Progress in Human Geography http://phg.sagepub.

com/

The geographies of cultural geography II: Visual culture

Divya P. Tolia-Kelly Prog Hum Geogr 2012 36: 135 originally published online 28 February 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0309132510393318 The online version of this article can be found at: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/36/1/135

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Progress in Human Geography can be found at: Email Alerts: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 19, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Feb 28, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013

Progress report
Progress in Human Geography 36(1) 135142 The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav 10.1177/0309132510393318 phg.sagepub.com

The geographies of cultural geography II: Visual culture

Divya P. Tolia-Kelly
Durham University, UK

Abstract Geography is a visual discipline and as such holds a complex relationship with visual culture. In the last two decades the collaborations between geographers and artists has grown exponentially. In an era where public impact and engagement are politically encouraged, there is a risk of collapsing the differences between visual culture as a discipline and the visual as an accessible mode of research communication. This paper reviews the ways in which collaborations between geographers and visual artists have taken shape, and argues for a careful and respectful engagement between them. Keywords collaborations, discipline, geography, (geo)politics, public engagement, visual culture

I Geography and visual culture

Geography as a visual discipline has a special relationship with art and visual culture (M. Crang, 2003a; Driver, 2003; Matless, 2003; Rose, 2003; Ryan, 2003). Geography is also responsible for a body of work on visual methodologies (M. Crang, 2010a; Rose, 2007) and a continuing heritage of doing and engaging with imagery well beyond visual analysis (e.g. M. Crang, 2010b; DeSilvey, 2007; Dickens, 2008; Doel and Clarke, 2007; Gilbert, 2009; Morris, 2005; Nayak, 2010; Parr, 2006; Rose, 2004, 2009). Contemporary research collaborations between a visual culture and geography represent almost a new orthodoxy within the discipline. In this, my second report, I outline the geographies of visual culture and art within cultural geography. Included here is my overview of the field and three key reflections. First, I highlight a seemingly neo-visual turn that represents a new disciplinary orthodoxy in its drive towards participatory research, impact and

engagement within the academy. Second, there is a call for the need to be able to differentiate between art and visual culture within the ongoing overlapping work in cultural geography. Finally, I end the review with some thoughts on the (geo)politics of visual culture within current approaches to research. The challenges I highlight are about moving forward from geography as a discipline exploiting its own historical archive; for geography not just to see art as an easy component of the impact agenda; and for geography to celebrate the mutual benefits of cross-pollination of the aesthetics, politics and sites of collaboration, dialogue and exchange (including the page, map, diagram, vision or walk). This review attends to the entanglements and collaborations

Corresponding author: Department of Geography, Durham University, Science Laboratories, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK Email: divya.tolia-kelly@durham.ac.uk

136

Progress in Human Geography 36(1)

that are trans-, inter- and intradisciplinary. Just outside its core focus is the geographical research on individual artists (Bauman, 2007; Fiona et al., 2006; Housefield, 2007; Matless and Cameron, 2007; Peters, 2006; Rycroft, 2005; Vasudevan, 2007; Yusoff and Gabrys, 2006), their identity-practices (Bain, 2004a, 2004b; Macpherson, 2008), and the work on relationships between the body, landscape and art practice (Abrahamsson and Abrahamsson, 2007; Bartram, 2005; Biggs, 2005; Butler, 2006; Cant and Morris, 2006; Parr, 2006).

geography and the discipline has taken an active role in the development of discourse between academia and the public (Pereira, 2009: 29).

III Art for arts sake

One problem I continue to encounter is the problematic use of the term art and the growing need to make a distinction between this and visual culture (Smith et al., 2002). This is not about a geographically informed art history (Rogoff, 2001; Way, 2006), but our disciplines distinction between the academic cultures and practices of art and visual culture. The positioning of art within the discipline has been rooted in the art historical interpretation of 17th-century landscape painting using a cultural materialist politics (Cosgrove, 1984). The defining of art is contested and problematic in both political and philosophical realms. For the purposes of this report, art is defined as that which is produced and determined by the practitioner of art where art is a way of life and vocation. (This has its own problematic in terms of hierarchical differences between high, vernacular, popular, community, fine and performance arts, etc). Visual culture, the discipline, is a dynamic and practically orientated account that can incorporate new modes of visual production, consumption and vocabularies, beyond the art history academy and the proverbial whitecubed gallery. The distinctions that I am advocating are between respecting the integrity of disciplinary art (and practice) and the almost utilitarian role that visual culture plays as part of a methodological process of academic research, be that producing visual material through approaches such as participatory use of photography, videos, film-making, visual art and diagramming, or addressing the visual stuff that always already surrounds people. Geographys engagements are often in three layers: an association with artists or community, the production of art, and the engagement with the public via dissemination through visual texts or an

