the wandering mobile art hub a nomadic action research study

The Wandering Mobile Art Hub

A Nomadic Action Research Study

by

James Gaylord III

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

Approved April 2020 by the

Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Cala Coats, Chair

Mary Stokrocki

Bernard Young

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

May 2020

i

ABSTRACT

This study will explore the role and impact of socially engaged art (SEA) on

participants when presented through an interactive and nomadic mobile context. Using an

action research methodology, I will use a pop-up camper to serve as research and art

making hub. I will travel with the hub to various locations throughout Arizona working

with participants to create an artistic response to prompts that encourage them to think

about their own communities and participants’ roles within them. Some of these pieces

will travel with the hub to future locations, serving as a point of response and/or

engagement for participants from other locations or even from future visits to the same

location. SEA invites participatory and dialogical interaction through art-making. Using

SEA as a pedagogical approach could present alternative teaching and learning methods

and locations possible to art educators. Because socially engaged art is heavily focused

on agency (Helguera, 2011), responsibility of the arts to impact social change and

influence (Bae & Shin, 2019), embraces tools and processes not exclusive to the art

studio (Helguera, 2011), and leans heavily on collaboration and dialogue (Chalmers &

Desai, 2007), it is an ideal method for creating and examining potential bonds between

communities and their educators. This study will also explore how the nomadic state of

the research hub impacts the researcher (artist/teacher) and the participants. The pop-up

camper exemplifies temporality and limited access, using mobility to evaluate spaces,

borders, and communities as a state of fluctuation and fluid movement. Potential impact

on the researcher and participants could occur through the experience of a common item,

such as the camper, repurposed for something totally different. Moreover, as an artist and

ii

educator, engaging with communities through either of these perspectives could cause a

considerable impact on the artist/educator pedagogical and artistic practices.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like express my gratitude to everyone who has helped me during this

research study and over the course of my graduate and undergraduate careers. Thank you

to Dr. Coats, Dr. Stokrocki, and Dr. Young for all of your support, patience, and help

throughout my time at ASU. I would also like to thank Sarah, Barb, Steve, Coop, and LC

for their continued love and support.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. vi

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

Resaerch Questions.................................................................................................. 2

Conceptual Research Considerations ...................................................................... 2

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................................... 7

Socially Engaged Art ............................................................................................... 7

Group, Public, and Community Art-Making Practices ........................................ 10

Nomadic Process ................................................................................................... 16

3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 20

Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................... 22

Data Handling and Role of the Researcher ........................................................... 26

Limitations ............................................................................................................. 26

4 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 28

Trip One ................................................................................................................. 28

Trip Two ................................................................................................................ 29

Trip Three .............................................................................................................. 34

Trip Four ................................................................................................................ 45

Trip Five ................................................................................................................. 48

Trip Six .................................................................................................................. 50

v

CHAPTER Page

Trip Seven .............................................................................................................. 53

Trip Eight ............................................................................................................... 56

Participant and Interview Summary ...................................................................... 60

5 INTERPRETATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ......................................................... 64

Research Questions................................................................................................ 64

Additional Question ............................................................................................... 75

6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................................... 80

Unexpected Impacts .............................................................................................. 81

Implications for Future Research .......................................................................... 83

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 88

APPENDIX

A IRB APPROVAL .................................................................................................... 93

B INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................................... 96

C ART-MAKING PROMPTS AND EXAMPLES .................................................. 98

D ARTWORKS ..................................................................................................... 103

E MOBILE HUB IMAGES ...................................................................................... 110

F EXAMPLE OF CODING INTERVIEW .............................................................. 110

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Interview Data Trip 2 ............................................................................................ 30

2. Interview Data Trip 3 Part 1 ................................................................................... 39

3. Interview Data Trip 3 Part 2 ................................................................................... 42

4. Interview Data Trip 4 ............................................................................................. 47





9. Travel Schedule and Locations .............................................................................. 64

10. Example of Interview Coding ............................................................................ 121

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Example Prompt Response 1 ................................................................................ 99

2. Example Prompt Response 2 .............................................................................. 100



5. Artwork Made on Location 1 .............................................................................. 103

6. Artwork Made on Location 2 .............................................................................. 103

7. Participant Artwork 1 ........................................................................................... 104



10. Participant Artwork 4 ........................................................................................ 105


12. Participant Artowork 6 ...................................................................................... 106

13. Participant Artwork 7 ......................................................................................... 107



16. Participant Artwork 10 ...................................................................................... 108

17. Artwork Made on Location 3 ............................................................................ 109

viii

Figure Page








25. Mobile Hub Image 1 ......................................................................................... 114

26. Mobile Hub Image 2 ......................................................................................... 114

27. Mobile Hub Image 3 ......................................................................................... 115

28. Mobile Hub Image 4 ......................................................................................... 115

29. Mobile Hub Image 5 ......................................................................................... 116

30. Mobile Hub Image 6 ......................................................................................... 116

31. Mobile Hub Image 7 ......................................................................................... 117

32. Mobile Hub Image 8 ......................................................................................... 117

33. Mobile Hub Image 9 ......................................................................................... 118

34. Mobile Hub Image 10 ....................................................................................... 118

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This study explored the role and impact of socially engaged art (SEA) on

participants when presented through an interactive and nomadic mobile context. Using a

nomadic action research methodology, I used a repurposed pop-up camper to serve as

mobile research and art-making hub. I traveled with the mobile hub to various locations

throughout Arizona, working with participants to create an artistic response to art-making

prompts. These prompts encouraged them to think about their own communities and

participants’ roles within them (see Appendix C for prompts and examples). Some

artworks traveled with the hub to different locations, serving as a point of response and/or

engagement for other participants. SEA invites participatory and dialogical interaction

through art-making. I used SEA as a pedagogical approach to determine if it could offer

alternative teaching and learning methods and locations possible to art educators.

Because SEA is heavily focused on agency (Helguera, 2011) and responsibility of the arts

to impact social change and influence (Bae & Shin, 2019), SEA embraces tools and

processes not exclusive to the art studio (Helguera, 2011), and leans heavily on

collaboration and dialogue (Chalmers & Desai, 2007), it is an ideal method for creating

and examining potential bonds between communities and their educators.

This study also explored how the nomadic state of the mobile hub impacted the

researcher (artist/teacher) and the participants. The pop-up camper exemplifies

temporality and limited access, using mobility to evaluate spaces, borders, and

communities as a state of fluctuation and fluid movement. How could potential impact on

the researcher and participants occur through the experience of a common item, such as

2

the camper, repurposed for something totally different? Moreover, as an artist and

educator, could engaging with communities through either of these perspectives cause a

considerable positive impact on the artist/educator pedagogical and artistic practices?

Research Questions

1. How does the repurposed pop-up camper (as a mobile art-making and education area)

invite participants to rethink their experiences making and observing art?

2. Can and how might collective artwork created through a socially engaged practice

impact the participants and/or the community when designed as part of a nomadic

experience?

3. How does the process of engaging in a transient, reflexive, experience in a

continuously unsettled art-making and pedagogical setting impact the artist/educator’s

perspective on community?

Throughout this research, I also reflected on the following question: How could

the art educator’s experience during this research impact his/her approach to the

construction of their educational environments? Considering the nomadic inquiry

experience and the use of unfixed participants, restless change, and fluctuating terms of

engagement, I will evaluate my own role as student, artist, teacher, and researcher.

Conceptual Research Considerations

Context. Arizona is the sixth largest state by land area in the United States

(World Atlas, 2019), but only contains three major metropolitan areas: Flagstaff in the

north, Phoenix in the center, and Tucson in the south. Each area has a distinct art and

cultural identity, community, socio-economic differences, and varied needs and concerns

related to education. Phoenix alone, with a population of almost two million, has several

3

areas of the differing distinctions (US Census, 2020). Some school districts are extremely

large, making it seem difficult for art educators to engage with their peers, even in the

same district. This connection to each other, the community, and local artists is crucial to

developing an impactful, relevant, and community focused learning environment (Clark

& Zimmerman, 2000; Ulbricht, 2002). This research provided a way for those

community interactions to happen through art-making as a shared nomadic experience.

Nomad. As the researcher, I traveled with a mobile hub for art-making and

research repurposed from an old pop-up camper. This experience created temporary sites

of SEA practice that served as both a pedagogical and studio experience for participants

(Helguera, 2011) as I traveled between highly populated locations in Arizona. I engaged

with participants through socially engaged art-making to create an artwork and examine

participants’ responses to each other’s artwork, identifying personal and community

connections and examining the impact the experience has on the researcher/teacher.

Community-Based Learning. A number of art educators (Bae & Shin, 2019;

Darts, 2011; Holland, 2015; Hutzel 2007) are exploring the potential of SEA to create

collaborative and community-based learning experiences. This approach emphasizes the

human interactions as art-making, stressing the importance of relationships through the

experience, dialogues, and participation to create a place of learning that differs from

their typical environment (Bae & Shin, 2019). As the mobile hub traveled between sites, I

collected and displayed artworks from previous stops. The entire experience was

examined, analyzing how the camper’s role as a pedagogical device, artwork/installation,

and public occupancy could influence art education through practice and pedagogy.

4

Rupture. This study relates to Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) notion of the

rupture, encounter, and event. They discuss a rupture as something that can disrupt a

person’s habits or routines regarding how they respond or relate to the world around them

(Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). The rupture can serve as a means for the individual to

reconfigure individuals’ own subjectivity. Aesthetic encounters can produce affective

ruptures, for instance, observing art can encourage viewers to slow down and rethink

their opinions and feelings. This pause can produce a creative reaction, allowing for

differing responses to the world than one may have had otherwise. The retrofitting of the

pop-up camper was a deliberate deconstruction and reconstruction of something designed

for a specific purpose. It was reinvented as a tool for art-making, research, and education

as well as an artwork, in order to both represent and activate a reevaluation of our views

and beliefs through a nomadic lens of inquiry and the transmutation of areas and space

(Braidotti, 2011; Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). The mobile hub’s nomadic potential to

produce affective ruptures can create a continually evolving, unfixed pedagogical

approach used to present a flexible transformative site of teaching and learning. It also

enabled me to engage participants regardless of artistic ability, education level, or

community affiliation.

Positionality. The mobile hub represented and functioned as a vehicle for

potential encounters, which may have led to affective ruptures in participants. Deleuze

(1994) discusses the encounter as a personal sensation, occurring free from thought or

recognition, that triggers thinking and creation of new ideas. It is a sensation that sets off

further thinking. The art encounter is an experience of art at the sensory level and as a

sensory experience, not a representation of an artist or idea. If this logic can be applied

5

and leveraged to engage participants when responding to others’ artworks, perhaps it can

lead to embracing the artworks not as a representation of the artist (or themselves) but as

an actual sensation or emotion, opening up new ways of thinking about other people from

all the various participating locations. If the mobile hub as an encounter can trigger

ruptures for participants, this pause in thinking may result in the reimagining and

rethinking their experience. They may embrace the opportunity to explore their own

sensory responses to other participants’ experiences.

Communities. One aim of this study was to create a genuine dialogue through a

deviation from typical learning environments where participants reimagine their own

perceptions of borders, community, and power structures (represented by the

deconstruction of typical teacher-learner tiered classroom). Participation in this study

encouraged participants and community members to reconsider their own concepts of

home, community, and borders; effectively evaluating their own concepts of

territorialities as it pertains to actual community borders, education, or art-making. This

study examined how art-making and teaching emerged from this shared experience and

how the teacher or student could have experienced this nomadic state of learning

(Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). The portable nature of the mobile hub explored the reaction

between communities regarding each other’s artworks and social engagements, opening

up numerous permutations for artistic interactions and generating a critical dialogue

among participants based on their own communities.

Pedagogical Structures. The final element of this study examined how the event

impacted the artist/researcher/teacher. Deleuze and Guattari (1987) describe the event as

a manifestation of interacting forces that mark the moments within a creative production

6

or engagement. The event is not a disruption, a beginning, or an end, but guides the

process of becoming. This is a similar description to my role in the research as a nomadic

artist/teacher/researcher/learner, with a perpetually fluid positionality, as I was moving

between and among locations. As this is combined with SEA, using the mobile hub and

participants as crucial elements in a larger ongoing artwork, I examined how the nomadic

aspect of this research enhances the pedagogical practice and development of the

teacher/researcher (in this case, myself). Through this participation, the importance of

social and community issues can become known to the artist/teacher, helping them

develop meaningful engagements for future students (Darts, 2011). These new potential

connections and relationships with other teachers could help reimagine the structures of

our classrooms and places of learning, the dynamics of knowledge transfer, and establish

new ideas of the art community and teaching community. This reimagining of

communities, positionality, and pedagogical structures, can help to increase awareness

and advocacy for the arts in education within the communities.

7

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This review of literature will survey and discuss topics associated with my

research. This includes the following topics: socially engaged art, group art-making,

public art-making, community art-making, action research, and nomadic research. SEA

serves a major role in this research. However, elements from group, public, and

community art-making will be discussed as they pertain to SEA and my research. The

nomadic process also serves a key role, both in practice and through the potential impact

on the research, art-making, and participants. This section will also discuss literature and

contemporary artists, identifying connections between their work and my research.

Socially Engaged Art

This section focuses on SEA, outlining its relevance to education, specifically the

benefit it has to art education and the importance of its practice in our society today. This

also defines the SEA framework I will use during my research. In Education for Socially

Engaged Art, Helguera (2011) extensively defines and outlines SEA in both practice as

art and pedagogy. Helguera positions his writing as more of a handbook or a guide for

practicing, viewing, and teaching SEA. Helguera (2011) describes his definitions as

provisional, suggesting the nature of SEA makes a strict definition difficult. Helguera

(2011) suggests that all art encourages some form of social interaction, but “in the case of

SEA it is the process itself -the fabrication of the work- that is social” (p. 11) involving

“free partaking of the work in an open-ended social environment” (p. 11). His position is

that SEA is a progression of conceptualism, having “introduced thought process as

artwork; the materiality of the artwork is optional” (Helguera, 2011, p. 2). SEA turns the

8

process by which the art is conceived and created into part of the artwork, an experience

shared by the artist, viewer, or anyone else involved. It democratizes the process.

Helguera (2011) believes the crucial difference between SEA and other art-making

philosophies is the work is “dependent on the involvement of others besides the instigator

of the artwork” (p. 3). Thus, the socially engaged artist could be considered ethnographer,

sociologist, or everyday investigator of human interactions. The artwork itself can, at

times, be related to current issues and problems at the forefront of societies consciousness

and less of a representation than a collective experience that impacts the public.

Helguera (2011) presents five specific aspects of the participating group’s

relationships generated through SEA: (1) the construction of community or a temporary

social group through a collective experience, (2) the construction of multi-layered

participatory structures, (3) the role of social media in the construction of community, (4)

the role of time and (5) assumptions about the audience. These all have relevant bearings

on this research using a mobile art-making and research hub. These factors may impact

the potential social disturbances created by the artist’s presence. It is important to

understand the dynamic this can create between the participants and observers, or any

other social component of the art-making process. Another dynamic Helguera addresses

is social work versus social practice. He believes that social work is a specific

engagement to better humanity and is based on supporting values and social constructs,

compared to practice (from the artist’s perspective) which is meant to bring attention and

critical thought or reflection to specific subject matter. The social worker’s role is

drastically different than the socially engaged artist’s role, even if the motivation and

beliefs are the same.

9

Conversation is one of the most crucial components and biproducts of SEA. It is a

foundational element of society. Helguera (2011) is suggesting that dialogical practice is

as core to SEA as the artist and the artwork is. These conversations and interactions are

methods by which the socially engage artist constructs the artwork, the words and

interactions can become the formal elements of the piece. Through these conversations

the artist can establish a “balance of openness and mutual interest” (Helguera, 2011, p.

49). These conversations become the collaboration necessary for a SEA to exist. The

balance established allows participants to interact and share knowledge or expertise

without the typical establishment of learning hierarchy, the teacher is teaching students

and is subsequently more intelligent or skilled. Helguera (2011) views SEA not as a

singular pedagogical approach, instead designating it as “Transpedagogy” and explicitly

defines it as “projects by artists and collectives that blend educational processes and art-

making in works that offer an experience that is clearly different from conventional art

academies or formal art education” (p. 77).

Helguera’s (2011) The School of Panamerican Unrest (SPU) is a primary

inspiration behind his handbook and served as a major inspiration for this project.

