working
process.
Unfortunately,
an
understanding
of
reflection
as
inseparable
from
artistic
production
goes
directly
against
the
current
assessment
culture
that
compels
many
art
teachers
to
constantly
check
‘performance’
against
pre-‐
determined
‘learning
objectives’,
turning
creative
discovery
into
a
recipe
of
sequential
steps
to
success,
rewarding
presentation
over
exploration,
and
making
reflection
a
matter
of
confirmation
–
matching
what
happened
against
what
was
expected
(‘show
that
you
have
understood’).
By
contrast,
the
SBMM
doesn’t
offer
clarity,
in
the
sense
of
assimilated
knowledge
or
universally
applicable
solutions,
but
promises
agency
through
the
invention
and
control
over
problems,
as
we
voyage
further
into
the
unknown.
Bibliography
Cussans,
J.
‘Diagram
as
Thinking
Machine.
Art
as
Metapractice’,
paper
for
DRUGG
(Diagram,
Research,
Use
and
Generation
Group)
Symposium,
UCL
(2012),
available
at:
http://diagramresearch.wordpress.com/symposia/
Deleuze,
G.
Difference
&
Repetition
(1994),
New
York:
Columbia
University
Press.
Kelley,
M.
‘Mike
Kelley
God,
Family,
Fun,
and
Friends:
Mike
Kelley
in
Conversation
with
John
C.
Welchman’
in
Welchman,
J
(ed.)
(2006)
Institutional
Critique
and
After:
Volume
2
of
the
SoCCAS
(Southern
California
Consortium
of
Art
Schools)
Symposia,
Zurich
:
JR/Ringier.