II Public engagement
The Royal Geographical Society is one site where geographical research collaborations exemplify the new orthodoxy of the visual within the realm of creative public geographies (P. Crang, 2010: 196). Here, two exhibitions entitled Moving Patterns (May 2009) and Hidden Histories of Exploration (December 2009) were held at the RGS exhibition space. In the second, the curators extended the now familiar critique of the Victorian lens in fieldwork to include the evaluation of others who have traditionally been outside the interpretive roles and the exhibitionary spaces of South Kensington (see http://hiddenhistories.rgs.org/ index.php/exhibition/introduction and http:// www.patternpatois.co.uk). This now more inclusive field of vision and situated interpretation has been initiated by the RGS in its exhibitions programme since 2005, led by Vandana Patel. The Crossing Continents: Connecting Communities programme exemplifies a point at which Geographys interface with the public was refigured. Here, the public are no longer passive observers. Instead, they are now redefining (through interpretation) and adding to the collections (Royal Geographical Society with Institute of British Geographers, 2009). This project demonstrates a changing relationship between academic geography and our society academic geography has become personal

Tolia-Kelly

137

exhibition. The proliferation of geographers researching, analysing and indeed producing material through research are often better defined within the realms of visual culture than as art. In these exchanges the visual text and/ or the process of production becomes secondary to the intellectual reflection on what does it do? and to what effect? (M. Crang, 2003b; Horschelmann, 2008; Rose, 2001). Visual methodologies have been designed as an empowering mode of communication beyond writing, talking, mapping and survey (see Alexander et al., 2007; Kindon, 2003; ONeill, 2008; Pain et al., 2007). The visual cultures of geographical research are often a move towards producing research markings that are meaningful as they operate against, beyond and more-than text. However, very few of these formations, productions and practices are located within art rather than visual culture. The difference is marked and thus deserves distinction (see Sava and Nuutinen, 2003; van Alphen, 2005). In light of this problem, I will employ the term visual culture to encompass research forays towards the production of paintings, drawing, installations, exhibitions, performances and/or indeed collaborations with practitioners. In the last decade there has been a significant increase in the proliferation of collaborations between artists and geographers as well as an expansion in the research that overlaps between these two disciplines focus on visual culture and cultural geographies. The spectrum of work bridging, and engaging, the visual and geographical includes several distinct orientations, including scholarship about architecture as artspace (Kraftl, 2009); the relationship between the visual and material (Bailkin, 2005; Battista et al., 2005; Rose and Tolia-Kelly, 2009); the politics and economies of public art in the urban scene (Chang, 2008; Hall, 2007; Kim, 2007; Markusen, 2006; Mathews, 2008; Molototch and Treskon, 2009; OCallaghan and Linehan, 2007; Pinder, 2005; Sharp, 2007); and in shaping national identities (Berelowitz, 2005; Crang and

Tolia-Kelly, 2010; Doubleday and Mackenzie, 2004; Pollock and Sharp, 2007; ONeill, 2008). Geographers also face an increase in and intensification of critiques of the visual, while the expansion of visual technologies continually extends, refigures and provides newly formed scopic regimes in the everyday. Simultaneously, university funders are bounding towards a culture of impact and public engagement, which is weighted towards the visual realm, thus fuelling the new orthodoxy. This disciplinary expansion has a multifaceted presence in its media forms, role and relationship to geographys methodological practice and aspirations towards policy change, social inclusion, participatory action research, visual practice and public presence of geographical knowledges sometimes within the departmental sites themselves. Cultural economies effectively shape research collaborations. In the case of artists in residence, artists as fellows, or indeed those funded through research grants, the ethics of practice and intention can widely differ, between, and within these collaborating cohorts and are often not funded for the longer term (Foster and Lorimer, 2007: 426). A longer investment would arguably enable a less resource-led set of outcomes, but elicit naturally evolving (longitudinal) grammars, practices and interdisciplinary theory-culture.