Helguera created a mobile school house using a converted cargo van to travel the actual

length of the Pan-American highway. He suggests two major events, September 11th,

2001 and “debates in the arts around institutional critique and relational aesthetics”

(Helguera, 2011, p. 3) were the motivation behind the SPU project. The SPU platform

was designed in conjunction with his educational background, Latin American heritage,

and beliefs in SEA in order to bring participants together in a community space, under the

guise of art, while challenging them in a dialogical method of discussions and

10

interactions. Helguera (2011) was specifically interested in how folks would express and

debate their certainties and biases. The format of the SPU reflects the influences of the

period social and political culture since the United States was still in a pre-Obama era and

pre-social media era.

The format for SPU reflects these influences and his desire to present the concept

as a combination of school house and exhibition, referencing the religious group called

the Shakers and his own participation at a previous exhibition. The participation

methodology focused on dialogical strategies, inquiry, and group learning techniques.

Most of these activities would be led by participants with minimal direction from the

instructor. Helguera (2011) suggests this format will provide a platform which “assumed

its own institutionalism” (p. 5). Though not clearly stated, this leads to what reads as the

mission statement of SPU, “The platform’s focus would be the parallel social, political,

and cultural narratives of the Americas, as if they constituted a transnational unity”

(Helguera, 2011, p. 5). Helguera views his mobile school as a performance piece,

suggesting it became like a play or theater. Participants assumed roles and the dialogue

consisted of their own contributions and personal influences. Through this perspective, he

identifies the SPU as socially engaged art. Despite his own questions about the school’s

success, several years later over a dozen participants took the time to contribute

reflections and accounts of their experiences when the SPU was in their region. While

they are unique and varied, they do share two common threads: they account for the van

as a symbol for the school and discuss the impact of preceding participants work or the

anticipation of future participant’s work.

Group, Public, and Community Art-Making Processes

11

SEA can use elements from group, public, and community art to redefine place

and encourage participants and contributors to it as a social construct, and urge

conceptualization of how society has territorialized their communities. Engaging with

each other and other groups art-making can help to redefine or potentially eliminate these

borders. Audiences are activated to produce and become part of the artwork and the

performance, giving everyone a voice and opportunity to impact the piece. This

participation encourages and empowers individuals to contribute to the larger group and

perhaps a larger change. The following section contains literature that pertains to group,

public, and community art and the key elements they contribute to SEA.

Group Art in Art Education. A concept of this project is the idea that

individuals will be interacting and making art with other individuals giving an

opportunity for group art to emerge. Looking at group art as a type of art-making process

that “operates through a group of individuals, working with some visual materials toward

some end which ultimately reflects the efforts of all participants” (Hurwitz, 1975, p. 5).

The group members can consist of innumerable characteristics, backgrounds, or skill

levels. Hurwitz (1975) also believed a group art-making had been acceptable and

practiced commonly, specifically in early childhood educational circumstances (p. 5).

This could hold true today, but in part because of growing enthusiasm regarding

differentiated and group learning. Hurwitz (1975) summarizes “if art is not to die, it must

periodically be redefined in order to maintain its vital sense of being…. shifting his

attention from the private product to the public process” (p. 7). Within this context, I

believe Hurwitz could be suggesting “public” refers to any environment outside the artist

himself or herself, eliminating an element of isolation, which is similar to this research

12

project. While I will contribute artistically, the artwork will be created by participants.

The actual action of the participants, from dialogue to traditional art-making, is also a

component of the SEA basis. The broad nature of Hurwitz’s (1975) definition of group

art emphasizes its importance and inclusiveness. The inclusiveness is essential to this

project even though it is not rigidly aligned with a group structure. With each visit, there

will be individual artworks that combine to represent the experience, becoming a

reflection of the participants.

Public Art in Art Education. Public art could be considered a form of created

media (traditional art, performance art, or various digital arts) designed and implemented

specifically in a public realm. This project touches on this definition as well. The

artworks created are intended for public display, an undetermined and changing public

viewing sphere that is not aimed at a typical gallery observer. Phillips (1989) suggests “it

is a manifestation of art activities and strategies that take the idea of public as genesis and

subject analysis” (p. 332). This artwork can be particularly reflective upon cultural and

societal conditions, however, at its core it usually revolves around the artist’s desired

themes and messages. Phillips (1989) goes on to state “public art is not public just

because it is out of doors, or in some identifiable civic space, or because it is something

that almost everyone can apprehend” (p. 332). The use of apprehend as opposed to

comprehend is important to note because apprehend suggests public art should be more

meaningful than an incomprehensible image plastered to the side of a building or bridge.

While it does make a statement and expression, these artworks are generally not intended

to last forever and are not conceived or curated the way an artwork intended for a gallery

may be. Phillips does not directly define the temporal nature as it broadly relates to public

13

art; instead focusing on specific public artworks designed with intent for limited display.

The art created during this project parallels much of Phillips’ interpretation. However,

Fisher (1996) states public art “potentially includes all forms of creative expression in

public space” (p. 43). While the art made has intent to be in the public sphere and may

not strictly conform to Phillips’, the creative processes and expression is part of the

artwork specifically intended for practice in the public space.

Community Art in Art Education. Community art is an essential element of this

project. This is the piece that can combine the group of people working on an artwork in

or for the public space and make it relevant in person, possibly unifying their work,

participation, and maybe mindsets. A lot of folks may consider education a crucial

element of their communities, but how often do community members have an

opportunity to directly engage with educators outside the bounds of a teacher conference

or PTA meeting? By engaging with the community as an art educator and art maker, I

can examine the potential results teaching and making art in and with the community has

on all parties. Clark and Zimmerman (2000) discuss the impact of art education,

educators, and community involvement that makes sense when considering this project.

They state “art teachers in rural communities might enrich and assess their curricula

using a community-based art education approach” (p. 38) and “Art teachers in rural areas,

who attempt to integrate understanding of their local communities into their curricula,

need to involve and build support from a wide base of community members” (p. 38).

Clark and Zimmerman (2000) summarized their findings by stating that curricula devised

with the students’ and communities’ artistic heritages are utilized, all those involved “can

learn to value traditions of their own heritages and those of others” (p. 39). If we alter the

14

curricula practiced in schools, removing academic mandates, and simply focus on the

concepts Clark and Zimmerman (2000) present, specifically the combination an entity

instructing and a diverse group of entities learning and providing a broad scope of values

to be integrated, we are left with a learning setting that can occur in any community. This

learning can occur with any group of people, at any location, in any amateur or

professional capacity. By Clark and Zimmerman (2000) trying to prove art education can

benefit from incorporating the community’s culture into the curricula, they are indirectly

supporting the idea that cooperative community engagement benefits all those involved

when utilized in a community art-making capacity.

Ulbricht (2002) has also researched the combination of art education and

community art, specifically analyzation and description of people whose careers were

part of, directly, or indirectly supported the local art community. In one instance, Ulbricht

(2002) determined his students “quickly found that art is not an isolated activity; it is an

integral part of culture… that there is little in the world that does not have an artistic

component” (p. 36). Through Ulbricht’s (2002) study, he stressed the importance of

community connections, suggesting that art students needed to acquire more than just art

skills to be successful, specifically that they need to “spend time making personal and

intellectual artistic connections” (p. 38). Considering Clark and Zimmerman’s (2000)

stance, we can determine that if the artist benefits from establishing connections and

relationships with the community, and that art-making or observing is an essential

element of culture, communities in which artists and artist educators establish

relationships and interact can benefit as well. Hoffman (2010) takes these ideas a step

further, suggesting community art centers can teach us about education, art education,

15

and even posits maintaining these community services is a civic responsibility. She also

believes that community art (and programs or programming) is not limited to visual arts,

but also performing arts and states “these efforts provide powerful evidence of artists’

enduring sense of social responsibility and inspire such action in their students and

mentees” (p. 85). Hoffman (2010) also maintains a strong advocacy for the arts in public

education, but acknowledges the fiscal decisions made by many school administrations

nationwide. While making a case for the positive impact of the arts on factors

administrators, law-makers, and other budgetary decision makers hold dear, Hoffman

(2010) states “Works of art are conglomerates of many subjects and perspectives (a

reason for value, one might think, in itself)” (p. 86).

In 2007, Hutzel performed a study titled Reconstructing a Community,

Reclaiming a Playground: A Participatory Action Research Study. The study was a

participatory action research study based in which she worked within her community to

develop and implement an asset-based community art education curriculum while she

observed and examined the participants, and the communities, reactions and perceptions

to the study and the researcher. While primarily a participatory action research (PAR)

study, Hutzel describes using multiple methodologies based on the nature of the study.

She employed ethnography as the framework for her documentation and interactions with

the community, phenomenology as the framework for her own critical reflection and

interpretations, and a case study as the structure for the participants and the location. The

nature of being engaged with participants as equals and establishing a relationship of trust

and understanding should implore a participant to be somewhat introspective about their

own experience and understandings, whether from the perspective of Hutzel as a

16

community member or Helguera as a traveler. Hutzel’s work also focused on creating an

asset-based curriculum. Hutzel categorizes “social, physical, environmental, and human”

elements as all being “assets in the community” (p. 307). The participants explored their

communities and created an artwork to reflect their discoveries and ideas. The artwork

intended to be a public work and the participants decided to create a mural. The mural

locations and content were exclusively left to the youth participants, and they elected to

create two murals that displayed their own dreams and contributions to the community

while placing it in one of the most notorious gang related parks in the city (Cincinnati).

As a result, the adult participants felt this had a positive impact on the community. The

asset-based approach was immediately empowering, the PAR approach equalized all

participants (for the most part), and the use of an artwork as the voice communicated

clearly to the participants and any potential observers.

Nomadic Process

Nomadic process and research are of equal importance to my research as SEA.

This section discusses literature, research, and contemporary artists’ work similar to my

research. This section explores nomadic researchers The Cognate Collective and the

influence and support their work provides for my research. Nomadic processes have

become increasingly common in contemporary art that aims for social change (Thompson

& Sholette, 2004). I will also discuss contemporary artists that could be considered

nomadic artists and this art-making relates to my research while connecting to the

different types of art-making mentioned in the previous section.

One example of nomadic research is The Cognate Collective. The Cognate

Collective is a group that functions as an arts-based research organization which travels

17

between communities neighboring the United States and Mexico border. The Cognate

Collective’s research is based on public interventions, radical pedagogical practice, and

utilizing various arts-based methodologies in partnership with border communities.

Cognate’s function is similar to Helguera’s SPU (2011). However, it is anchored by the

combination of art creation and dialogical practice, instead of being primarily discussion

based. Their research project titled The Mobile Agora Project has visited Arizona State

University’s Art Museum multiple times. They created a “Mobile Institute of Citizenship

& Art (MICA)” (Sanchez-Arteaga & Diaz, 2017, p. 2) designed to function as a “cultural

+ pedagogical + economic platform for exchange around issues affecting immigrant

communities” (p. 2). MICA has since traveled through several states along the border,

including Arizona, as well as throughout Mexico. These visits have varying workshops

for participants to create artwork, perform recorded and broadcasted interviews, or

simply interact with each other and the researchers. Generally, these interactions and

artworks intend to inspire people to “critically reflect on the formation of collective

identities and the ability to mobilize these politically” and “to spur (re)considerations of

spaces and practices that constitute citizenship as collective action” (p. 3). Like Hutzel’s

(2007) work, these instances were provoked by a general prompt, something easy to

relate to and an art-making method easy to perform.

Despite varying provocations, The Cognate Collective focused their subject

matter on their community, experiences, and daily lives. This type of arts-based research

exists at the junction of each type of art I’ve described borrowing from the primary

characteristics of group, public, community, and SEA to become something much larger

than simply art-making. The mobile research platform creates an entity that brings the

18

experience to life and becomes emblematic, like Helguera’s van. Because Cognate

focused equally on artwork and dialogical practice, they attracted a broader scope of

participants. They effectively combined the work of Hutzel (2007) and Helguera (2011).

The nomadic nature of MICA allowed the artworks and creations to be viewed and

experienced by other communities. This provided additional opportunities for critical

reflection, responsive art-making, and sharing of important community beliefs.

Hopefully, this could lead to an increased respect amongst differing people and an open

dialogue about emerging political and social conflicts within our countries.

The Cognate Collective has a focus on research while using art as a form of

engagement, interaction, and antagonism. This nomadic focus can also be used to

describe the work of some contemporary artists as described in The Interventionists

(Thompson & Sholette, 2004). Thompson and Sholette (2004) discuss nomadic artists as

“artists who produce work that encourages individual autonomy such as mobile housing,”

reclamation artists as “artists who produce actions that occur within the public sphere”,

and experimental university artists as “artists who deploy aesthetic strategies to engage

outside discourses” (p.11). This research project has a foot in each of these respective

categories.

Using examples such as Ruben Ortiz-Torres, they discuss how nomadic artists can

utilize cultural connections to impact viewers. In one of his works, The Garden of Earthly

Delights (2003), Ortiz-Torres uses landscaping equipment, such as a riding lawnmower,

and “reworked it by using Chicano low-rider aesthetics: hydraulics, flashy paint, and

shining chrome” (p. 32). These machines are reworked while still achieving their purpose

as a tool but with the added classification as an artwork. This is one of example of his

19

work that explores the cross section “cultural connection and collision” (p.31). While not

explicitly the same, repurposing a pop-up camper to travel between communities bears

some similarities, maintaining its function as a pop-up camper, but function as an artwork

and research hub. It can connect similar and potentially different cultures and explore

their response to each other’s artworks.

Thompson and Sholette (2004) also discuss William Pope L. as a nomadic artist

whose work “migrates easily between studio work and outdoor activities” (p.23). His

piece, Black Factory (2004), is a combination of outdoor installation and performance

piece in which a large box truck with a large transparent igloo emerging from the back

serves as a sort of mobile gift shop which can also pulverize objects. The pulverization

represents the industrial productive aspect of our society, how we are quick to consume

resources and destroy our environment in the process, while the gift shop represents the

commercial and financial aspects. The traveling factory encourages participants to bring

items to donate to the gift shop, becoming components of the artwork or to have their

items photographed and documented via the website. Some items are actually pulverized

and produced into other items for sale in the gift shop, usually rubber ducks. There are

similarities between Pope L.’s work and my research project, not just in the mobility of

his factory and the pop-up camper. Both pieces rely on participants contributions in

actions and in artistic production. Both account for the interaction as an essential piece of

the art, like a performance piece.

20

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This is a qualitative research study primarily using a nomadic action research

methodology. This study examined the art-making, art observations, and general

interactions observed and associated with making and discussing art. I attempted to

examine and understand the meaning and relationships between these ideas and myself as

an artist, teacher, and researcher. I did this by using a qualitative method to discover

themes from the data collected, analyzed, and interpreted (Creswell, 2014). This is a

systematic process of describing, analyzing, and interpreting events observed through my

travels and interactions (Stokrocki, 1997). Data was collected through photographs,

written and recorded interviews, questionnaires, artworks, and video documentation.

Each location I visited manifested its own unique set of data, which was analyzed on its

own merits and then comparatively against other locations’ data. Data was then compared

to other studies of similar context. This study included actions such as making my own

artistic response in locations, reflecting on interactions with a unique group of

participants outside of my community, and potentially experiencing a differing cultural

context. Through these occurrences, autoethnographic elements that reflected my own

experience as a travelling artist, educator, and researcher emerged. These experiences

were largely impacted by my own point of view, experience, knowledge (Stokrocki,

1997). Additionally, a portion of the research involved creating a vessel that functioned

as a mobile hub. The functionality of the mobile hub was discussed with participants in

order to assess the impact of repurposing space and reimagining places of learning. This

aspect was subjective for participants but extremely important in researching the potential

21

of such an activity. As Patton (2015) discussed, this proved to identify specific data

pertinent to my research questions as well as unintended results and observations.

This study identified multiple locations in the state of Arizona to which the

mobile hub would be able to travel and take residence. These locations were determined

by ease of access regarding the physical presence of a vehicle towing a small pop-up

camper (mobile hub) in conjunction with corresponding events, community centers, or

parks that potentially provided large amounts of visitors. Sedona, Phoenix, and Tucson

all provided target destinations for the mobile hub and provided diverse populations as

well. This made focusing on the state of Arizona both financially responsible and still

conducive to interacting with different communities. I attempted to actualize the mobile

hub in as many diverse communities as possible. While arts festivals were originally

significant points of interest, I mostly traveled to areas near functions not based on visual

arts, or even arts in general. An important aspect of this research was that through the

creation of artwork and contribution to a visual culture, participants contributed to a

larger conversation through their artwork (Garber, 2011).

