Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Farías, Ignacio; Wilkie, Alex (2015)
Publisher: Routledge
Languages: English
Types: Part of book or chapter of book
Consider the vast array of things around you, from the building you are in, the lights illuminating the interior, the computational devices mediating your life, the music in the background, even the crockery, furniture and glassware you are in the presence of. Common to all these objects is that their concrete, visual and technological forms were invariably conceived, modelled, finished and tested in sites characterised as studios. Remarkably, the studio remains a peculiar lacuna in our understanding of how cultural artefacts are brought into being and how ‘creativity’ operates as a located practice.\ud \ud Studio Studies is an agenda setting volume that presents a set of empirical case studies that explore and examine the studio as a key setting for aesthetic and material production. As such, Studio Studies responds to three contemporary concerns in social and cultural thought: first, how to account for the situated nature of creative and cultural production; second, the challenge of reimagining creativity as a socio-materially distributed practice rather than the cognitive privilege of the individual; and finally, to unravel the parallels, contrasts and interconnections between studios and other sites of cultural-aesthetic and technoscientific production, notably laboratories. By enquiring into the operations, topologies and displacements that shape and format studios, this volume aims to demarcate a novel and important object of analysis for empirical social and cultural research as well to develop new conceptual repertoires to unpack the multiple ways studio processes shape our everyday lives.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Adorno, T. W. 1991. The Culture Industry. Selected essays on mass culture. London, New York: Routledge.
    • Adorno, T. W. and Horkheimer, M. 1979. Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso.
    • Adorno, T. W. and Horkheimer, M. 1997 [1944]. Dialectic of Enlightenment. London; New York, NY: Verso.
    • Akrich, M., Callon, M. and Latour, B. 2002a. The Key to Success in Innovation. Part I: The Art of Interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 187-206.
    • Akrich, M., Callon, M. and Latour, B. 2002b. The Key to Success in Innovation. Part II: The Art of Choosing Good Spokepersons. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 207-225.
    • Alpers, S. 1998. The Studio, the Laboratoty, and the Vexations of Art. In: Jones, C. A. and Galison, P. eds. Picturing Science, Producing Art. New York, London: Routledge.
    • Banks, M. and O'Connor, J. 2009. Introduction. After the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15(4), 365-373.
    • Barry, A. and Thrift, N. 2007. Gabriel Tarde: imitation, invention and economy. Economy and Society, 36(4), 509-525.
    • Becker, H. 1974. Art as Collective Action. American Sociological Review, 39(6), 767- 776.
    • Becker, H. 1976. Art Worlds, and Social Types. American Behavioral Scientist, 19(6), 703-718.
    • Becker, H. 1984. Art Worlds. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA; London: University of California Press.
    • Bisgaard, T., et al. 2013. Design for Public Good. Sharing Experience Europe: Policy, Innovation, Design.
    • Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P. and Hillgren, P.-A. Participatory design and "democratizing innovation". ed., 2010 2010: PDC '10, 41-50.
    • Boden, M. A. 1994. What is Creativity? In: Boden, M. A. ed. Dimensions of Creativity. Cambridge, London: MIT Press, 75-118.
    • Born, G. 1995. Rationalizing culture: IRCAM, Boulez, and the institutionalization of the musical avant-garde. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    • Born, G. 2010. The social and the aesthetic: for a post-Bourdieuian theory of cultural production. Cultural Sociology, 4(2), 171-208.
    • Bourdieu, P. 1980. The production of belief: contribution to an economy of symbolic goods. Media, Culture & Society, 2(3), 261-293.
    • Bourdieu, P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press.
    • Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: Law, J. ed. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge, 196-223.
    • Caves, R. 2000. Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
    • Century, M. 1999. Pathways to innovation in digital culture. Report published by the Centre for Research on Canadian Cultural Industries and Institutions: McGill University, Montreal.
    • Cohen, N. 2012. Cultural Work as a Site of Struggle: Freelancers and Exploitation. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 10(2), 141-155.
    • Csikzentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity. Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Harper Collins.
    • DCMS 1998. Creative Industries Mapping Document. London: Department of Culture, Media and Sport.