IV Geography/visual artists collaborations

Ongoing research relationships between geographers and visual artists are often based on each researcher modestly sticking within their expertise. Sometimes the nature of the collaboration is straightforward: the artists provide visual expertise to assist in dissemination of, augment or indeed communicate the research process and outcomes. Often, very little is about the geographer practising or doing the visual, or indeed the artist taking on the body of work of the geographer. This is often inevitable due to professional

138

Progress in Human Geography 36(1)

passions, funding and time; however, the shape, politics and dialogue of the collaboration is often tacitly shaped by the chemistry between folk rather than a natural synthesis between the grammars of working. Of these numerous relationships, I would like to highlight a few that have distinctly different outcomes and aims. There is a political purpose to visual artist/geographer collaborations within the realms of this new orthodoxy. For Cook et al. (2000), rather than practising an art, their research process raises awareness of the unjust and violent nature of the capitalist system of setting international exchange values for goods without fairness or humanitarian values at their heart: artist means bigger than that. It means we can shape our world!(p. 342). Also aiming to inspire political change, Campbell and Lovells (2009) documentary film critiques Chinese laws which discriminate against internal migrants access to basic human rights. Political projects of other shapes and hues have been ongoing, including my own collaborations with artists Melanie Carvalho and Graham Lowe (Anderson et al., 2001; Tolia-Kelly, 2007, 2008, 2010) aimed to include racial minorities views within cultural representations of landscape. There is also a proliferation of artists turning to cartography as a mode of practice, including Nash and Prendergast, which has led to both written publications and exhibitions (e.g. Nash, 2005). For them, the politics has been about mapping emotion, elevating those seeming non-places on the map to disrupt the grammars of the map form, resulting in the democratization of place and centring feminist ways of seeing the landscape and mapmaking. Nash subsequently led the ambitious project of Landing (2002), a recording of the collaborative process between artists and geographers while they were thinking landscape and the visual. The exhibition, contained in a cabinet, garnered a strange conservativism reflecting the deep gravity of this challenging process of intellectual exchange and production between artist practitioner and

geographer. In contrast, Lovejoy and Hawkins (2010) project output, in the form of an artists notebook, is almost an attempt to expose the midway point of collaboration. Lovejoy and Hawkins argue that they do not seek to sweep away their differences in finding a joint pathway of production; the artwork/note book provokes the engager/viewer/public to create a framework of seeing. The reader works through the visual grammars of Lovejoy and Hawkins exchanges and reflects on the ways of making it meaningful: an innovative, delightful, non-patronizing, nonaffected challenging strategy that remains artful. Foster and Lorimer (2007) describe an organic synthesis between artist and geographer, and note the serendipity of this meeting of creative enthusiasms and skills: it was an exciting process to discover substantially overlapping themes, and then find different ways to articulate and present them in joint-work (p. 426).

V The (geo)politics of visual culture in research

One evolving aspect of geography/visual culture research is where there is a commitment and focus to the politics of visual media. Visual culture in research becomes for some a means to empower voices and peoples, and to make tangible many others in the academy (see Huss, 2008; Kilby, 2004) including history. Many others challenge the moral geographies of producing, seeing, interpreting and experiencing political discourses embedded in the visual world around us. ONeill and Hubbards (2007 2010) Making the connections is a case in point. They set up a regional network to examine the transformative role of arts and culture in fostering integration for asylum seekers and refugees. Visual culture in this research becomes a catalyst for dealing with identity, voice, trauma and political notions of self-determination and civic rights for migrants living in the East Midlands. In modern times, this constituency of British residents that are under surveillance