This study was approved by IRB (See Appendix A) on December, 9th, 2019. Prior

to approval I had already completed my review of literature, identified several target

locations, and developed schematics for potential mobile hub site layouts based on a

variety of pop-up camper designs. I was immediately tasked with locating and purchasing

a camper within my budget, ideally in minimal need of rebuilding or upgrading. After

several weeks of searching, visiting, and inspecting possible vessels, on January 8th, 2020

I purchased a small 1966 Nimrod pop camper. This particular unit is small, less than 10

feet long and 8 feet wide, while weighing well under 1000 lbs., and could easily be towed

22

by a variety of vehicles without having an unbearable impact on transportation costs. I

also believed the compact footprint would make the mobile hub more accessible to some

areas and more maneuverable if located in crowded spaces or venues. This decision had

far reaching, unintended implications. Though small, in order to “pop” it up, the base

length extended to nearly 14 feet and was best executed with two people. This process

also required detachment from the towing vehicle. As I spent the next weeks cleaning it,

renovating the interior, and ensuring it was mechanically sound, I began to consider

different ways in which this camper would function for its intended purpose. Finally, on

January 26th, 2020 I was able to make my first trip.

Data Collection Procedures

Data Collection. Data collection consists of methods by which a researcher

obtains and documents the event or experience they are investigating. There are several

ways this data can be collected. During this study, I used on site field notes and

observations, audio recordings, video recordings, interviews, artworks, and personal

reflections of each experience. Each of these methods provided information needed to

help investigate my research questions.

During each visit, I initially made a quick sketch to map the layout of my

environment and the space I was occupying. I noted the approximate time I arrived, my

duration, and the weather conditions. I also gauged how busy the area was. I continued to

use my notebook to make small notes about the area, human interactions and

observations, and ideas about my experience. I used my notebook to make note of

participants, characteristics and behavior, and noted many of their responses when I was

able to.

23

I conducted interviews based on three separate questionnaires: a prequestionnaire,

a postquestionnaire, and an art observation questionnaire (See Appendix B for complete

list of questionnaires). Each question was associated thematically with my research

questions and attempted to gain an idea of the participants’ perspective before and after

making art and when observing other participants’ artworks. Questions were designed to

analyze participants’ interest, perception, and general response to the mobile hub and its

mission. I also attempted to assess their opinion on any perceived or actual value to the

community the mobile hub had. Interviews attempted to gauge how this experience was

different or similar to other art-making or art observing opportunities participants may

have had. Participants also had an opportunity to discuss how interaction with each other

impacted their experience. This interaction is one of the primary points of observation for

my research. Interaction occurred locally (with participants directly interacting with each

other) and between locations through observations and interpretations of artworks.

Interviews were also designed in a way in which they could still be useful if

questions were partially answered or answered by participants that didn’t engage in art-

making or were simply being conversational. As Stokrocki (1997) suggested, they were

primarily open ended but requested specific information. I was able to conduct many of

these verbally, however I had paper versions available for participants to fill out on their

own if need be or desired. In order to foster a genuine, open dialogue, many of these

interviews were performed after some initial discussion about the project and/or artwork.

In addition to interview notes and results, participants’ artworks were also

utilized. Participants were free to create artworks of their choosing; however, I displayed

the art-making prompts they could respond to. These prompts focused on different ways

24

participants could visually express ideas about their communities or neighborhoods.

Artwork functioned both as a representation of participants willingness to engage and

also as their own contribution and personal expression. The artworks documented the

participants’ ideas or messages they wished to express via the mobile hub. Participants

willingness to create artwork, choose media, and artistic choices all provided important

information as well. At each location, I contributed an artwork of my own based on my

interpretation of the area, community, or experience. Frequently, my art-making acted as

a point of interest for potential participants. At times, it encouraged them to approach the

mobile hub and begin talking with me about my work.

Parts of my research questions address the impact of this experience on the

research, from the perspectives of teacher, artist, and researcher. I utilized my

observations and field notes to create personal reflections of each visit. After I processed

the data from each visit, I would review my own reflections in an effort to understand and

evaluate the impact of these experiences on my own pedagogical and artistic perspectives

and approaches. These were crucial in identifying successful and unsuccessful behaviors

on my part and I would consider it similar to a self-appraisal in the workplace. By

comparing my own impressions and judgements of each experience with the data I

collected, I was able to identify points of growth and change (either needed or in

progress) in my own behaviors.

Content Analysis. The process of content analysis is the attempt to find emerging

themes and patterns within the data collected (Stokrocki, 1997). Observations, field

notes, interviews, audio and video recordings, artworks, and personal reflections were

analyzed in an attempt to identify these themes and patterns.

25

I organized data chronologically and grouped by location. Once I completed my

reflection, I identified major themes and ideas that emerged. I then created spreadsheets

in which I entered all possible questionnaire data accumulated through all of my data

collection methods. This enabled me to quantify answers and choices. Once this was

complete, I employed coding to identify frequent responses or behaviors. Initially, I used

a basic green, yellow, and red color scheme to identify general responses in terms of

positive, indifferent, or negative. Once I identified these, I utilized a color-coding system

to identify extremely common responses, specific words, develop categories of possible

responses, and even identify unique answers or phrases. This was done for each location

visited as well as cumulatively tabulated to reflect the entire participant population. Once

this was complete, performed the same coding technique on transcribed conversations.

Reviewing the recordings and video also provided me with emotional context, identifying

certain phrases or concepts that incited passion in participants or myself. This process

helped me to evaluate the data as well as my perceptions of each location. Participants

artworks were analyzed in a similar manner. They were categorized by which prompt (if

any) they responded to. I then made a chart identifying the subject matter and then

characteristics, methods, and materials chosen for the pieces.

Comparative Analysis. Comparative analysis is the process of comparing data

sets from multiple research sessions with each other, forming organized suppositions or

emergent themes, and comparing these to relevant external studies and analysis. As I

completed each visit, I compared each location’s data set with each other, identifying

differences and commonalities. I then compared these suppositions and themes with

external relevant historical studies, contemporary studies, and relevant research. As

26

Stokrocki (1997) suggests, my findings are more of a working hypothesis and are

exploratory. My findings, interpretations, and conclusions are also influenced by my own

role within the research: artist, teacher, researcher, and outsider.

Data Handling Procedures and Role of the Researcher

During this study, I interacted with many people. I conducted interviews,

conversations, recordings, and made extensive notations of surroundings, locations, and

interactions. I was transparent about my purpose and research with everyone I interacted,

ensuring they were aware of my role and impact of their participation. I received their

permission to record conversations, take pictures of their artwork, use interview data for

this research, and display artworks created by participants. I have replaced their names

with pseudonyms to protect their identities and privacy. I emphasized my role as a

researcher as much as a participant and extensively documented my role in the process. I

maintained a descriptive account of my own participation, observations, and reactions. As

Patton (2015) discussed, it is essential that measuring instrument is a focus and measures

appropriately, accurately, and in a standardized manner. In this case, through interviews,

conversations, and art-making, I became the primary instrument for data collection.

While my own experiences and bias have shaped my opinions and subsequently my

interpretations, I made every attempt to be as objective as possible.

Limitations

The nomadic and random disposition of the mobile hub are essential parts of my

research. However, they rely on uncontrollable external factors and at times imposed

limitations on my study. This study relied exclusively on the willingness of participation

at the locations I visited. I did not recruit or offer any stipend for participation. While I

27

attempted to select areas that would be convenient to access and exposed to higher levels

of traffic, I still had to rely on social engagement and the participation of strangers. I also

had to be aware of not violating occupancy laws or ordinances. This impacted where I

was able to visit as well as how I used the mobile hub. This study was also conducted in

an open-air environment. Participants, supplies, and artworks were subject to any weather

conditions. While Arizona can typically be relied on to produce fair and accommodating

weather, during the weeks of this field research the state has received over 2.5 times the

amount of rainfall than it has received on average during the previous ten-year period

(National Weather Service, 2020).

28

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

Over a 6-week span, I completed eight trips with the mobile hub. This consisted

of five trips around the Phoenix area, two trips to Sedona, and one trip to Bisbee. With

each trip came minor adjustments to the setup and layout of the mobile hub and resulted

in a significant change from conception to execution. The following is an account of each

trip with the contextual and demographic information for each site, an overview of my

observations and notes, comments from participants who contributed artworks, and

interview information.

Trip One

Location and demographic information. The first trip I made was to the Arts

and Crafts Festival at Frontier Town in Cave Creek, Arizona on January 26th, 2020. Cave

Creek is a town approximately 30 miles north of downtown Phoenix with a population of

nearly 6,000 (US Census, 2020). This area is known for events such as this festival, its

western themed tourist sites, mountain parks, and conservation areas. The population is

92% white, 4% Hispanic or Latino, 2% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and less than

1% Black. Over 52% of the population is between the ages of 18 and 64, and the median

income is about 30% higher than the average in Arizona (US Census, 2020). The location

of the festival, Frontier Town, is constructed as an old western town. Shortly after arrival,

before having an opportunity to completely set up, I was asked to leave the parking area

if I wasn’t a registered festival attendee. From there, I headed to Spur Cross Ranch

Conservation Area, about four miles north of Frontier Town. This is a popular area for

hiking, horseback riding, and viewing the diverse wildlife and vegetation of Arizona. The

29

parking area was large, unlined, and a mostly gravel lot situated in a flat area between

rolling hills. I was able to find a location within view of the entrance road as well as the

walkway to the conservation area.

I had prepared for the first trip by creating some sample artwork responses to each

prompt (See Appendix C). I used different techniques and set a time limit for each piece

that reflected what I guessed would be the average time of participation, which was

approximately 20 to 30 minutes. These were displayed on white boards against my table,

alongside the title I gave my mobile hub: The Wanderer: Mobile Art Gallery and Studio.

At that point, considering I had already been asked to leave one location, I elected not to

pop the camper up. I spent approximately 4 hours on location, between 12:00 p.m. and

4:00 p.m.

Observations. During this time, I did not have any interactions resulting in

participation and did not obtain any interview data or artworks. I completed one piece of

my own, a watercolor landscape of the view I had (See Appendix D, Figure 5.). I did

experience some strange looks and awkward glances from people. I was approached by

an older couple who asked if I was a tour guide and if I could help them find directions.

While largely uneventful, my first trip still caused me to think about the mobile hub’s

effectiveness. I began to consider ways to avoid being asked to leave while becoming

more approachable to participants.

Trip Two

Location and demographic information. The second trip I made was to Sedona,

Arizona on January 27th, 2020. This trip occurred on a Monday, so while there wasn’t a

festival or major event targeted, Sedona is a large tourist attraction that receives many

30

visitors during the entire year. The area is also known for having an eccentric arts

community and residents who engage with a variety or arts-based activities. Sedona is

approximately 115 miles north of downtown Phoenix and has a population of just over

10,000 (US Census, 2020). The population is 84% White, 12% Hispanic or Latino, 2%

Asian, and less than 1% Black. Over 52% between the ages of 18 and 64, and the median

income is about equal to the Arizona average (US Census, 2020). I targeted one of the

more popular trailheads with accessible parking located near The Village of Oak Creek.

Since these areas are usually populated by tourists and local residents, I believed it could

be an ideal cross section of possible participants. I selected the trailhead on the

southbound side the main state route that people parked in order to hike to Cathedral

Rock.

I decided to use a similar mobile hub layout as the Cave Creek trip. This consisted

of the white boards, with the addition of my Cave Creek artwork, displayed with my title

board alongside them. I did not pop the camper up here. By keeping the camper closed, I

was able to avoid being considered a camper and not occupy a large amount of space to

draw criticism from folks looking to park. The area I occupied was commonly used as

RV or overflow parking, and located in between multiple points of access to trails. I spent

approximately four hours on location, between 1pm and 5pm.

Observations. I was able to document engagement with two participants. Both

made an artwork, participated in the interview questionnaires, but only one participant

answered the art observation questionnaire. Many others walked by and expressed

interest in my setup. I marked ten interactions of this nature in my field notes. The

majority of these were friendly, inquired as to what I was doing, or if I was there to sell

31

my art. I briefly explained my purpose and the study to them and many declined to

participate while still expressing positivity towards the idea. There were also some

interactions that I perceived to be less positive. These included questions about

permission to be there and using parking space. Through these conversations I was able

to ascertain many of the folks interested were not local residents but tourists. Conversely,

both participants were local, one from Sedona and the other from Sedona and Flagstaff.

During this trip I completed another artwork, an ink drawing of a trail scene I observed

(See Appendix C, Figure 6).

Participants

Grace. Grace elected to draw a flag that represented the things she cared about

and that were important to her. These included a fish, rose, and a basketball hoop along

with some other representations. She was hesitant to use any of the higher quality art

supplies and instead drew her image on the interview questionnaire, which was printer

paper, and used basic markers. While Grace was pleasant and talkative, she remained

generally disinterested in the idea of a mobile hub and additional participation. She did

not make an effort to further explain her opinions or stance on the mobile hub.

Susan. Susan chose to draw a scene or an image about her community (See

Appendix C, Figure 7). She drew a snowman to express her fear of climate change and

global warming. To her the snowman was something she didn’t want to see change. Her

perspective was also as a local resident. She discussed how often she witnessed lines of

traffic through town for hours on end. Susan started with plain printer paper but decided

to use the higher quality mixed media paper and used basic markers. She was mindful of

her artistic actions and took great care to complete her work, even asking me about

32

making texture, depth, and perspective. Susan thought the mobile hub was an interesting

idea and something different than she first expected, but was unsure of its impact. She

considered that her unsureness could have been based on being only the second person to

participate.

Interviews

Table 1. Interview Data Trip 2

Participant

Grace.

Flag. Fish, rose, basketball hoop,

printer paper and markers.

Susan.

Scene or image with a change.

Snowman, used better paper and

markers.

Pre-Questionnaire

1. Have you ever had an art class? If so, what impacted

you the most about it?

Yes, High School and college. I

suppose the biggest impact was

made by anyone being able to

make art.

Art Class in High School, not

much else.

2. What do you remember most about the class or space

you were in?

I remember that it was an

excellent outlet for me

emotionally.

NA

3. Outside of a "school" setting, what kind of experience

do you have making or viewing art?

Mainly I just dabble. I make

whatever I want when I feel like

it. That's all.

Loves to go the galleries un

uptown, Tlaquepaque and tries

to meet people like me.

4. What is the most important thing about "art" to you? Having fun! Maybe you have a

special message but I just have

fun.

Means something to have it or I

like to look at it.

5. What is your age and what location do you consider

home?

25, Flagstaff. 45, Sedona.

Post-questionnaire

1. How has this experience impacted your ideas about

making art?

It hasn't. I'd be interested in doing more.

33

2. How has this experience impacted your ideas about

what a classroom or place of learning could be?

It hasn't. I don't really know.

3. How did you feel making and/or discussing art with or

around people you may not know?

Pretty much the same as I feel

when discussing anything else

with people I don't know.

It's just you, not that bad.

4. How do you feel about your work appearing in a

traveling show?

Sure, why not? Indifferent.

5. How do you feel about working with a traveling

artist/teacher?

Depends on who it is and their

attitude. If they love what they

do, I'd consider it. If they come

from a sort of hoity-toity

perspective, I wouldn't want to

work with them.

It's kind of interesting.

Art Observation Questionnaire

1. Which pieces stand out to you the most? Why? The "Recharge" piece. It's

simple, short, and well made.

The message travels well.

2. What do you think the artist is saying about his or her

community or neighborhood?

His/her community needs to get

off their phones!

3. Based on these observations and your experience,

would you consider making your artwork differently or

creating another piece?

Not really.

4. Has this experience impacted how you think art can

impact people or your neighborhood?

Not really.

Notes

About art-making process? NA

Did they ask for help or anything? No Yes, asked about texture and

how to make the snowman look

more like snow, the snow look

more like snow, was really

asking about depth and

perspective.

34

Comments or thoughts on materials? Used regular paper and markers.

Was a little reserved about using

better supplies.

Used printer paper first, then

went ahead and used the nicer

paper.