    • Dewey, J. 2005 [1934]. Art as Experience. Perigee books: London.
    • Dubuisson, S. and Hennion, A. 1995. Le design industriel, entre création, technique et marché. Sociologie de l'Art, 8, 9-30.
    • Farías, I. 2013. Heteronomie und Notwendigkeit. Wie Architekt/innen Wettbewerbsbeiträge entwickeln. In: Tauschek, M. ed. Kulturen des Wettbewerbs. Formationen kompetitiver Logiken. 10 ed. Münster/New York/Berlin/München: Waxmann.
    • Farías, I. 2015a. Epistemic dissonance: Reconfiguring valuation in architectural practice. In: Berthoin Antal, A., Hutter, M. and Stark, D. eds. Moments of Valuation. Exploring Sites of Dissonance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 271-289.
    • Farías, I. 2015b. Städtisches Leben von und mit Schadstoffen. Materielle Intimität als Einschränkung urbaner Dingpolitik. Berliner Blaetter, 69(Sonderheft 'Urbane Aushandlungen. Die Stadt als Aktionsraum'), in press.
    • Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
    • Florida, R. 2005. Cities and the Creative Class. New York, London: Routledge.
    • Ford, L. S. 1986. Creativity in a Future Key. In: Neville, R. C. ed. New Essays in Metaphysics. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 179- 197.
    • Fowler, B. 2003. A Note on Nick Zangwill's “Against the Sociology of Art”. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 33(3), 363-374.
    • Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity, 1984.
    • Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Gieri, R. D. and Moffat, B. 2003. Distributed Cognition: Where the Cognitive and the Social Merge. Social Studies of Science, 33(2), 1-10.
    • Gieryn, T. 2002. Three Thruth-Spots. Journal of History of Behavioral Sciences, 38(2), 113-132.
    • Grabher, G. 2001. Ecologies of creativity: the Village, the Group, and the heterarchic organisation of the British advertising industry. Environment and Planning A, 33, 351-374.
    • Guggenheim, M. 2012. Laboratizing and de-laboratizing the world changing sociological concepts for places of knowledge production. History of the Human Sciences, 25(1), 99-118.
    • Halewood, M. 2005. A.N. Whitehead, Information and Social Theory. Theory Culture Society, 22(6), 73-94.
    • Hall, P. 2000. Creative Cities and Economic Development. Urban Studies, 37(4), 639-649.
    • Hennion, A. 1989. An Intermediary Between Production and Consumption: The Producer of Popular Music. Science, Technology and Human Values, 14(4), 400-424.
    • Hennion, A. 1993. La passion musicale. Paris: Métailié.
    • Hennion, A. 2003. Music and mediation: Towards a new sociology of music. In: Clayton, M., Herbert, T. and Middleton, R. eds. The Cultural Study of Music: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, 80-91.
    • Hennion, A., Méadel, C. and Libbrecht, L. 1993. In the laboratories of desire. Advertising as an intermediary between products and consumers. Réseaux, 1(2), 169-192.
    • Hesmondhalgh, D. and Baker, S. 2010. Creative labour : media work in three cultural industries. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge.
    • Howkins, J. 2001. The Creative Economy: How People Make Money From Ideas. Penguin Books.
    • Hughes, A. 1990. The Cave and the Stithy: Artists' Studios and Intellectual Property in Early Modern Europe. The Oxford Art Journal, 13(1), 34-48.
    • Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, London: MIT Press.
    • Ingold, T. 2013. Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London, New York, NY: Routledge.
    • Jacob, M. J. and Grabner, M. 2010. The studio reader: on the space of artists. University of Chicago Press.
    • Jones, C. A. 1996. Machine in the Studio. Constructing the Postwar American Artist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    • Knorr Cetina, K. 1995. Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In: Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C. and Pinch, T. eds. Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Research Methods, 140-167.
    • Knorr-Cetina, K. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: an essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    • Knorr-Cetina, K. and Mulkay, M. 1983. The ethnographic study of scientific work: Towards a constructivist interpretation of science. In: Knorr-Cetina, K. ed. Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London: Sage, 115-140.