Tolia-Kelly

139

is an example of the myriad ways in which all of us are exposed to multiple forms of visual scrutiny under the auspices of securitization (see Amoore, 2006, 2009; Amoore and Hall, 2009). Continuing in this geopolitical tradition, Livingstones (2010) research on iconic cartography unravels the promotion of race categories in the map form. Here, the Evolution of Races is traced from early 20th-century accounts to modern-day representations of genetic mapping using mitochondrial DNA. Shifting from static racial visualizations (see also Winlow, 2001, 2006) to the photographic exotic, Campbell (2007) reminds us that the oppressive politics of the camera lens resonate in the imaging of Darfur and post-9/11 visualizations (Campbell and Shapiro, 2007). The realm of visual geopolitics extends into various modes of unpacking geopolitics: cinema (Power and Crampton, 2007); the rhythms of engagement with the micro-geographies of the comic (Dittmer, 2010); the observant practice in geopolitical encounters with sights and spectacles (MacDonald, 2006); and gaming (Shaw and Warf, 2009). The production of art in the map form (see also InIVA, 2010) is a realm of geography where artists are involved. Grayson Perry, in the British Librarys (2010) exhibition Magnificent Maps, challenges the imperial craft of cartography and its masculinist lens in his Map from Nowhere (2008). Perry returns the gaze and offers us a way of seeing that is both artful and craft(y). The final outcome engages visually, intellectually, publically and politically, without being complacent about the history and moral geographies of doing the visual. Being locked into conservative art historical grammars of writing, and performing academic knowledges is exactly what the contemporary visual cultures of cultural geography are not about. However, a careful account and distinction between art and the visual requires retention and reflection, always. Visual cultures looser lexicon of practice, which is perhaps more about pattern, design, impression rather than a self-consciously lived,

artistic expression, is the location of geographys visual research edge. Acknowledgements

A special thank you goes to Mike Crang for his careful support and to Hamzah Muzaini who collated publications for this review.

References
Abrahamsson C and Abrahamsson S (2007) Cultural geographies in practice: In conversation with the body conveniently known as Stelarc. Cultural Geographies 14(2): 293308. Alexander C, Beale N, Kesby M, Kindon S, McMillan J, Pain R, et al. (2007) Participatory diagramming: A critical view from north east England. In: Kindon S, Pain R, and Kesby M (eds) Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. Abingdon: Routledge, 12231. Amoore L (2006) Biometric borders: Governing mobilities in the war on terror. Political Geography 25(3): 336351. Amoore L (2009) Lines of sight: On the visualization of unknown futures. Citizenship Studies 13(1): 1730. Amoore L and Hall A (2009) Taking people apart: Digitized dissection and the body at the border. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27(3): 444464. Anderson P, Carvalho M, and Tolia-Kelly DP (2001) Cultural geographies in practice: Intimate distance: Fantasy islands and English lakes. Ecumene 8(1): 112119. Bailkin J (2005) Indian yellow: Making and breaking the imperial palette. Journal of Material Culture 10(2): 197214. Bain AL (2004a) In/visible geographies: Absence, emergence, presence, and the fine art of identity construction. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 95(4): 419426. Bain AL (2004b) Female artistic identity in place: The studio. Social and Cultural Geography 5(2): 171193. Bartram R (2005) Nature, art and indifference. Cultural Geographies 12(1): 116. Battista K, LaBelle B, Penner B, Pile S, and Rendell J (2005) Exploring an area of outstanding unnatural beauty: A treasure hunt around Kings Cross, London. Cultural Geographies 12(4): 429462. Bauman Z (2007) Liquid arts. Theory, Culture and Society 24(1): 117126.

140
Berelowitz JA (2005) The spaces of home in Chicano and Latino representations of the San Diego-Tijuana borderlands (19682002). Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23(3): 323350. Biggs IA (2005) Towards a polytheistic relationship to landscape: Issues for contemporary art. Landscape Research 30(1): 522. British Library (2010) Magnificent Maps: Power, Propaganda, Art 2010. Exhibition held 30 April to 19 September. Butler T (2006) A walk of art: The potential of the sound walk as practice in cultural geography. Social and Cultural Geography 7(6): 889908. Campbell D (2007) Geopolitics and visuality: Sighting the Darfur conflict. Political Geography 26(3): 357382. Campbell D and Lovell S (2009) Living in the shadows: Chinas internal migrants. Available at: http://vimeo.com/4273757. Campbell D and Shapiro MJ (2007) Securitization, militarization and visual culture in the worlds of post-9/11. Security Dialogue 38(2): 13137. Cant S and Morris NJ (2006) Geographies of art and environment. Social and Cultural Geography 7(5): 857861. Chang TC (2008) Art and soul: Powerful and powerless art in Singapore. Environment and Planning A 40(8): 192143. Cook I et al. (2000) Cultural geographies in practice: Social sculpture and connective aesthetics: Shelley Sacks Exchange Values. Ecumene 7(3): 338343. Cosgrove DE (1984) Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London: Croom Helm. Crang M (2003a) The hair in the gate: Visuality and geographical knowledge. Antipode 35(2): 238243. Crang M (2003b) Qualitative methods: Touchy, feely, look-see? Progress in Human Geography 27(4): 494504. Crang M (2010a) The death of great ships: Photography, politics and waste in the global imaginary. Environment and Planning A 42(5): 10841102. Crang M (2010b) Visual methods and methodologies. In: Delyser D, Herbert S, Aitken S, Crang M, and McDowell L (eds) The Handbook of Qualitative Geography. London: SAGE, 208224. Crang M and Tolia-Kelly D (2010) Nation, race and affect: Senses and sensibilities at National Heritage sites. Environment and Planning A 42(10): 23152331. Crang P (2010) Cultural geography: After a fashion. Cultural Geographies 17(2): 191201.