Comments or thoughts on camper? NA Thought this was a neat idea,

not really sure if it made a

difference or if it would have

mattered because there wasn't

much going on with it.

General. Grace self-identified as being

"on the (autistic) spectrum".

Climate concern was her major

theme to express. Especially

with the folks that travel there

(like me).

Trip Three

Location and Demographic Information. My third trip was to the Peoria

POPUP Free Movie in the Park event on February 1st, 2020. These events are coordinated

by a local organization and take place on Saturday evenings at various locations in Peoria

and the west Phoenix valley. Peoria is a large suburb of Phoenix beginning approximately

15 miles northwest of downtown Phoenix and boundaries extend past Lake Pleasant

Regional Park. The population is just over 170,000, of which is 69% White, 20%

Hispanic or Latino, 4% Asian, and 3% Black (US Census, 2020). About 53% of the

population is between 18 and 64 years of age and the median income is about 22% higher

than the Arizona average (US Census, 2020). I targeted this area because it is where I’ve

considered home for the last three years. I felt it was important to explore and participate

in my own community and neighborhood the same way I had explored others.

This was an organized event that prohibited me from popping up the camper and

to use the mobile hub as a primary location. To use the mobile hub like this would have

35

required me to provide business and insurance information I did not have. I was able keep

the mobile hub onsite, within view, and reference it at multiple times through the

experience. These circumstances led me to employ some adjustments to the mobile hub. I

was faced with the decision to adjust the mobile hub layout or not be able to participate at

the event. I was able to use my canopy, setup a table, display artwork from Sedona and

my own pieces. I also prepared seating for participants if need. I was onsite for about 5

hours, between 3:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Observations. I was able to document engagement with a total of eight

participants. All eight made some type of artwork, participated in the interview

questionnaire, and six answered the art observation questionnaire. As participants

completed artwork, I immediately added it to the displays This was a busy event with

several types of vendor booths and activities. Many attendees and other vendors took

interest in my setup but did not participate. I found that most of these people were

generally interested in what I was doing, especially once they realized I was not selling

anything. This seemed to make them more talkative. They asked questions about the

mobile hub, where the idea originated, my own art practice, my experiences, and things

of that sort. I did not complete an artwork on this trip. I mainly focused on interactions

and began to sketch out a piece conceived as a general response to the Phoenix area (See

Appendix C, Figure 18).

Participants

Anne. Anne responded to the scene or image prompt and created a community

garden picture (See Appendix C, Figure 8). This was something that she was familiar

with from living in a different area and, though difficult in Arizona, she’d like to see

36

something like this in her neighborhood. She started with rough draft on printer paper but

decided to use the mixed media paper and used basic markers. She was hesitant to use

higher quality supplies but once she started became very excited about the process. Anne

also asked for help to make a realistic looking box, essentially asking about how to draw

perspective. She thought the concept of a mobile hub was interesting and would be better

once there was more art and participants.

Beth. Beth responded to the scene or image prompt by making an image

representing how she felt about people using their phones while driving (See Appendix

C, Figure 12). She used mixed media paper and basic markers and was excited to

participate once she came up with a message. She did not ask for any help or had any

questions and appeared to be very passionate about her message. She appeared to have a

positive interaction but did not specifically state anything about the mobile hub and did

not participate in the observation questions. She did, however, said she would work with

a traveling artist or teacher again.

Elizabeth. Elizabeth created a piece based on the scene or image prompt. Her

piece was a direct message, the words “Be Kind” decorated in a variety of patterns and

bright colors (See Appendix C, Figure 9). She was excited to work with quality art

supplies and used the mixed media paper and the better markers I had available. She

repeatedly expressed interest in making art and was extremely focused on her own idea.

She didn’t have any questions. From her perspective, she thought the experience was

beneficial because she didn’t have to worry about a grade and thought maybe she should

make more (art). She clarified that her major reason for participating was so that her work

37

would be displayed for others where ever I traveled. Elizabeth was also the only

participant under the age of 18.

Han. Han was a reluctant participant and was there accompanying Elizabeth. She

ultimately decided to make flag that consisted of four different colored leaves using

mixed media paper and markers (See Appendix C, Figure 10). She did not consider

herself creative and was only participating while waiting for her niece to finish. She felt

indifferent about her work appearing in the mobile gallery and working with a traveling

artist or teacher. Han asked more logistical questions based on my travel locations, how

this was funded, and things of that nature.

Jon. Jon responded to the scene or image prompt by making an image of a bee

holding a sign that said “Save Me” (See Appendix C, Figure 11). This was partially

inspired by looking at the “Be Kind” image and he said he immediately thought about

saving the bees. He began by sketching his idea on mixed media paper in pencil then

used high-quality markers to color and detail it. Jon stated he believed he viewed art

everyday through internet usage, t-shirts, memes, and all sorts of visual “stuff like that”

(personal communication, February 1st, 2020). He got started on his own and had a

general idea of how and what to do with his work. He began a second artwork as a result

of viewing other artworks, our conversation, and waiting for his partner to finish. This

artwork was a tree standing out in a forest. He asked for advice with this artwork and was

using basic markers on plain paper. Jon was excited to see something like the mobile hub

at the park and was not expecting to learn anything when they went there.

Lauren. Lauren participated as a result of Jon participating. While we were

talking, she made a comment about someone using a vaping device nearby and how bad

38

it smelled. I suggested she make a picture about it. She used the mixed media paper and

basic markers to make the message “Escape the Vape”. Generally, Lauren was indifferent

to the experience and most likely would not have participated if not for her partner

wanting to (See Appendix C, Figure 13).

Cory. Cory responded to the scene or image prompt and created an image of a

Sasquatch. Initially, it didn’t seem like he was going to participate but as we began to talk

about his experiences with art, he made a joke about wanting to see a “Squatch” in his

neighborhood so I suggested he draw it. Cory shared that he spent a lot of free time

making furniture, doing carpentry type things, and even made his own guitar. When he

was younger, he used to make artwork, took it pretty seriously, and even entered

competitions (and took the time to show me some pictures of his old work). He used the

mixed media paper and high-quality markers and was extremely thoughtful with how he

handled materials. He demonstrated the same care you would expect a craftsman to have

with their tools. Cory ended up making a second artwork as a result of joking with his

partner about how his “Squatch” looked like Chewbacca. This artwork was a dancing

Chewbacca in a tutu (See Appendix C, Figure 15). Even though his work was comical,

somewhat sarcastic, Cory was very serious about making it. He was very positive about

the idea of a mobile hub and other people potentially viewing his work was a major

motivation for him to participate.

Rachel. Rachel responded to the scene or image prompt with an image based on

her desire to see more recycling centers and more attention given to our impact on the

environment (See Appendix C, Figure 16). She used mixed media paper and basic

markers. Initially, she was only interested in viewing other work and really enjoyed the

39

idea of a mobile hub. She began to participate as a result of Cory being as involved as he

was and the conversation we were having. She asked for help, trying to make the tree

“look less like an elementary school student made it” (personal communication, February

1st, 2020). She was very outspoken about her appreciation for viewing art and suggested I

attend the First Friday events sometime. She also felt that the experience may have been

better with more people participating.

Interviews

Table 2. Interview Data Trip 3 Part 1.

Participant Participant Participant Participant

Anne.

Scene or image with

a change, Garden,

good paper, markers

Beth.

Scene or image with

a change,

Text/Driving, good

paper, markers

Han.

Flag, four colored

leaves, good paper,

markers

Elizabeth.

Scene or image

with a change, Be

Kind, good paper,

markers

Pre-Questionnaire

1. Have you ever had an art class?

If so, what impacted you the most

about it?

Yes- can’t

remember.

Yes, all through

school but only once

in high school. The

teachers were the

nicest.

When I was school,

not much impacted

me.

Yes, I have them in

school. I don't

always get to just

make things I want.

2. What do you remember most

about the class or space you were

in?

It was very studio

like with large black

tables to draw on &

had other areas for

different types of

art.

Not much, in Junior

High School it had its

own classroom.

I don't remember a

lot about them.

They're always

messy, not like

covered in dirt, but

the desks and chairs

have marks on

them. There's

always pictures all

over the walls.

*Clarified

40

"pictures" are

actually artworks.

3. Outside of a "school" setting,

what kind of experience do you

have making or viewing art?

None really other

than playing around

at home.

I like to go to the

museum, I like

Pinterest, it always

has good art.

I don't know,

movies? Stuff like

that?

I'm always doodling

and decorating

things at home.

4. What is the most important

thing about "art" to you?

Expression It has meaning. It looks good.

5. What is your age and what

location do you consider home?

41, Peoria, AZ 30, Phoenix Late 20's, Peoria 13, Peoria

Post-questionnaire

1. How has this experience

impacted your ideas about

making art?

It's not as scary as I

thought.

I don't usually make

art.

It hasn't. Maybe I should

make more.


impacted your ideas about what a

classroom or place of learning

could be?

I think it’s

important to push

ourselves through

making art because

it helps us be

fearless

I guess it has. I guess it's different. It's way different

than school but I

guess I'm doing the

same thing, except I

don't have to worry

about a grade.

3. How did you feel making

and/or discussing art with or

around people you may not

know?

Unsure Good but there aren't

a lot of people.

NA I wish there was

more people

around.

4. How do you feel about your

work appearing in a traveling

show?

Awesome Good. I don't care, it isn't

that good, but I

don't care.

That's why I made

what I made!

5. How do you feel about

working with a traveling

artist/teacher?

would be fun I'd totally do it again. It's ok. I think it's cool.

41


1. Which pieces stand out to you

the most? Why?

Snowman, it looks

interesting.

I like them all.

2. What do you think the artist is

saying about his or her


They're cold?

3. Based on these observations

and your experience, would you

consider making your artwork

differently or creating another

piece?

Yes. Yes. I wish there

was more to look at.

4. Has this experience impacted

how you think art can impact

people or your neighborhood?

It would be neat if

there were more

people sharing

things.

Maybe it can if they

look at it.

Notes

About art-making process? Did rough draft on

printer paper then

did another on good

paper.

No. Not really into it,

didn't consider

herself very

creative.

No, totally got into

doing her own

thing.

Did they ask for help or

anything?

Yes, asked about

how to make a

realistic looking

box, perspective-

based question.

No. No. No, was really kind

of focused on

making her own

sign.

Comments or thoughts on

materials?

Was a little hesitant

to used good

supplies but really

got into it.

Was hesitant to use

good paper.

No. Loved working

with good markers

and paper.


camper?

Thought it would be

interesting once

there was more

going on.

Positive reaction. Asked many

logistical questions,

like where I'd be

going, how I paid

for it, etc.

No.

42

General. Asked a ton of

questions, very

interested in the

process, what I

liked and how I

worked on art.

Seemed pretty into

the idea of making a

message, she made a

strong one.

She probably would

not have

participated if not

for Elizabeth.

Interesting to have a

younger person

participate, even

though they did a

block letter sign.

Table 3. Interview Data Trip 3 Part 2.


Jon.

Scene or image

with a change, Bee

good paper,

markers, Tree

printer paper and

markers

Lauren.

Scene or image

with a change,

Vape, good paper,

markers

Cory.

Scene or image with

a change, Sasquatch,

good paper, markers,

Chewie, good paper,

markers

Rachel.

Scene or image with

a change, Recycling,

good paper, markers

Pre-Questionnaire

1. Have you ever had an art class?

If so, what impacted you the most

about it?

Yes, I just took it to

get by.

Yes, I didn't take

them when I didn't

have to.

Yes, I love it. I used

to take art really

serious and entered

competitions.

Yes, in school. It

was ok, nothing

really stands out.

2. What do you remember most

about the class or space you were

in?

My friends. Nothing really. It was definitely an

art class, with the

desks and clay stuff.

Our teacher was

serious too.

I just remember it

being bright.

3. Outside of a "school" setting,

what kind of experience do you


Art is all over the

internet, memes and

stuff, people

making their own

shirts, posters, all

kinds of stuff like

that. I don't do any

I see a lot of it

online, like

Pinterest,

sometimes I go on

Etsy, all that kind of

thing.

I like to do carpentry

now, I've made a lot

of our furniture, I

made a guitar, those

are the kinds of

things I do now.

I look at Cory's art.

We actually like to

go to First Fridays

and check

everything out.

43

of it, but I definitely

look at it.

4. What is the most important

thing about "art" to you?

It says something to

someone.

It's good to look at.

It might be ugly,

but it still looks

good somehow.

It can be a lot of

things. It just can be

different to everyone

so I don't really have

an answer.

It should be

meaningful.

5. What is your age and what

location do you consider home?

24, Phoenix 24, Phoenix 30's, Peoria 30's, Peoria

Post-questionnaire


impacted your ideas about

making art?

It's actually kind of

fun.

I don't know if it

has. I wasn't going

to make one but it

wasn't that bad.

It reminded me of

how much I like

drawing.

I like looking at it

more than making it

but maybe that's

because I worry

what people think.


impacted your ideas about what a

classroom or place of learning

could be?

I didn't expect to

learn anything

when we came here

today but I have an

idea to make trees

now.

I don't think it

impacted me.

I wonder if I could do

this with carpentry

somehow?

I don't think it has.

3. How did you feel making

and/or discussing art with or

around people you may not

know?

I like it. I like

people.

It's ok. I love talking to

people, I wish there

were more people

around.

I know Cory.

4. How do you feel about your

work appearing in a traveling

show?

I'm excited about it. Indifferent, but I do

hope people quit

vaping.

That's why I made a

2nd picture.

Just don't tell me

what they say about

it.

5. How do you feel about

working with a traveling

artist/teacher?

I like it. I had fun. I'm pretty social so I

can work with

anyone but it's cool

You tried to help. I

think it's interesting

to meet new people.

44

to get different

artistic ideas.


1. Which pieces stand out to you

the most? Why?

Snowman, I think it

looks cool. It's what

gave me the idea to

make the bee.

Be Kind, it's super

colorful and calls

attention to itself.

The Bee. I like the

style of it. It made

me think about how

to make mine.

I like them all.

2. What do you think the artist is

saying about his or her


They like the snow

and cold. But then

you said it was

about climate

change so I was

wrong but it made

me think about

what to make.

People need to be

kind to each other.

Save them. What's important to

them.

3. Based on these observations

and your experience, would you

consider making your artwork

differently or creating another

piece?

Yes, I made the tree

too. I'd keep going

but I think she

wants to leave.

No Yes, I made 2. Maybe if I had more

time.

4. Has this experience impacted

how you think art can impact


It can share

messages. Even if

some of these

people are far away.

Maybe it's good for

some people or for

people to look at

what they made.

Sure. Maybe

someone will hunt

for Squatches.

Seriously though, it

can reach people.

It sheds light on

what people are

feeling.

Notes Made the Bee and

Tree

About art -making process? Was actually pretty

good on his own.

Had an idea of what

he wanted to do and

put it on paper.

Only made one as a

response to

someone vaping

nearby and we

smelled it. She

made a comment

about it and I

Made 2 responses.

Mostly sarcastic but

was very into the

idea and the process.

His work may have

been comical, but he

was actually serious

Was more into

looking at the other

work, wondering

about the other

people than actually

making her own.

45

suggested she make

it into a picture.

about what he was

doing.

Did they ask for help or anything? Asked for an idea

of how to make a

tree stand out in a

forest seen. We

talked about how

you could highlight

one and then just

small parts of

others by light

shining through and

using different

colors.

No. No. Yes, making the tree

look less like an

elementary school

student made it.


materials?

Sketched his out

first and used good

paper.

No. Respectful of

materials, you can

tell he's used tools

and stuff before.

No.


camper?

Thought it was a

cool idea, didn't

expect to see an art

camper at the park.

No. He thought it was a

cool idea, wouldn't

have thought of it

himself but could see

himself doing

something like it.

That it was a cool

idea.

General. No. Wasn't really into it,

but wasn't against it.

Probably would not

have stopped if not

for her partner

wanting to.

He showed me

pictures of his old

work and some of the

things he's made.

He's actually super

talented.

No.