    • Landry, C. and Bianchini, F. 1995. The creative city. London: Demos.
    • Lash, S. and Lury, C. 2007. Global Culture Industry: The Mediation of Things. Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press.
    • Latour, B. 1988a. The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    • Latour, B. 1988b. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    • Latour, B. 1996. How to be Iconophilic in Art, Science and Religion? In: Jones, C. A. and Galison, P. eds. Picturing Science Producing Art Routledge. London: Routledge, 418-440.
    • Latour, B. 1999. Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    • Latour, B. 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical inquiry, 30(2), 225-248.
    • Latour, B. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
    • Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. 1979. Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    • Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. 1986. Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    • Law, J. and Hassard, J. 1999. Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell, The Sociological Review.
    • Lloyd, R. 2004. The Neighborhood in Cultural Production: Material and Symbolic Resources in the New Bohemia. City & Community, 3(4), 343-372.
    • Luhmann, N. 1998. Love as Passion: The Codification of Intimacy. Berkeley: Stanford University Press.
    • Lynch, M. 1993. Scientific practice and ordinary action: ethnomethodology and social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Marcus, G. 2013. Experimental forms for the expression of norms in the ethnography of the contemporary. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 3(2), 197-217.
    • Markusen, A. 2006. Urban development and the politics of the creative class: evidence from a study of artists. Environment and Planning A, 38, 1921-1940.
    • McRobbie, A. 2002. From Holloway to Hollywood? Happiness at Work in the New Cultural Economy. In: Du Gay, P. and Pryke, M. eds. Cultural Economy: Cultural Analysis and Commercial Life. London: Sage, 97-114.
    • Meusburger, P. 2009. Milieus of Creativity: The Role of Places, Environments, and Spatial Contexts. In: Meusburger, P., Funke, J. and Wunder, E. eds. Milieus of Creativity. Springer, 97-154.
    • Meyer, S. 2005. Introduction. Configurations, 13(1), 1-33.
    • Nelson, C. 2010. The Invention of Creativity. The Emergence of a Discourse. Cultural Studies Review, 16(2), 49-74.
    • Osborn, A. F. 1957. Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York: Scribner.
    • Osborne, T. 2003. Against 'creativity': a philistine rant. Economy and Society, 32(4), 507-525.
    • Peterson, R. 1976. The Production of Culture: A Prolegomenon. American Behavioral Scientist, 19(6), 669-684.
    • Peterson, R. and Anand, N. 2004. The Production of Culture Perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 311-334.
    • Potts, J., et al. 2008. Social network markets: a new definition of the creative industries. Journal of Cultural Economics, 32, 167-185.
    • Pratt, A. 2004. Creative clusters: towards the governance of the creative industries production system? Media International Australia, 112, 50-66.
    • Rancière, J. 2009. Aesthetics and its discontents. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press.
    • Reckwitz, A. 2012. Die Erfindung der Kreativität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    • Rheinberger, H.-J. 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    • Sennett, R. 2008. The Craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    • Serres, M. 2007 [1980]. The Parasite. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.
    • Stengers, I. 2005. The cosmopolitical proposal. In: Latour, B. and Weibel, P. eds. Making things public. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 994-1003.
    • Stengers, I. 2010. Cosmopolitics I. Minneapolis, MN.: University of Minnesota Press.
    • Sunley, P., et al. 2008. Innovation in a creative production system: the case of design. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5), 675-698.
    • UNCTAD 2008. Creative Economy Report 2008. The challenge of assessing the creative economy: towards informed policy-making. United Nations.
    • van Heur, B. 2009. The Clustering of Creative Networks: Between Myth and Reality. Urban Studies, 46(8), 1531-1552.
    • Whitehead, A. N. 1927 [1926]. Religion in the making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Wilkie, A. 2013. Prototyping as event: designing the future of obesity. Journal of Cultural Economy, DOI: 10.1080/17530350.2013.859631.
    • Zangwill, N. 2002. Against the Sociology of Art. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 32(2), 206-218.
    • Zembylas, T., ed., 2014. Artistic Practices. Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics. London, New York, NY: Routledge.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article