Progress in Human Geography 36(1)

DeSilvey C (2007) Art and archive: Memory-work on a Montana homestead. Journal of Historical Geography 33(4): 878900. Dickens L (2008) Placing post-graffiti: The journey of the Peckham Rock. Cultural Geographies 15(4): 471494. Dittmer J (2010) Comic book visualities: A methodological manifesto on geography, montage and narration. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35(2): 222236. Doel MA and Clarke DB (2007) Afterimages. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25(5): 890910. Doubleday N and Mackenzie AFD (2004) Reimagining sustainable cultures: Constitutions, land and art. The Canadian Geographer 48(4): 389402. Driver F (2003) On geography as a visual discipline. Antipode 35(2): 227231. Fiona A, Mackenzie D, and Taylor SJ (2006) Claims to place: The public art of Sue Jane Taylor. Gender, Place and Culture 13(6): 605627. Foster K and Lorimer H (2007) Cultural geographies in practice: Some reflections on art-geography as collaboration. Cultural Geographies 14(3): 425432. Gilbert E (2009) Eye-to-eye: Biometrics, biopower and the body politic. In: McDonald F, Dodds K, and Hughes R (eds) Observant States: Geopolitics and Visual Culture. London: IB Tauris, 225246. Hall T (2007) Artful cities. Geography Compass 1(6): 13761392. Horschelmann K (2008) The limits of meaning reflections on the use of visual methods. Poster presentation, RGS-IBG Annual Conference. Housefield J (2007) Sites of time: Organic and geologic time in the art of Robert Smithson and Roxy Paine. Cultural Geographies 14(4): 537561. Huss E (2008) Shifting spaces and lack of spaces: Impoverished Bedouin womens experience of cultural transition through arts-based research. Visual Anthropology 21(1): 5871. InIVA (2010) Whose map is it? Exhibition held at Rivington Place, July. Kilby J (2004) Withdrawn vision: Art, realism and the scene of incest. Journal for Cultural Research (Special Edition: Visual Culture, Trauma and Ethics) 8(3): 217334. Kim H (2007) The creative economy and urban art clusters: Locational characteristics of art galleries in Seoul. Journal of the Korean Geographical Society 42(2): 258279.

Tolia-Kelly
Kindon S (2003) Participatory video in geographic research: A feminist practice of looking? Area 35(2): 142153. Kraftl P (2009) Living in an artwork: The extraordinary geographies of Hundertwasser-Haus, 1 Vienna. Cultural Geographies 16(2): 111132. Livingstone DN (2010) Cultural politics and the racial cartographies of human origins. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35(2): 204221. Lovejoy A and Hawkins H (2010) insites a notebook. Exeter and Falmouth: private publication (limited edition). MacDonald F (2006) Geopolitics and the vision thing: Regarding Britain and Americas first nuclear missile. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31(1): 5371. Matless D (2003) Gestures around the visual. Antipode 35(2): 222226. Matless D and Cameron L (2007) Geographies of local life, Marietta Pallis and friends, Long Gores, Hickling, Norfolk. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25(1): 75103. Morris A (2005) The cultural geographies of abstract expressionism: Painters, critics, dealers and the production of an Atlantic art. Social and Cultural Geography 6(3): 421437. Macpherson H (2008) Cultural geographies in practice: Between landscape and blindness: Some paintings of an artist with mascular degeneration. Cultural Geographies 15(2): 261269. Markusen A (2006) Urban development and the politics of a creative class: Evidence from a study of artists. Environment and Planning A 38(1): 19211940. Mathews V (2008) Artcetera: Narrativising gentrification in Yorkville, Toronto. Urban Studies 45(1): 28492876. Molototch H and Treskon M (2009) Changing art: SoHo, Chelsea and the dynamic geography of galleries in New York City. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(2): 517541. Nash C (2005) Mapping emotion: Longing and location in the work of Kathy Prendergast. In: Cullen F (ed) A Shared Legacy: Essays on Irish and Scottish Art and Visual Culture. Farnham: Ashgate, 225245. Nayak A (2010) Race, affect, and emotion: Young people, racism, and graffiti in the postcolonial English suburbs. Environment and Planning A 42(10): 23702392. OCallaghan C and Linehan D (2007) Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: European Capital of Culture. Cities 24(4): 311323.