Trip Four

46

Location and demographic information. On Saturday, February 8th, 2020 I

returned to the Spur Cross Ranch Conservation area. I decided on this area because I was

curious to see if displaying more artwork combined with the changes I made to the

mobile hub would have an impact on participation. It was also appealing to return to an

area where I had previously visited and experienced zero participation. Based on my

success in Peoria, I used a similar setup. I utilized the camper to display some of my

work and as the base of operations. This trip, I left it attached to my tow vehicle. I used

the table as the primary work station and displayed participants artwork in front of it

along with a sign attempting to recruit participants. I also limited the materials I brought

with me, eliminating my large watercolor pallet and some of the brushes. I was on site for

approximately 5 hours, between 12:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Observations. This time I was able to document engagement with one

participant. She made an artwork, participated in the interview questionnaire, but did not

answer the art observation questionnaire. This time I was greeted by most people who

walked by, however, there was limited conversation. One person responded to my sign

with “Oh, that’s cute!” (personal communication, February 8th, 2020). In my field notes, I

noted the same level of skepticism I experienced during my first trip still occurred,

despite my changes to the layout. I noted five interactions in my field notes, three of

which were initiated out of curiosity as to the art I was making and if I was there to sell it.

These folks also had a generally positive reaction to what I was doing but did not want to

participate. During this trip I completed a landscape ink drawing (See Appendix C,

Figure 19).

Participants

47

Shawna. Shawna participated, however, she did not respond to a prompt. She

chose to experiment with the mixed media paper and high-quality markers (See Appendix

C, Figure 20). It’s possible her design began with some sort of inspiration because it

wasn’t simply chaos, but she did not state there was definitive subject matter. In general,

her taste and perspective on art was purely aesthetic based. Good art was good to look at.

She didn’t make art, but if she did and she thought it was good to look at, she considered

it good art. She was reserved about truly being creative but didn’t hesitate to experiment

with materials. She wasn’t concerned with possible perceptions of her piece and open to

the thought of contributing artwork to a mobile gallery. She wasn’t sure if she would

have participated in a larger group. She was the first participant to express hesitation

about working with a larger group.

Interviews

Table 4. Interview Data Trip 4.

Participant

Shawna. Abstract piece, no prompt, good markers

and paper

Pre-Questionnaire

1. Have you ever had an art class? If so, what impacted you

the most about it?

Yes, in high School, took it as an elective.

2. What do you remember most about the class or space you

were in?

Lots of paint, mostly paint and drawing. A huge classroom,

black top tables.

3. Outside of a "school" setting, what kind of experience do

you have making or viewing art?

None, I don't doodle or draw because I'm bad at it.

4. What is the most important thing about "art" to you? What are you considering art? Like me doing it or buying it? I

like paintings of flowers especially, they make me feel a certain

way.

5. What is your age and what location do you consider home? No age, Scottsdale.

48

Post-questionnaire

1. How has this experience impacted your ideas about making

art?

I only, if I was good at it I would do it. Why do it if I don't think

it looks good?

2. How has this experience impacted your ideas about what a

classroom or place of learning could be?

Usually everybody in school art classes was always doing

something different.

3. How did you feel making and/or discussing art with or

around people you may not know?

I wouldn't discuss it if I didn't like it. But if I like it, I don't care

what people think or about talking about it to a group.

4. How do you feel about your work appearing in a traveling

show?

I'd like it as long as it were good.

5. How do you feel about working with a traveling

artist/teacher?

It was fun, I'd feel good about doing it again.


1. Which pieces stand out to you the most? Why?



3. Based on these observations and your experience, would

you consider making your artwork differently or creating

another piece?

4. Has this experience impacted how you think art can impact


Notes

About art-making process? Was nervous about making something, at least something

serious. Seemed like she was just experimenting.

Did they ask for help or anything? No.

Comments or thoughts on materials? No.

Comments or thoughts on camper? Thought the idea was interesting, seemed on the fence about if

there were more people present though. She may not have

participated if there were a larger group.

TRIP FIVE

Location and Demographic Information. My fifth trip was on February 10th,

2020 to the Surprise Community Park in Surprise, Arizona. Surprise is another large

49

suburb of Phoenix, located about 30 miles northwest of downtown Phoenix. The

population is approximately 138,000, of which is 70% White, 19% Hispanic or Latino,

6% Black, and 3% Asian (US Census, 2020). Less than 50% of the population is between

the ages of 18 and 64 and the median income is about 10% higher than the Arizona

average (US Census, 2020). The location of the park is adjacent to the Surprise Stadium,

the spring training location for the Kansas City Royals and the Texas Rangers Major

League Baseball teams. This trip was an exploratory journey made with anticipation to

return later in February during baseball spring training.

Between trips four and five, I made adjustments to the camper. The layout used

during trips three and four seemed to have some advantages so I began adjusting the

mobile hub to account for this. I cleaned the top and applied a couple layers of paint to

improve the optics of it. I also committed to using the mobile hub as it is, not popped up.

I added Velcro around the sides and to the top so it could be converted to a display and

workstation. Artwork was affixed to whiteboards and attached to the sides of the camper.

I used blank white boards fastened to the top as available workstations and also had my

folding table available. This was the most economical way to use the camper as a gallery

and studio without subjecting artwork to weather conditions. I also utilized the larger sign

from trip three that recruited participants to “Make Art and Talk” and displayed the art-

making prompts. It also noted this was a free experience. I was able to occupy a minimal

amount of space in a large, unmarked open lot next to the community lake. I was on site

for about 4 hours between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Observations. Unfortunately, I did not have any art-making or interview

participants. The only art contributed was a small piece of my own based on some things

50

I witnessed at the lake. I did have one interaction which resulted in a conversation based

on the art observation questions. This interaction began as a result of him asking me

about the camper, stating he “is old enough to remember it” (personal communication,

February 10th, 2020). This led to him looking at the artwork and commenting on it. To

him, the environmental pieces stood out the most. He though this meant the artists were

reaching out and trying to help, somehow make it better. I did not notate any other

interactions or reactions in my field notes during this trip. During this trip I completed an

artwork loosely based on witnessing local families observing and interacting with the

ducks at the lake (See Appendix C, Figure 21).

Interviews


Art Observation Questionnaire Rich

1. Which pieces stand out to you the most? Why? The environment pieces stand out. Great to see kids or people

reaching out.



They're trying to make it better.

3. Based on these observations and your experience, would you

consider making your artwork differently or creating another

piece?

NA



Some people might really be trying to help.

Notes

About art-making process? NA

Did they ask for help or anything? NA

Comments or thoughts on materials? NA

Comments or thoughts on camper? The conversations actually started over the camper. He asked

me questions about it, he is "old enough to remember" he said.

General. NA

51

TRIP SIX

On February 15th, 2020 I returned to Sedona for my sixth trip. While I was unable

to register and attend the Oak Creek Arts and Crafts Show which was scheduled that

weekend. This brings traffic from a number of areas to participate, shop, and enjoy the

hiking and views of Sedona. I was able to obtain parking in a similar location by the same

trailhead the last Sedona trip. Parking and the trail itself were busier than the last time,

possibly due to better weather and the weekend. I employed the same setup as trip five,

utilizing the camper body as a gallery and a workspace.

Observations. I was able to engage with two participants who created art,

participated in interview questions, and answered observation questions. This trip

provided the most direct teaching experience I had to date. Additionally, there were

several small conversations about what I was doing and my own work, but less that

discussed the mobile hub. It appeared this day had significant tourist traffic and many

appeared to be in a rush. Several people said hello and acknowledged my presence,

however. In my field notes, I noted 1 person who asked about my work and if I was

selling it while another asked me for directions. I was on site for about 6 hours between

12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

Participants

Michelle. Michelle participated after her and her partner approached me while I

was making a pastel landscape scene. I asked them if they wanted to make one and

offered to show them the simple techniques used and they accepted. Michelle felt the use

of a camper was something totally different and was very different from any art classes

52

she took (primarily referring to “paint and sip” classes). She also felt that if it were bigger

it may get more attention. She was very open to learning the process, paid attention, and

actually attempted to make a quality artwork. She also suggested that the camper could

use a paint job itself.

Jeff. Jeff also made a pastel landscape. Both used mixed media paper and were

not concerned about which materials to use. Jeff had less interest in the arts than

Michelle, though he did enjoy some of the things they get to see in Sedona. Jeff felt that

this process may encourage him to consider how art was made when he views it in the

future. He also suggested he learned something and he didn’t have to go to school to do

it. The Bee piece stood out to him because that was a “hot topic” in Sedona right now. He

also thought the camper was unique and overall a good idea, but it could really use a

paint job.

Interviews

Table 6. Interview Data Trip 6

Participant Participant

Jeff. Scene or Image,

Sedona skyline, pastels,

good paper

Michelle. Scene or

Image, Sedona skyline,

pastels, good paper.

Pre-Questionnaire

1. Have you ever had an art class? If so, what impacted you the

most about it?

Long, long ago. I don't

remember much.

Yes, in school, and

sometimes I do paint and

sips. They're a lot of fun.

2. What do you remember most about the class or space you were

in?

Not much. Bright, not always a lot of

space though.

3. Outside of a "school" setting, what kind of experience do you


Here in Sedona, lots. Classes, museums, here

there's a lot to do.

53

4. What is the most important thing about "art" to you? How it looks. It looks good, maybe means

something too.

5. What is your age and what location do you consider home? Here. Here.

Post-questionnaire


art?

Maybe I'll look at how it was

made more.

I liked this.



I guess you don't have to be

in school.

We are at a camper, this is

totally different than classes

I took.

3. How did you feel making and/or discussing art with or around

people you may not know?

I liked talking with you. Agreed.


show?

Fine. I love it.

5. How do you feel about working with a traveling artist/teacher? This was different. Yeah, I enjoyed it.


1. Which pieces stand out to you the most? Why? The Bee, that's a hot topic up

here.

"Be Kind", it's so colorful

and fun.



Save them, like the sign

says.

They must think people

aren't kind to each other.



piece?

Not really. No, we did something totally

different.



Hard to say. If this were bigger it could

really get some attention. It's

always good when people

come together.

Notes NA NA

About art-making process? NA NA

Did they ask for help or anything? Yes, asked me about my

piece and what I was doing

and I invited them to join in.

NA

Comments or thoughts on materials? NA NA

54

Comments or thoughts on camper? They though it was unique,

thought it could use a paint

job.

Agreed about the paint job.

General. NA NA

TRIP SEVEN

Location and Demographic Information. On February 23rd, 2020 I went to

Bisbee, Arizona. Bisbee is located approximately 200 miles southeast of downtown

Phoenix. It’s an area known for its tourist attractions, arts scene, and history. Its

population is about 5,200 of which about 53% is between the ages of 18 and 64. About

64% of the population is White, 32% Hispanic or Latino, 1% Black, and 1% American

Indian or Alaska Native (US Census, 2020). The median income is almost 48% lower

than the Arizona average (US Census, 2020). This weekend the Arizona Art Education

Association was having their southern region conference in Bisbee. I originally had

planned to go Saturday and Sunday, however there was extensive rain throughout

Arizona on Saturday. Due to this I decided to only travel Sunday.

Bisbee is an old copper mining town that is essentially carved into the

mountainside, putting most of the town on a steep slant. The location I originally scouted

had been marked with “No Parking” so I was immediately tasked with finding a

substitute location. I had to make multiple passes through town in order to find a place I

would suitable for the mobile hub. This location was the Lavender Pit Mine visitor area.

Unfortunately, this area was not located on the main tourist roadway or in downtown

area. The area provided enough space and a flat surface to secure the mobile hub. I did

55

not detach it or pop it up, utilizing the surface of it the same way as trip six. I spent

approximately 4 hours on location, between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

Observations. This trip yielded two documented engagements with a couple from

Tucson. Through conversation they answered some of the interview questionnaire and the

art observation questionnaire. They were not interested in making art. Maria made note of

the Sedona pieces because they were pretty but felt that there was a lack of personal

impact because none of the art was about Tucson. Jason preferred the Snowman piece

because it didn’t really fit in the desert. Both thought the pieces reflected positively on

the artists’ community. Jason was surprised to see a camper being used as a mobile hub

and thought it would have been interesting if more people were around. Maria wasn’t

sure about it; she didn’t think it made sense to use. During this trip I worked on an

artwork based inspired by the Bisbee area. It was a simple portrait of an older man (See

Appendix C, Figure 22).

Interviews


Participant Participant

Jason. No Art

Maria. No Art

Pre-Questionnaire

1. Have you ever had an art class? If so, what impacted you the

most about it?

Back in school.

School.

2. What do you remember most about the class or space you

were in?

Not a lot, I took more shop

classes than anything.

I didn't take many of them.

3. Outside of a "school" setting, what kind of experience do you


None. There's always a lot of festivals and things going on

in Tucson.

56

4. What is the most important thing about "art" to you? Looks good.

It looks good.

5. What is your age and what location do you consider home? Tucson, 40's.

Tucson, 40's.

Post-questionnaire


art?



3. How did you feel making and/or discussing art with or around

people you may not know?

If there were other people

here I wouldn't care.


show?

5. How do you feel about working with a traveling artist/teacher?


1. Which pieces stand out to you the most? Why? The snowman, we live in the

desert and it's weird to see

someone draw snow.

Those Sedona ones are

pretty but I like them all.



They like the snow.

They like it there.



piece?



Sure, there's a lot of different stuff on display.

Not really, there isn't anything about Tucson.

Notes

About art-making process? NA NA

Did they ask for help or anything? NA NA

Comments or thoughts on materials? NA NA

Comments or thoughts on camper? Kind of surprised to see a

camper being used for this.

Not sure how it made sense,

like what was it really there for?

General. NA NA

57

TRIP EIGHT

Location and Demographic Information. On March 13th, 2020 I traveled to

Mesa, Arizona and participated in downtown Mesa’s 2nd Friday Night Out. Mesa is a

large suburb about 20 miles east of downtown Phoenix. The population is over 500,000

and Mesa is the third largest city in the state (US Census, 2020). About 62% of the

population is White, 28% Hispanic or Latino, 4% Black, 4% American Indian or Alaska

Native, and 2% Asian (US Census, 2020). The average median income is about 10%

lower than the Arizona average (US Census, 2020). The downtown portion of Mesa is

along a small, two lane road with the light rail travelling through most of it, and lined

with small businesses and local establishments.

The 2nd Friday Night Out even typically brings in hundreds of people. It is run by

a local gallery and studio owner and works with the community to have musicians,

artists, performers, and small businesses attend. I registered for this event and worked

with the coordinator and was provided a space large enough for both the camper and my

canopy. I had planned to use the camper to display artwork, the use the top as an

available workspace, and to use the table under the canopy as a workstation as well. I

arrived to begin setup at approximately 5pm. Based on the intermittent thunderstorms,

one of which occurring as I arrived, I was forced to adjust my layout plans. I used the

canopy to partially cover the camper, using a small portion of the top as a work space and

displaying artwork on the covered sides. My signs were fixed to the rear. I attached

Velcro to the sides of the table and attached the art displays to the sides of it, leaving one

side open should anyone want to sit and make art. I was in an ideal location, right off the

main downtown intersection and in front of the hosting gallery. This event lasted from

58

6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., however, the coordinator began shutting things down at about

9:00 p.m. based on weather and lack of attendance.

Observations. This trip resulted in three conversations. None of the participants

created any art and only one directly answered interview questions. These three

conversations provided feedback and reactions to mobile hub and artwork. The first

conversation occurred with a man walking by who stopped to talk. As it turned out he has

spent the last three years hitchhiking, living homeless, and hiking the Pacific Coast Trail.

He described himself as home free as opposed to homeless, and that his lifestyle was a

choice. His only possessions were in his backpack. He went on at length to describe the

reaction of people and the differences between life on the trail and life in the city. Even

though he did not comment on or make any art, his perspective as a nomadic entity

provided some interesting parallels to what I have experienced. The next conversation

occurred with a young couple, David and Jen. Most of the conversation occurred with

David, Jen mainly listened and looked at artwork. David considered himself an artist and

talked about previous experiences with graffiti and public art. His tastes in general varied

and he was passionate about not being categorized by any one specific opinion. His

experience with art classes was poor and he based a lot of that opinion on the teachers.

David commented on many artworks but had a significant connection to the Sedona

Church piece based on a past experience. This was the first time an artwork triggered a

participant to share a truly personal story about what the piece’s subject matter meant to

them. My final conversation was with Trever, one of the organizers. While brief, he

shared positive feedback for the mobile hub and appreciated the artworks on display. He

mentioned they haven’t had people at the event doing things like this and it was good to

59

see art from other places. During this trip I continued working my Phoenix themed piece

(See Appendix C, Figure 18).

Interviews



Unnamed male. David. Jen. Trever. One of the

organizers.

