Progress report

The geographies of cultural

geography II: Visual culture

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

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

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on January 27, 2016

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).

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

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

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on January 27, 2016

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

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on January 27, 2016

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

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on January 27, 2016

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.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on January 27, 2016

140

Progress in Human Geography 36(1)

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.

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.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on January 27, 2016

Tolia-Kelly

141

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.

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.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on January 27, 2016

142

Progress in Human Geography 36(1)

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.

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.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on January 27, 2016