141
ONeill M (2008) Transnational refugees: The transformative role of art? Qualitative Sozialforshung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 92(3): 112127. ONeill M and Hubbard P (20072010) Making the connections: Arts, migration and diaspora regional network. Available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/ global_refugees/index.html. Pain R, Askins K, and Kitoko G (2007) Connecting places, connected lives: An anti-bullying art project. Report, Durham University. Available at: http://www.geography. dur.ac.uk/Projects/LinkClick.aspx?linkConnecting Booklet.pdf&tabid2515&mid4126. Parr H (2006) Mental health, the arts and belongings. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31(2): 150166. Pereira C (2009) From the margins to the mainstream. In: Crossing continents: Connecting communities (exhibition project). London: Royal Geographical Society/ Institute of British Geographers. Peters K (2006) The contemporary landscape in art. Middle States Geographer 39(1): 117125. Pinder D (2005) Arts of urban exploration. Cultural Geographies 12(1): 383410. Pollock VL and Sharp JP (2007) Constellations of identity: Place-ma(r)king beyond heritage. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25(5): 10611078. Power M and Crampton A (2007) Cinema and Popular Geo-Politics. Abingdon: Routledge. Rogoff I (2001) Terra Infirma Geographys Visual Culture. London: Routledge. Rose G (2001) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. London: SAGE. Rose G (2003) Family photographs and domestic spacings: A case study. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28(1): 518. Rose G (2004) Everyones cuddled up and it just looks really nice: The emotional geography of some mums and their family photos. Social and Cultural Geography 5(1): 549564. Rose G (2007) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Interpreting Visual Materials, second edition. London: SAGE. Rose G (2009) Who cares for which dead and how: British newspaper reporting of the bombs in London, July 2005. Geoforum 40(1): 4654. Rose G and Tolia-Kelly DP (2009) Visuality/materiality: Reviewing theory, method and practice. International Conference held at RIBA, 911 July.

142
Royal Geographical Society with Institute of British Geographers (2009) Crossing continents: Connecting communities (exhibition project). London: RGS/IBG. Ryan J (2003) Whos afraid of visual culture? Antipode 35(2): 23237. Rycroft S (2005) The nature of op art: Bridget Riley and the art of nonrepresentation. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23(3): 351371. Sava I and Nuutinen K (2003) At the meeting place of word and picture: Between art and inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry 9(4): 515534. Sharp J (2007) The life and death of five spaces: Public art and community regeneration in Glasgow. Cultural Geographies 14(2): 274292. Shaw IGR and Warf B (2009) Worlds of affect: Virtual geographies of video games. Environment and Planning A 41(6): 13321343. Smith M, Morra J, and Guins RA (2002) What is visual culture studies? Journal of Visual Culture 1(2): 56. Tolia-Kelly DP (2007) Fear in paradise: The affective registers of the English Lake District landscape re-visited. Senses and Society 2(3): 329351.

Progress in Human Geography 36(1)

Tolia-Kelly DP (2008) Motion/emotion: Picturing translocal landscapes in the Nurturing Ecologies Research Project. Mobilities 3(1): 117140. Tolia-Kelly DP (2010) Landscape, Race and Memory. Farnham: Ashgate. Vasudevan A (2007) The photographer of modern life: Jeff Walls photographic materialism. Cultural Geographies 14(4): 563588. Van Alphen E (2005) What history, whose history, history to what purpose?: Notions of history in art history and visual culture studies. Journal of Visual Culture 24(4): 191202. Way J (2006) Imaginings of geography. Third Text 20(2): 223232. Winlow H (2001) Anthropometric cartography: Constructing Scottish racial identity in the early twentieth century. Journal of Historical Geography 27(4): 507528. Winlow H (2006) Mapping moral geographies: W.Z. Ripleys races of Europe and the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(1): 119141. Yusoff K and Gabrys J (2006) Time lapses: Robert Smithsons mobile landscapes. Cultural Geographies 13(2): 444450.