Pre-Questionnaire

1. Have you ever had an art class? If so,

what impacted you the most about it?

Yes, took many in

High School

2. What do you remember most about the

class or space you were in?

The negative impact

of the teachers more

than any physical

element.

3. Outside of a "school" setting, what

kind of experience do you have making

or viewing art?

Extensive, has gone

to many festivals and

art events throughout

the state. Enjoyed

making graffiti and

public art.

4. What is the most important thing about

"art" to you?

That it speaks to

people, shares

feelings or

memories, and

expresses the artists

ideas.

5. What is your age and what location do

you consider home?

"Home Free" but

considers "here"

(Mesa, AZ) home.

Avondale Avondale

Post-questionnaire

1. How has this experience impacted

your ideas about making art?

60

2. How has this experience impacted

your ideas about what a classroom or

place of learning could be?

The listening

involved with this

project and my

process would make

for a great teacher.

3. How did you feel making and/or

discussing art with or around people you

may not know?

Enjoys it.

4. How do you feel about your work

appearing in a traveling show?

Was open to it, but

didn't create

anything.

5. How do you feel about working with a

traveling artist/teacher?

Thinks it would be

awesome.


1. Which pieces stand out to you the

most? Why?

This is all really

cool.

Connected with the

Sedona Church piece

because of a personal

memory.

Like the

Unplug to

Recharge

piece.

I love all these, I

think this is really

cool.

2. What do you think the artist is saying

about his or her community or

neighborhood?

It's good that there

is art from other

places, we get some

of that here but not

like this. I wish

more people were

here to see it.

3. Based on these observations and your

experience, would you consider making

your artwork differently or creating

another piece?

4. Has this experience impacted how you

think art can impact people or your

neighborhood?

Notes

About art-making process? NA NA NA NA

61

Did they ask for help or anything? NA NA NA NA

Comments or thoughts on materials? NA NA NA NA

Comments or thoughts on camper? This person

thought I was

doing an awesome

thing. He didn't

make anything or

talk about the art,

but it was like

interviewing an

authentic nomad.

Extensive

conversation about

art experiences and

preferences. Very

open but I could not

get him to make

anything.

Positive response,

thought it was a

cool idea.

General. NA NA NA NA

Participant and Interview Summary

I made a total of eight trips with the mobile hub: five to locations in the Phoenix

area, two to the Sedona area, and one to the Bisbee area. Four of those trips encountered

participants that contributed artwork, one trip had zero participants, and seven trips

yielded interview data. I had a total of 20 participants, 11 of which made a total of 13

artworks. 10 participants participated in all interview and art observation questionnaires,

four only participated in interview questionnaires, three provided general feedback

without completing either interview or art observation questionnaires, two completed

partial interview and art observation questionnaires, and one completed only the art

observation questionnaire. I had a total of 16 complete prequestionnaire interviews, 14

complete postquestionnaire interviews, and 12 complete observation questionnaires.

Once I completed my research, I added all the responses into spreadsheets organized by

individual trip and a sheet with a cumulative total. I utilized coding to identify themes in

62

responses, determine positive or negative responses, and identify unique or unintended

responses.

I found that of the 16 participants that completed a prequestionnaire, all 16 had

taken an art class before (interview question 1). Nine of them did not feel the art class

impacted them, two were impacted by the teacher, and two were impacted by being able

to make something (interview question 1). Seven did not remember anything specific

about the space while five remembered physical characteristics (interview question 2).

Seven participants considered their experience with art as only viewing it, four believed

they make and view it, and three believed they only make it (interview question 3). Out

of the 16 questionnaires, seven participants felt the aesthetic quality of an artwork was

most important and five felt that the message or having a message/meaning was most

important (interview question 4). 12 participants considered the Phoenix area home, three

considered Sedona home, two did not answer, and one considered Flagstaff home

(interview question 5).

Of the 14 completed postquestionnaires, seven felt this experience had a positive

impact on their ideas about making art, four felt that it hadn’t, two were unsure, and one

left it unanswered (interview question 1). Nine participants felt the experience had a

positive impact on their ideas of what a classroom or place of learning could be, three felt

it hadn’t impacted them, two were unsure (interview question 2). Eight participants were

indifferent to making or discussing art with people they didn’t know and six felt positive

about the experience (interview question 3). Eight participants had a positive reaction to

their work appearing in a traveling show and six were indifferent (interview question 4).

63

Eleven participants expressed a positive reaction to working with a traveling

artist/teacher while three were indifferent to the experience (interview question 5).

Of the 12 completed art observation questionnaires, three participants felt the

Snowman piece stood out the most, two selected the Bee, two selected Be Kind, two felt

they all stood out, one felt the environmental ones stood out, and one person each

preferred the Sedona and Recharge pieces (observation question 1). Six participants

responded to the message of the piece, five responded to the physical look of the piece,

and one responded to the inspiration of the message (observation question 1). Eight

participants believed the artists were sending a message about their community, three

believed the artist was simply drawing something they liked, and one did not answer

(observation question 2). Based on their observations and experience with the mobile

hub, four participants felt they would make another piece (two of which did), four did not

feel they would make another, three did not answer, and one was unsure (observation

question 3). When asked if this experience has impacted how they think art can impact

people or their neighborhood, five participants reacted positively, four were unsure, and

two felt it did not have an impact (observation question 4).

Of the 20 total participant responses, 13 had positive reactions to the camper as a

mobile hub, six did not express an opinion, and 1 did not feel it was necessary. Four

people were surprised to see the mobile hub, three people felt it would have been a better

experience if there were more participants, and one person felt they would be interested

in doing something similar. Of the 11 art-making participants, five asked for help or

advice on their piece. A total of 11 artworks responded to the scene or image prompt and

two artworks responded to the flag prompt. 11 art-making participants used markers and

64

two used pastels. 11 art-making participants used high-quality mixed media paper and

two used printer paper.

Table 9. Travel Schedule and Locations.

Date Location Specific Place Event

Trip One 26-Jan-20 Cave Creek Spur Cross Ranch

Trip Two 27-Jan-20 Sedona Village of Oak Creek

Trip Three 1-Feb-20 Peoria Paseo Verde Park

Peoria Popup Free Movie

in the Park

Trip Four 8-Feb-20 Cave Creek Spur Cross Ranch

Trip Five 10-Feb-20 Surprise Surprise Park

Trip Six 15-Feb-20 Sedona Village of Oak Creek

Trip Seven 23-Feb-20 Bisbee Lavendar Pits

Trip Eight 13-Mar-20 Mesa Downtown

2nd Friday Night Out in

Mesa

65

CHAPTER 5

INTERPRETATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter discusses my interpretations of this study’s findings. I will review

each question and present my description and understanding of themes that emerged.

This discussion will also analyze these interpretations and compare them to relevant

literature or related studies in order to identify similar findings, insights, or emerging

challenges (Stokrocki, 1997).

Research Question 1

How does the repurposed pop-up camper (as a mobile art-making and

education room) invite participants to rethink their experiences making and

observing art?

The successes experienced by this project were often a result of participants’

curiosity, leading to some form of interaction for participants to explore their inquisition.

The mobile hub triggered a large range of reactions. The majority of participants

expressed a positive reaction to the idea of a repurposed camper as a mobile art-making

and research hub. Many participants and observers used words such as “interesting”,

“unique” and “surprising” when they described their reactions. Participants perceived it

as a site for commerce, thought it was an odd thing to see, thought I was in locations as

an employee, and some were not enthusiastic about my presence. Dialogue is a primary

characteristic of SEA (Helguera, 2011), and it was critical to the social interaction

between participants and myself. I explained that the mobile hub was not solely about

individual pieces. It was about the collective gallery and experiences with participants,

66

similar to Helguera’s (2011) belief that socially engaged artworks create “a kind of

collective art that affects the public sphere in a deep and meaningful way” (p. 7).

The mobile hub was available to all who desired to participate in whatever

manner they felt comfortable. For many, this resulted in making an artwork, and for

others it was simply having a conversation. Participant Rich initiated a conversation

solely based on the camper, asking questions about its age and model. This transitioned

into him discussing artworks with me. He reacted strongly to the pieces based on the

environment and felt the participants who made them were “trying to make it (the

environment) better” (personal communication, February 10th, 2020). Regardless of how

interactions were initiated, my actions were from a position of teaching, learning, and art-

making. This blend is similar to the trans-pedagogical implications Helguera (2011)

suggests. By combining the educational processes and art-making from a repurposed pop-

up camper, I created an “experience that was clearly different from conventional art

academies or formal art education” (p. 77). The mobile hub offered a platform of

engagement not structured by a conventional class setting. Participants were free to come

and go, unbound by typical expectations of completing an artwork or meeting rigid

quality standards.

Using the repurposed camper as a mobile hub provided an opportunity for

participants to work with a traveling artist and teacher. The majority of participants had a

positive reaction to this. All participants who completed prequestionnaires had taken an

art class before. The majority of these participants did not feel that their previous art class

had a significant impact on them. While interview and discussion finding with

participants do not overtly reflect their perceptions of the hub in comparison to a

67

traditional classroom, I suggest that the reimagined place of learning impacted how these

participants reacted by approaching the classroom differently.

While many participants were concerned with aesthetic qualities when making

and viewing art, some went on to make art without worry of their own skill level or being

judged by future participants. The informal nature of our shared artmaking experience

enabled the participants and myself to interact differently than the typical teacher and

student dynamic. Bae and Shin (2019) studied a nomadic food kitchen as a possible

socially engaged pedagogical experience in which cooking and food became an artform.

They determined the social experience of creating food in a nomadic context allowed for

a performance that generated new ways for people to experience art. Similarly, I found

that the democratic social structure with participants, made possible with the mobile hub

created moments of shared traditional artmaking combined with a performative and

dialogic engagement at each site.

These encounters initiated through the pop-up camper demonstrated how it served

as an instrument of change, disturbance (Kalin 2014), or intervention (Richardson 2010).

Based on participants’ responses, it showed the possibility for participants to experience a

change in their thinking about art-making and art observing.

Research Question 2

Can and how might collective artwork created through a socially engaged

practice impact the participants and/or the community when designed as

part of a nomadic experience?

Primary elements of Socially Engaged Art, as defined by Helguera’s (2011), will

guide the analysis of my second research question, namely: the construction of

68

community, multi-layered participatory structures, time and effort, and audience

questions. These guidelines provided a generative structure for understanding the

aesthetic potential of the mobile hub and a useful framework for preparing to engage with

unknown participants. I considered how to develop a community around the hub with a

participatory structure that allowed for varying levels of interaction. These participatory

layers were formed in order to welcome participants regardless of their time investment.

Developing participatory layers required me to attempt to identify the audience and make

assumptions about their interests and desires to participate in my research. This

construction did not exclusively target the art world and invited community-based

dialogue through conversation or art-making.

The Construction of a Community. Helguera’s (2011) first element is “the

construction or a community or temporary social group through a collective experience”

(p. 9), which should involve an “expansion to include participants from outside the

regular circles of art and the art world” (p. 12). I sought to construct a temporary

community around the mobile hub. I established suggested prompts to which participants

could respond using drawing materials. They included: create a scene from or image of

your neighborhood or community; create a flag for yourself, your neighborhood, or your

community; create a map of your community or neighborhood that marked places of

importance to you; and create a scene or an image that speaks to something you’d like to

change about your community or neighborhood.

Almost every participant created an artwork from one of the prompts I provided.

Most participants chose to make a piece about something they would like to see in,

change, or appreciated about their community. Pieces spoke to contemporary political

69

topics, such as the environment or safety and public awareness. As Garoian (2019)

suggested, this art was “situational, attuned, and committed to the contingent

circumstances that are affecting social, political, and economic welfare of families and

their neighborhoods” (p. 181). Many artworks addressed something about change in the

community. They were unique to each participant’s situation and how they related to

others in their community. They became aware and made others aware of their desires for

change or their appreciations of their community. By creating an artwork and displaying

it at the mobile hub, they committed to sharing their feelings with the world. A pedagogy

of citizenship was a biproduct of SEA. Similarly, I found the collective artworks and

conversations generated a sense of ownership and community between participants, at

least during their participation. Participant Rich commented on the pieces related to

environmental awareness. He was able to recognize this importance to other’s and

addressed his own feelings about it and how this was important for his community and

the rest of the world, implying that if each person acted on these feelings many

environmental issues could be improved. Conversations at the mobile hub encouraged

participants Lauren and Rachel to contribute artworks. It is possible that this was driven

by a sense of ownership, being able to express to others within their community (and

outside of it) the things they wanted to change, and the opportunity to express it through

their artwork.

The artwork bridged gaps between locations by displaying pieces created by

participants from previous locations. Many participants recognized the displayed art as a

representation of something meaningful to the other participants who created them.

70

Currently, social media and the internet have provided people an opportunity to

interact with others about political beliefs, community concerns, and world events. These

interactions may never occur face-to-face, and they can, at times, yield false or overstated

ideas. Social media can also allow people to interact with others with little personal

accountability. The experiences with the mobile hub created a different kind of

interaction, where participants’ artworks expressed personal ideas and beliefs to others.

Even though the artworks expressed varying positions, they created a continuous

conversation. In a time of digital ambiguity, this recognition generated face-to-face

connections between communities, similar to Helguera’s SPU (Helguera & Demeuse,

2011).

Multi-Layered Participatory Structure. Helguera (2011) also suggests a multi-

layered participatory structure that can engage with a wide range of participant interest.

Most participants began with limited interactions, such as small talk, questions about my

purpose, or a simple greeting. These informal conversations allowed us to develop a

sense of comfort or security before engaging in artmaking. Sometimes this resulted in

relevant conversations that did not lead to art-making, such as those with Rich’s, David’s,

and the Mesa traveler. These conversations focused on interpretations of the mobile hub

itself and my presence at the locations, rather than discussions of displayed artwork.

These experiences shifted the engagement to what Kester (2004) describes as a dialogical

aesthetics.

Participation was also directed by the provided prompts. They seemed to enable

easy participation with a low-stake creative risk. Creative and collaborative engagement

developed for participants such as Han, Jon, Lauren, and Cory. Jon and Cory responded

71

to prompts and went on to create an additional piece related to the conversations that

emerged. Jon had already completed an artwork about saving bees, then we began to

discuss some other artworks. We discussed my process in making a piece from Sedona,

which was a landscape that featured articulated layers of trees. This led to him working

on another piece, which featured a forest type scene and generated a discussion about

how to make certain artistic decisions. This experience revealed my complex

positionality as artist, educator, and researcher.

Cory created comical work, however, he did so after appreciating Jon’s. He

emulated the style but created his own message. As he created a “Squatch,” his partner,

Rachel, and I discussed how it looked like Chewbacca from Star Wars. This friendly

banter encouraged continual artistic interaction, evidenced by his willingness to create an

additional piece. The multi-layered structure enabled participation from every layer

within this instance. Lauren and Han were not going to create an artwork. They did so

based on the conversation and environment, which the artworks reflected. Like Hutzel’s

(2007) study, each of these types of participation led to shared community perceptions,

engagements with each other and myself, as a form of Socially Engaged Art.

Time and Effort. Helguera (2011) discusses the need to invest time to achieve the

desired results and subsequently the need for a specific goal. He further suggests that

“many problems in community projects are due to unrealistic goals in relation to the

expected time investment” (p. 19) and these “time constraints can put great demands on

the artist” (p. 19). I spent an average of four hours at each site, visited Cave Creek twice,

Sedona twice, and Peoria, Surprise, Bisbee, and Mesa one time each. I arrived at each of

these unannounced and did not anticipate knowing any participants or residents. The

72

exception could be Mesa. I had registered for this event and had explained the mobile hub

to the coordinator. This did not result in any additional communication to the community

about my presence. Helguera recommends considering time and effort in order to prepare

enough time to achieve a desired goal. My preparation contradicted this because the

project was also exploring results from visiting each location unannounced and during a

limited period of time. This unannounced and limited exposure yielded mixed results.

Many participants felt the experience could have been enhanced if there were more

participants. The goal of exploring random encounters during an unannounced visit or

limited duration also impacted the amount of participants. To a further extent, it limited

the participation level of those who did participated. Extensive preplanning and

networking could have improved the attendance, as it did in Helguera’s SPU (Demeuse &

Helguera, 2011), The Cognate Collective’s research (Sanchez-Arteaga & Diaz, 2017),

and Hutzel (2007). However, it would have offset the impact of my nomadic approach.

