Abstract
This paper discusses theoretical perspectives on improvisation as a powerful generator of new knowledge in practice-based research and its enhancement through wilful naïveté. The paper discusses a wilfully naïve approach to making with reference to Ingold’s morphogeneticism (making as a process of growth; 2009, pp. 21-22), and Peters’ (2009) balance of autonomy and heteronomy in the passage of creativity. The sandcasting as a making process was a new field of practice chosen deliberately to help avoid the effect of entrenched practices on the process of growth. The paper discusses new theoretical insights with reference to his experimental work and the influence of others, i.e. a heteronymous lineage of practice. As an auto-ethnographic heuristic making enquiry, the author writes of their work and practice in the first person.
Keywords
Improvisation; Making-as-Growth, Autonomy, Heteronomy, Wilful Naïveté
DOI
https://10.21606/eksig2019.106
Citation
Lambert, I.(2019) Improvisation: Autonomy, Heteronomy and Wilful Naïveté, in Nithikul Nimkulrat, Kristi Kuusk, Julia Valle Noronha, Camilla Groth and Oscar Tomico (eds.), Knowing Together – experiential knowledge and collaboration, 23–24 September 2019, Tallinn, Estonia. https://doi.org/10.21606/eksig2019.106
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Improvisation: Autonomy, Heteronomy and Wilful Naïveté
This paper discusses theoretical perspectives on improvisation as a powerful generator of new knowledge in practice-based research and its enhancement through wilful naïveté. The paper discusses a wilfully naïve approach to making with reference to Ingold’s morphogeneticism (making as a process of growth; 2009, pp. 21-22), and Peters’ (2009) balance of autonomy and heteronomy in the passage of creativity. The sandcasting as a making process was a new field of practice chosen deliberately to help avoid the effect of entrenched practices on the process of growth. The paper discusses new theoretical insights with reference to his experimental work and the influence of others, i.e. a heteronymous lineage of practice. As an auto-ethnographic heuristic making enquiry, the author writes of their work and practice in the first person.