As Desai and Darts (2016) believe, the chance encounter with the unexpected mobile hub

provided “potential to reveal tears in the social fabric and inspire us to question the status

quo” (p. 193).

Assumptions about the Audience. Helguera (2011) discusses the necessity of

identifying one’s assumptions about who will be in the audience. I identified locations

where some type of event, gathering, or venue was occurring and that might present large

amounts of visitors and that provided easy geographical access. As I identified potential

locations, I frequently defaulted to an idea that my audience would be based on “whoever

is interested” (p. 21). I created this experience because I thought an audience would exist

for it. I had encountered the problem “understanding and defining which groups wish to

73

speak” (Helguera, 2011, p. 25) through the mobile hub. However, I believed participants

would be interested in making art about their community or neighborhood, which all but

one did. Through this socially engaged practice, participants contributed to the gallery

and subsequently the visual conversation surrounding the mobile hub (Garber, 2011).

Like Hutzel (2007), artistic expressions of change or appreciation showed participants

desire to improve or appreciate their communities.

Research Question 3

How does the process of engaging in a transient, reflexive, experience in a

continuously unsettled art-making and pedagogical setting impact the

artist/educator’s perspective on community?

Throughout my research, I made field notes about my interactions, observations,

and experiences. After I completed each trip, I wrote a reflection about my role as a

student, artist, teacher, and researcher. The interpretations and conclusions drawn from

the autoethnographic elements of the research are, by nature, subjective, reflecting on my

personal experience and realizing and acknowledging my position within the research.

I used the mobile hub to determine if and how it could impact the artist/educator’s

perspective on community. Its nomadic nature provided me with constant changes in

location and community positionality. From the beginning of this research, I was always

excited to start a new site visit. I did not know what to expect from people, however, my

enthusiasm generated a continual optimism. I would be excited to experience a random

encounter with a project such as the mobile hub. Experiences were not always smooth.

After a startling experience of being asked to leave the first site that I visited before even

getting setup, I began to completely rethink my position. Ultimately, I managed to collect

74

enough data, artwork, and recorded interactions to form preliminary analysis on the

potential of this kind of nomadic classroom. Interestingly, though, the majority of my

interactions related to general questions about what I was doing, skepticism about my

mission, avoidance of what I assume was people’s fear of a potential sales pitch, and

suspicious reactions I received from some observers.

I have lived in the Phoenix or Sedona area for the better part of the last twelve

years, yet I became an outsider in the neighborhoods I visited, even in my own

neighborhood. As Hutzel (2007) described, “despite living in this community, I was

perceived as an outsider” (p. 299). I was unable to avoid the pitfalls of the outsider

(Stokrocki, 1995). I was forced to rethink my position and accept that the general

population may not welcome me with the excitement I anticipated, and in fact, at one

point outright asked me to leave. These interactions led to questions of belonging and

even my own citizenship within Peoria, the Phoenix area, and Arizona. I considered how

this would impact me if I were an art educator in the Mesa or Tempe area but still lived in

Peoria. I began to consider how constructing lessons and curriculum with this new

experiential knowledge would benefit students and their communities (Clark &

Zimmerman, 2000). These neighborhoods are part of the greater Phoenix area but still are

different demographics, different cities, and have different community and cultural values

from each other and Peoria. Research studies such as the mobile hub would be valuable,

maybe necessary to negate the feeling of an outsider. This could provide the art educator

an opportunity to engage with parents, students, and residents in order to identity the

things important and relevant to the community while establishing the teacher’s own role

and commitment to these same items. Over time, the contact and relationships built

75

within the community would be essential to change the school community’s perception of

me as an outsider. As many of these areas were subject to tourists and visitors, it could

also be important to assess their opinions about where they are visiting. The art educator

could identify connections and gaps between the self-reveled identity of the community

and perception of other “outsiders”. This combination of artistry, education, and local

community integration would benefit all parties involved (Clark & Zimmerman, 2000;

Hoffman, 2010; Ulbricht, 2002). This experience caused me to rethink how I may

approach my role in the community as an art educator.

I had decided that I would make an artwork at every location I visited. I

considered my work a visual account, an artifact of my journey, a visual journal, or

maybe parts of all of these. As participation never achieved the heights I imagined and

having to negotiate the role of outsider, I began to focus more on my role as an artist than

as a researcher or teacher. I opened myself to the unique attributes and peculiarities of

this experience. Through this, it seemed people started to consider me less imposing and

became more open to interacting with me. I was there as an artist, who just happened to

tow a trailer around with him and plaster art all over it. Perhaps it was at this point that

the mobile hub became more of an approachable mobile gallery. Maybe at this point the

mobile became an artwork, like a work of temporary street art. I also wondered if the hub

might have operated like a piece of graffiti that, though unintended, formed a “resistance

to the sanctioned imagery and the notion of public space” (Waclawek, 2011, p. 73).

Perhaps seeing an artist in practice was more intriguing, taking the onus off of

participants as primary actors. As I embraced this position, I was also becoming more

comfortable with the mobile hub and the process. I became comfortable appearing out of

76

place. I had a predetermined order for arranging signs and artwork, had it organized

accordingly, and minimized the time spent assembling and disassembling the external

displays of the mobile hub. People approached the hub more often, asking question s

about my artistic activity. Everyone I spoke with at the Mesa event approached me as

though all the artwork was mine (despite being tagged with the artists’ name and

location), surprised to hear that I was not the sole author of this story.

I have also considered how the hub and research process combined acted

collectively as a public expression of art-making, art appreciation, and art performance

existing independent of but as a result of community involvement as Phillips (1981) and

Fisher (1996) described. As I wove my interview questions into conversations, I began to

confide in the community. I shared how my role as a teacher was dependent on my role

as a learner. Teaching, learning, and art-making became an entangled process. An

internal shift from structured objectives, predetermined results, and static guidelines for

success, allowed me to consider typical education as more of an unending process. I

moved from focusing on an outcomes-based model to a flexible process. Something kept

in a state flux like the “becoming pedagogy” Shin and Bae (2019) discussed. Participants

became partners in my performance and I became partners in their day reconstructing the

place of learning as a place of becoming. Perhaps I began “to see these teaching and

learning environments, as territories that are populated, inhabited, and given meaning by

the constantly shifting becoming of nomads, following lines or sight, engaged in nomadic

inquiry” (Gale, 2010, p. 305). From the beginning, I was forced to continuously

reevaluate my role and presence in these communities. Like my nomadic mobile hub, my

77

perspective on community and my evaluation of self, existed in a constant state of

fluctuation.

Additional Question

How could the art educator’s experience during this research impact his/her

approach to the construction of their educational environments?

The findings suggest a reaction to the mobile hub that impacted my perception of

its use as a place of learning. Again, the interpretations and conclusions largely rely on

my reflection and experience. The interpretations and conclusions drawn from this are

subjective, based on my own position within the research and personal experience and is

autoethnographic in nature.

The mobile hub was an idea and a form that challenged perspectives of classroom

structure. Does teaching and learning only occur in a classroom with prearranged desks

and resources? Is a studio with easels surrounding a still life the best way to learn to

draw? These are the typical classroom structures students are used to. The mobile hub

was not meant to be any of these things. How could it encourage a reimagining of how to

construct the classroom? I went through many different design iterations before settling

on the pop-up style camper. I had envisioned it as easy to set up, an inviting open-air

setting, and a fiscally responsible decision. This shaped how I utilized my time and

resources as I restored and repurposed the camper. I determined to focus on two-

dimensional art as the artform. I felt this would appeal to most people and would be more

relatable than a specific three-dimensional practice, such as ceramics or sculpture. I was

also able to select a variety of materials such as crayons, pencils, markers, and watercolor

paint. Just as the mobile hub was an open experience it would also be open to

78

participants’ preferred experience. It could accommodate their comfort level and also

provide experimentation with materials that reflected how I was experimenting with the

mobile hub at their locations. I provided prompts, but the experience was open to

participants’ interpretation. Though it may not be possible for every school to have art

class at a mobile hub, it is possible to rethink the provided space from the mobile hub’s

perspective. Like the mobile hub, the class can be arranged in a way that isn’t just to

streamlines accomplishing objectives or focuses on developing specific art skills. A

classroom that embraces change and inquiry can be creative space for students to

experiment and learn more about art, art-making, community, interaction, and much

more.

As I mentioned, I was asked to leave the location of my first visit before I even

got started. This caused me to immediately rethink the decisions I made. I had to consider

being unwelcomed and ways to reduce this possibility. Perhaps I wouldn’t be able to

establish the mobile hub in the form I planned. As I was progressing through my trips, I

found that my original design and layout was not working as expected. I was fixated on

the camper as the setting I imagined but not the experience I imagined. Furthermore, I

was faced with examining potential negative repercussions for spontaneously appearing

in these locations and setting up a classroom, a workspace, or a research site. I became

aware of how close to solicitation laws and public commerce laws I became. I was faced

with the question: What is more important, using the camper exactly as I planned and

desired or allowing it to evolve through the experience as I did? A project about

rethinking places of learning was at risk of failure had I not changed how I constructed it

as a place of learning. I had to reconsider it as a process instead of an outcome (Fendler,

79

2019). The internal shift from traveling researcher or teacher to traveling artist reinforced

my questions about the structural decisions I made. As I shifted my role and perspective

to artist, I looked at the mobile hub as an artistic workspace and gallery. I arranged

materials and surfaces to accommodate artist production. I used the sides to display art.

From afar, you could not tell that these displays were temporary or collapsible. The

camper gradually changed from setting to symbol. The art I collected was displayed on it,

art was created on it, but experiences occurred regardless.

During one conversation, after I explained the mobile hub, the person responded

with “So, it’s like an art cart?” (personal communication, February 8th, 2020). This made

me cringe a little as I immediately thought about it compared to idea of “art-on-a-Cart”.

Teaching art from a rolling cart, mobile, without a permanent classroom, and teaching

from the position of visitor are all characteristics of Nolte-Yupari’s (2019) description of

art-on-a-cart. The mobile hub checks all of these boxes. I wondered if my feelings of

being an outsider and unsettledness I had were similar to the art educators forced to teach

from this setting. I wondered if the skepticism and judgement I faced was how students

looked at the art educators teaching from art-on-a-cart. I did not realize that I approached

my planning and materials in a similar way. What could I do with a limited water supply?

How could I properly care for completed artworks? How did funding and resources

impact my classroom? These are all considerations that the art-on-a-cart teacher must

face as well (Nolte-Yupari, 2019). The main difference is the art teacher has an

established role with their cart and is expected appear, teach, leave, and return to teach

again. I didn’t intend to investigate art-on-a-cart. However, as my experience grew

similar the idea and process of it, I often considered how my solutions and answers would

80

translate to the classroom. I changed the construction of the mobile hub to utilize the

elements that posed challenges (perceptions, limited funding, weather, etc.). Perhaps

there are some common answers to the plights of an art-on-the-cart teacher. Similar to

Debban and Williams (2020), Bae and Shin (2019), Bertling (2019), Darts (2011), and

Hutzel (2007), I realized how utilizing curriculum and teaching methods that embraced

mobility and unfixed positionality could benefit teachers and students.

81

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study provided data showing that the mobile hub could engage participants

in a dialogic, art-making, and art observation experience that generated a community-

building encounter. From this, this may have affected the way that they view future art

experiences. For some participants, the presence of the mobile hub initiated the

experience entirely, creating an interaction with art that may not have occurred otherwise.

I cannot say that they continued to think about it afterwards just as I could not say if a

student thought about an art lesson when they got home from school. I would estimate

very few participants expected to see me with the mobile hub at the trailhead, at the park,

or the places I visited. This most likely provided an unexpected experience for them and

could have led to different ways of thinking.

Using socially engaged art as practice and pedagogy allowed the mobile hub to

function as an experience and an artwork. The design of the project incorporated key

components of SEA, namely constructing a community through the practice, establishing

different levels or participation appealing to a variety of people, understanding the scope

of the project, and assessing your potential audience. The conversations and shared

artmaking experience between local community members and the researcher as traveling

artists generated positive responses, and created an experience around art-making that is

different from many classroom or community settings. Through our mutual participation

and partnership, the participants and I were able to gain new understandings of the

community, art-making, and art observation. As we were able to redefine them together

in the middle ground, it created connections that otherwise may not have occurred

82

between us (Irwin, 2013). The community building and pedagogical value of SEA to art

education research as Bae & Shin (2019), Helguera (2011), and Hutzel (2007) all

describe became increasingly clear.

Just as students change year after year in a classroom setting, the mobile hub

changed locations and participants trip after trip. These changing conditions caused me to

continuously rethink my own positionality in relation to the mobile hub, the site, and the

community members. It caused me to continuously assess the physical layout of the hub

during and between visits and consider the implications of changes for the participants.

Becoming a traveling artist allowed me to encounter people differently and more openly

than establishing myself as a researcher or teacher. This created a temporary relationship

between the mobile hub, participants, and myself that allowed for teaching, learning, and

discussion. Based on mutual understandings and ideas about all of our purposes, the

nature of our social relations were dependent on our understanding of each other’s

intentions and desires (as they relate to engagement over the mobile hub). Structuring a

learning environment with ideas based on students’ needs, interests, and skill levels,

could lead to similar experiences as the mobile hub provided, a “multidirectional

exchange of experience and information” (Higgins, 2002).

Unexpected Impacts

Of all the limiting factors (people, accidental events, abnormal weather,

geographic spaces, disease), none seemed more prevalent than nature. The nature of

people, disease, and the planet. This study was challenged by the curious nature of people

and how they chose to act or not act upon this. Not everyone shared my anticipated

enthusiasm over the mobile hub, nor did they react to their curiosity as I may have. These

83

factors led to significant improvements and new experiences. However, I did use time

and financial resources to enact changes to the mobile hub and potentially lost

participants as a result. Time and resources I utilized could have been applied to

improving the outer appearance of the mobile hub, making it more appealing and

potentially attracting more participants. Financial resources could have been allocated to

attending events that required a registration fee. The study was also impacted by my own

curiosity. I found that I had become more observant of and interested in the everyday

spaces I occupied, such as my university campus. In the final month of data collection, I

accidentally walked into a metal pole while looking at a building on campus. The

accident resulted in a black eye swollen shut. As this occurred over the final weeks of my

research, it impacted my abilities to interact with people, travel, and produce art. While it

was an accident, these things occur in life. An established teacher or employee can still

continue with their responsibilities because they have established relationships with

students and colleagues that would understand the accident or they have employment

benefits. As a temporary visitor in my project my damaged appearance would likely have

impacted participants’ perception of me and possible willingness to participate. While the

project was designed with social engagement at its core, the significance of my personal

appearance was not something I had considered, until it changed.

While I designed the learning hub to be accessed outdoors, I did not anticipate

abnormal weather conditions and geography. Arizona seemed to be an ideal site for this

kind of project. This study was challenged by our above average rainfall. Events were

rained out, postponed, or lowly attended. I also had not fully considered the impact of

geographical elements on my ability to park the hub in active community spaces. For

84

instance, I was unable to park immediately near an arts and crafts festival. I was unable to

reach participants naturally interested in the arts. The project was challenged by the

geography of a town built entirely on a hill, where the steep roads made parking or and

working in the hub nearly impossible. This town was hosting an art education

organization’s event. Determined to achieve visibility within the local art education

community, I attempted to fit the mobile hub into a space that was clearly inadequate.

Moreover, the onset of the COVID-19 Virus and social distance policies required

that the site visits come to an abrupt end. Events I planned to attend were gradually

cancelled and the last event was lowly attended. I had set out to explore the mobile hub’s

impact on perceptions of classroom structures, but I had surprisingly not truly considered

how dependent the study was on social and geographical conditions. I had not considered

how socially engaged art would or could function when social distancing must occur. I

believe the nature of this research combined with experiences it provided will allow me,

or others, to consider new or different methods of interaction to improve the teaching and

learning process when disruptions such as the ones described occur.

Implications for Future Research

This study has several implications for future research, drawn both from its

challenges and its successes. If attempting a similar study, using the same methods and

structure, further research could benefit from additional planning, geographic research,

and increasing available funding. A future researcher could execute this study attending

only events that require registration. Through my experience, however, this could greatly

reduce the experiences that emerged from the feeling like an outsider. It could greatly

increase the potential pool of participants. A future researcher could still avoid

85

registration events but devote more time to researching potential geographic locations.

This would account for possible limitations and challenges in advance and give the

opportunity for preplanning the mobile hub’s setup. Another researcher may choose a

different vessel to serve as the hub, something other than a pop-up camper. They could

utilize something with a larger or smaller footprint similar to that used by The Cognate

Collective, a van like Helguera, or just supplies they can carry (such as only a folding

table and art supplies). Varying the vessel could allow for new locations and possibilities

to explore specific neighborhoods, regions, and demographics. Diversifying research sites

by visiting different socio-economic, ethnic, or racial demographics could yield different

results. Increasing the duration of the research would provide consistent data driven

results to draw conclusions from and maybe allow for more in depth answers to research

questions.

Some of these implications were only realized through the specific challenges

presented throughout the experience of my study. The nomadic position of teaching

revealed opportunities to engage with the community and develop teaching or curriculum

that is better oriented around what the community values. The nomadic approach is also

beneficial to the educator by enabling a state of continual self-assessment. This can

disable the routines that can drain lessons and art from the excitement of learning and

creating, stifling creativity. A future research study could approach the mobile hub with

an orientation focused on lesson planning and curriculum design to analyze how the

nomadic approach could impact these actions. A researcher could coordinate efforts in

advance with some of the locations I targeted, or other interested teachers or researchers,

or even utilize social networking. It would be interesting for a teacher to perform this

86

research exclusively within the district they teach, perhaps working with the

administration to plan events or excursions. For larger areas where there may be more

than one high school per district, such as the Phoenix area, it could be beneficial for art

teachers to perform a similar study where they coordinate visits amongst classrooms, or

in the communities of each other’s schools, and analyze the results individually and/or

together. Throughout this research, my position as an outsider was greatly apparent and

generated by my nomadic position. It is possible that many art teachers have similar

feelings within their own school. Others are unsure of what they are doing, they aren’t

part of “core” subjects, and some don’t have classrooms of their own. It became clear to

me that performing research such as this as a coordinated group effort could mitigate

some of these negative feelings, increase a sense of belonging, and bring visibility to the

community benefits of art education.

This research utilized socially engaged art and emphasized its critical elements to

build a community around the mobile hub. SEA suggests this type of activity could

extend to strengthening the larger community. This approach was successful, however, it

left unanswered questions about building an ongoing community or lasting relationships

between the mobile hub community participants and the larger communities in which it

was located. A future research study could emphasize revisiting multiple locations.

Perhaps if it made nine total visits, then they would be comprised of three locations

sequentially three times over. Again, planning and social networking could be employed

to establish a presence, recruit participants, and maintain these connections despite a lack

of physical presence. An additional perspective on using socially engaged art could come

from the social position we are currently in, the same one that impacted the latter part of

87

my research. As we move forward practicing social distancing, how could SEA or a SEA

driven research project succeed? It would be interesting to attempt this research

simulating our current social limitations with proper preparation. By using a socially

engaged practice within the community, a researcher could investigate the impact it had

despite limiting face-to-face encounters, limiting the space available to interact, and

analyzing how instruction could occur in this situation moving forward. A researcher

could explore options to use a socially engaged practice with internet and virtual means.

A socially engaged approach would respect and maintain the value of human interactions

while still utilizing technology to access people and locations that are limited in a

physical setting. This would provide opportunities to develop virtual methods to teach

and practice physical art-making processes. A long-term study could incorporate a model

such as mine, using close proximity instruction, combined with the planning mentioned

throughout these implications, and transition into exploring the impact of social

limitations. These face-to-face interactions and conversations were crucial to the change I

experienced performing this research. They were essential to my reevaluation of my role

within the communities. Approaching a research study from the position of maintaining

the face-to-face interactions despite challenging or prohibitive circumstance could be

extremely valuable.

It was not until I began to approach my project as an artist that the feelings of

solidarity and of being an outsider began to decrease. However, it was not until someone

referred to the mobile hub as an “art cart,” that I considered the possible similarities

between my research and art-on-a-cart. This unintended result is important to note and

would be relevant to further research. It grew from a negative position, feelings of not

88

belonging and not being understood. Performing a research study focusing on exploring

the impacts of art-on-a-cart could give valuable insight to the impact it has on teachers

and students. As I was faced with the similarities, I began to wonder if the responses I

received from the general public were the same that students have to their art-on-a-cart

teacher. If so, do these similarities generate corresponding long term thought processes

towards the arts? Specifically, does this occur for students that are not naturally inclined

to participate in the arts? Does it point to the ways that people value people,

organizations, or processes they perceive as established? A research study that focuses on

engaging these students or people in meaningful arts-based activities could provide

valuable insight. These critical questions are relevant in art education and schools today.

This research provided valuable information regarding reevaluating the classroom

structure and how we, as educators, construct our learning environments. This research

may not have provided answers to the physical portion of that question as originally

intended. It did provide insights to the conceptual approach. Throughout my travels, I

was faced with constant spatial limitations and interactions that forced me to rethink the

physical layout of the mobile hub. The crucial moment was when I decided that the

experience outweighed my predetermined notion of what it had to look like. This was, of

course, easier for me to change than it would be for an art educator at a local high school.

However, the change in mental approach yielded a much greater result than any physical

arrangement could. By focusing on the experience, I changed the environment of the

mobile hub to something greater than a pop-up camper. The change in my subjective

relation to the hub as a teaching and learning space had a far greater impact than I

anticipated. Similar to my surprise at the unexpected impact of social and geographical

89

factors, I had not predicted the impact on my personal subjectivity. I had initially placed

far more significance on physical classroom design, but not how they might affect me

psychologically. Further research investigating the results of a nomadic approach to

educational environments and the challenges they face would be beneficial and could

yield similar results. Entering the research and establishing parameters focused on the

psychological impact of spatial design could build upon or substantiate my experience.

I have previously discussed the shift in my approach as a teacher or researcher to

an artist. As I became more the artist and less the researcher or teacher, I was more easily

able to connect with participants and observers. I became more focused on sharing in the

experience, and less focused on accomplishments or objectives. For those who

participated, a genuine two-way dialogue was formed. This allowed both of us to discuss

creative ideas, openly ask questions, and even request art-making assistance. As the rigid

teacher/student boundaries deteriorated, I became more of a short-term mentor and an

equal participant. As Higgins (2002) described, “the teacher becomes a guide, helping

students find information and determine how it might be adapted to their particular

needs” (p. 203). It’s important to note, however, that I did not lose focus of the research I

was doing, but I resituated by presence and positionality to become participant and

researcher simultaneously. The goals and questions were still motivating my work. It was

the approach as an artist that uncovered the middle ground between teacher, learner,

researcher, and artist and making it easier to uncover the answers or experiences I

needed. Further research, situated from a mobile hub or even fixed location, could

explore and support the value of this approach. For many art educators, it could reaffirm

the importance of their personal artistic practice and creative expression while

90

simultaneously developing their teaching abilities and approaches. As art educators, we

occupy a different teaching space than other subjects. It is important to research different

methods and develop support for these approaches that may be successful for teaching

the arts, even if different than core subject teaching norms.

91

REFERENCES

Anderson, T. (2014). Climbing Kilimanjaro: Narrative and Autoethnographic Research.

In Inquiry in Action. Edited by Kathy Marzilli Miraglia. Reston, VA: National Art

Education Association.

Bae, J., & Shin, R. (2019). Conflict Kitchen and Enemy Kitchen: Socially Engaged Food

Pedagogy. Studies in Art Education 60(3), 219-235.

Bertling, J. (2019). Layered Collaborative Visual Reflection: Sharing Lived Experiences

and Making Meaning. Art Education 72(3), 28-38.

Braidotti, R. (2011). Nomadic Theory: The Portable Rosi Braidotti. New York, NY:

Columbia University Press.

Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (2000). Greater Understanding of the Local Community: A

Community-Based Art Education Program for Rural Schools. Art Education, 53(2),

33-39. doi:10.2307/3193848

Cognate Collective. (2012-2017). MAP:LA/TJ Research Archive. Handbound Text

Archive.

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. SAGE Ltd. Thousand Oaks, Ca.

Darts, D. (2011). Invisible Culture: Taking Art Education to the Streets. Art Education

64(5), 49-53.

Debban, E., & Williams, R. (2020). Learning from Traveling Sketchbooks: Between

Today’s Students and Tomorrow’s Teachers. Art Education 73(2), 15-23.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Desai, D., & Darts, D. (2016). Interrupting everyday life: Public interventionist art as

critical public pedagogy. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35

(2), 183 – 195. doi: 10.1111/jade.12050

Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of Learning: Media, Architecture, and Pedagogy. New

York, NY: Taylor & Francis Books, Inc.

Fendler, K. (2019). Desire Paths: A Reflection with Preservice Students in the Eventful

Space of Learning. Studies in Art Education 60(4), 274-286.

Ferrance, E. (2000). Action Research. Providence, RI: Brown University.

92

Fisher, D. (1996). PUBLIC ART AND PUBLIC SPACE. Soundings: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 79(1/2), 41-57. Retrieved From

http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/stable/41178737

Gale, K. (2010). An Inquiry into the Ethical Nature of a Deleuzian Creative Educational

Practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(5). 303-309.

Garber, E. (2011). Mexico Next Right: Considering Representations of Mexico,

Mexicans, and Chicanas/os in Visual Culture. In Art, Culture, and Ethnicity (p. 7).

Alexandria, VA: National Art Education Association.

Garoian, C. (2019). Socially Engaged Art and Its Pedagogy of Citizenship. Studies in Art

Education, 60(3), 168-185.

Helguera, P. (2011). Education for Socially Engaged Art. New York, NY: Jorge Pinto

Books.

Helguera, P., & Demeuse, S. (2011). The School of Panamerican Unrest. New York, NY:

Jorge Pinto Books.

Higgins, H. (2002). Fluxus Experience. London, England: University of California Press.

Hoffmann Davis, J. (2010). Learning from Examples of Civic Responsibility: What

Community-Based Art Centers Teach Us about Arts Education. The Journal of

Aesthetic Education,44(3), 82-95. doi:10.5406/jaesteduc.44.3.0082

Holland, K. (2015). The Coming Community of Art Education: Introducing Lesson

Blueprinting to Saturday Art. Visual Arts Research, 41(1), 43-66. https://www-

jstor-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu /stable/pdf/10.5406/visuartsrese.41.1.0043

Hurwitz, A. (1975). Group Art: The Neglected Dimension. Art Education, 28(1), 5-7.

doi:10.2307/3191997

Hutzel, K. (2007). Reconstructing a Community, Reclaiming a Playground: A

Participatory Action Research Study. Studies in Art Education, 48(3), 299-315.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25475831

Irwin, R. (2013). Becoming A/r/tography. Studies in Art Education, 54(3), 198-215.

Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24467860

Kester, G. (2004). Conversation pieces: Community and communication in modern art.

Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Klein, S. (2014). Action Research and Art Education: Principles and

Possibilities. In Inquiry in Action. Edited by Kathy Marzilli Miraglia. Reston, VA:

93

National Art Education Association.

Nolte-Yupari, S. (2019). Facing the Elephant: Let’s Talk About Art-on-a-cart. Art

Education, 72(6), 14-19.

Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications.

Phillips, P. (1989). Temporality and Public Art. Art Journal, 48(4), 331-335.

doi:10.2307/777018.

Richardson, J. (2010). Interventionist art education: Contingent communities, social

dialogue, and public collaboration. Studies in Art Education, 52(1), 18–33.

Sayeg, M. (2018). Magda Sayeg. Retrieved April 14, 2018, from

http://www.magdasayeg.com/

Sayeg, M. (2015, November). How yarn bombing grew into a worldwide movement.

Retrieved April 14, 2018, from

https://www.ted.com/talks/magda_sayeg_how_yarn_bombing_grew_into_a_world

wide_movement

Stokrocki, M. (1997). Qualitative forms of research methods. In Research Methodologies

for Art Education. In S. D. LaPierre & E. Zimmerman (Eds). Reston, VA: National

Art Education Association.

Stokrocki, M. (1995). An exploratory microethnographic study of art teaching in one

Navajo public school system: The Anglo view of Running Water. In H. Kauppinen

& R. Diket (Eds.), Trends in Art Education from Diverse Cultures (pp. 181-189).

Reston, VA: NAEA.

Ulbricht, J. (2002). Learning about Community Art Behaviors. Art Education, 55(5), 33-

38. doi:10.2307/3193956

Waclawek, A. (2011). Graffiti and Street Art. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson Inc.

Wright, S. (2006). Teacher as Public Art. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40(2), 83-104.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/stable/4140231

National Weather Service. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.weather.gov/psr/PRI

United State Census. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov

94

APPENDIX A

IRB APPROVAL

95

Cala Coats

HIDA: Art, School of - [email protected]

APPROVAL: EXPEDITED REVIEW

Dear Cala Coats:

On 12/7/2019 the ASU IRB reviewed the following protocol:

Type of Review: Initial Study

Title: A Nomadic Action Research Study

Investigator: Cala Coats

IRB ID: STUDY00011168

Category of review:

Funding: None

Grant Title: None

Grant ID: None

Documents

Reviewed:

• Art Observation Questionnaires.pdf, Category: Measures (Survey

questions/Interview questions /interview guides/focus group questions);

• Art-Making Questionnaires.pdf, Category: Measures (Survey

questions/Interview questions /interview guides/focus group questions);

• Assent-15-17.pdf, Category: Consent Form;

• Assent-9-14.pdf, Category: Consent Form;

• Gaylord General Consent.pdf, Category: Consent Form;

• Gaylord-Parental-Permission.pdf, Category: Consent Form;

• GaylordProtocol.docx, Category: IRB Protocol;

The IRB approved the protocol from 12/7/2019 to 12/6/2024 inclusive. Three weeks

before 12/6/2024 you are to submit a completed Continuing Review application and

required attachments to request continuing approval or closure.

Page 1 of 2

If continuing review approval is not granted before the expiration date of 12/6/2024

approval of this protocol expires on that date. When consent is appropriate, you must use

final, watermarked versions available under the “Documents” tab in ERA-IRB.

In conducting this protocol you are required to follow the requirements listed in the

INVESTIGATOR MANUAL (HRP-103).

96

Sincerely,

IRB Administrator

cc:

James Gaylord

Page 2 of 2

97

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES

98

Pre-questionnaire:

1. Have you ever had an art class? If so, what impacted you the most about it?

2. What do you remember most about the class or space you were in?

3. Outside of a “school” setting, what kind of experience do you have making or viewing

art?

4. What is the most important thing about “art” to you?

5. What is your age and what location do you consider home?

Post-questionnaire:

1. How has this experience impacted your ideas about making art?

2. How has this experience impacted your ideas about what a classroom or place of

learning could be?

3. How did you feel making and/or discussing art with or around people you may not

know?

4. How do you feel about your work appearing in a traveling show?

5. How do you feel about working with a traveling artist/teacher?

Art Observation Questionnaire:

1. Which pieces stand out to you the most? Why?

2. What do you think the artist is saying about his or her community or neighborhood?

3. Based on these observations and your experience, would you consider making your

artwork differently or creating another piece?

4. Has this experience impacted how you think art can impact people or your

neighborhood?

99

APPENDIX C

ART-MAKING PROMPTS AND EXAMPLES

100

Prompt 1: Create a scene from or image of your neighborhood or community?

Example response:

Figure 1. Example prompt response.

101

Prompt 2: Create a flag for yourself, your neighborhood, or your community.

Example Response:


102

Prompt 3: Create a map of your community, neighborhood, marking places that are

important to you. If you’d like, you can add in something you’d like to see in your

community.

Example Response 1:


103

Prompt 4: Create a scene or an image that speaks to something you’d like to change about

your community or neighborhood.

Example Response:


104

APPENDIX D

ARTWORKS

105

Figure 5. Artwork made on location.


106

Figure 7. Participant artwork.


107



108



109



110



111

Figure 17. Artwork created on location.


112



113



114



115

APPENDIX E

MOBILE HUB IMAGES

116

Figure 25. Camper pictures as purchased.

Figure 26. Camper pictures after inside and outside cleaning.

117

Figure 27.

Figure 28.

118

Figure 29.

Figure 30.

119

Figure 31.

Figure 32.

120

Figure 33.

Figure 34.

121

APPENDIX F

EXAMPLE OF INTERVIEW CODING

122

Table 10

Example of interview coding.