At St Paul\u2019s, we have been thinking about how to explode\ncommon conceptions of energy \u2013 literally. We have been working with paints and\nother materials to explore children\u2019s embodied energies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For one activity, we had a large sheet of paper, with\ndifferent types of balls, which they could cover in paint and throw at the\npaper. The idea was to demonstrate the embodied energy of different balls \u2013\ncreating different \u2018splats\u2019, shapes, etcetera. They could also roll the balls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the second, there was again a large sheet of paper. We\nsqueezed out blobs of paint, on top of which we placed cotton wool pads. The\nchildren could then hit the pads with plastic hammers to see how the paint\nsplattered outwards under pressure. As Rautio (2014) writes in her account of\ndoing research with a group of children, we did not provide much scaffolding\nfor the task, wanting instead to allow for emerging intra-actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The children came in two groups. What was fascinating to us\nwas to see how the two groups of children worked with each other, with us, with\nthe paints, and with the other material objects we had provided, in rather\ndifferent ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Group one came decked out in their red aprons, which were\nvery clean. We didn\u2019t say much about the first task, other than that they\nshould cover the balls in paint and throw them at the paper. This group was\nvery reticent, even though the nursery workers told us afterwards that they\nwere the more boisterous and confident group. One of the boys only had a brief\ngo at rolling the ball in the paint and then walked off. The other two children\n(a boy and a girl) played with the balls but not for very long. They were not\nparticularly energetic in throwing the balls \u2013 staying seated, they dropped the\nballs, making only a very few splats of colour on the paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second activity was more successful, but again this\ngroup was fairly calm. We only had two hammers (for three children) so quite a\nbit of time was spent ensuring that the children shared the hammer. Again they\ndid not hit the cotton pads very hard. In fact, they seemed to gain most\nenjoyment from lifting the pads up and looking underneath, saying \u2018woooohhhh\u2019\nloudly, and giggling, each time they lifted up the pads. They only made small\nsplats and so didn\u2019t expend that much bodily energy in the whole process. The\nend product of their play was a rather neat (and conservative) looking sheet of\npaper!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Group two came out and were immediately more engaged with\nthe first task. In fact, they engaged deeply with the game, although one of the\ngirls (there were two girls and one boy) was more hesitant and she and the boy\nseemed initially uncomfortable at getting their hands covered in paint. Soon,\nthough \u2013 especially once they saw us and one of the nursery workers getting\ncovered in paint, they were picking up the balls, rubbing in the paint, rubbing\nthe balls on their hands, and then throwing the balls at the paper with\nincreasing violence. Quickly, there was paint everywhere, with paint not only\nin large splatters on the paper, but up the sides of the tray, on our trousers,\non their aprons, coats, faces and hands! The nursery teacher really encouraged\nthe children to get messy, accidentally covering one of the girl\u2019s faces in\nblue paint! As the task continued, the game became more and more energetic,\nwith the children standing up to really see the effects of gravity on the size\nof the splatters. We then decided to put a huge pool of paint on the paper to\nsee what would happened\u2026one of the boys \u2018helped\u2019 us with this and probably put\nout far more of the deep red paint than we would have done, but had great fun\nsqueezing it out. Then we dropped the balls into the paint, which went\neverywhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We then moved to the hammer task. Again, they got into this\nvery quickly. The boy in particular hit the pads very hard, and the paint again\nsplattered everywhere. They really got the sense that hitting the pads harder\nwould create bigger splats. They also succeeded in mushing the pads into the\npaper so that we created a complicated, mixed up collage of paint, paper and\ncotton, which they further enjoyed massaging and mixing with their fingers and\nhands. The paint also splattered out onto the grass around the trays, leaving\ntraces of orange, dark blue and red. The paint also travelled with our clothes,\non the nursery teacher\u2019s coat, and into the classroom, where it was washed down\nthe sink, with small remnants remaining on the children\u2019s hands and faces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was interesting to us that our time with the second group\nled to much more discussion. We had much more of a discussion with the\nchildren, than with Group 1, talking about their favourite colours and why the\npaint was splatting further when they hit it harder. There were also lots of\ngames as we shared the paint \u2013 clapping hands together, moving fingers through\npaint, and seeing how the paint moved on the paper (and moved us to act in\ncertain ways).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our experiences made us reflect on why the second group were\nnot only more active \u2013 in terms of the embodied energy they invested into and\nexpended in the task \u2013 but also more verbose in verbalising their experiences.\nOr, rather, it made us attuned to the different kinds of utterances that\naccompany and articulate (with and as) bodily-material intra-actions. Group 1\u2019s\nrestrained \u2018oohs\u2019 and \u2018aahs\u2019 were different from but, we would argue, no less\nmeaning-full than Group 2\u2019s more easily \u2018read-able\u2019 reflections on what\nhappened when the paint was hit harder. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We also place our reflections in the context of nearly two\ndecades of nonrepresentational thinking in human geography and elsewhere.\nContrary to some readings of these theories, they are not against<\/em> representation or the rendering of the world open to formal\ncognitive processes. Rather, nonrepresentational theories seek to witness the\nmultiple ways in which different registers of doing and feeling the world are\nassembled and disassembled \u2013 especially those that have been marginalised in\nsocial-scientific accounts that prioritise the practiced, discursive utterances\nof majority groups. Thus, in the context of our work, we want to think further\nabout how working-with-paints gave rise to a range of emergent practices,\naffects and artefacts, which are both \u2018representational\u2019 and\n\u2018nonrepresentational\u2019 (if that duality can be taken seriously). We attend to\nthe beaten cotton-wool balls, covered in paint; to the different pieces of\npaper, bearing traces of children\u2019s embodied energies and their interactions\nwith paint, which the nursery has placed on the walls as \u2018artwork\u2019; to the\nutterances and discussions during the activities; and to more, which we may\nhave missed \u2013 perhaps children\u2019s unspoken reflections on the feeling of hitting\npaints with hammers and the muscular efforts required to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And: working with paints was\na lot of fun<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reference<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Rautio, P., 2014. Mingling and\nimitating in producing spaces for knowing and being: Insights from a Finnish\nstudy of child\u2013matter intra-action. Childhood<\/em>, 21<\/em>(4), pp.461-474.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" At St Paul\u2019s, we have been thinking about how to explode common conceptions of energy \u2013 literally. We have been working with paints and other materials to explore children\u2019s embodied energies. For one activity, we had a large sheet of paper, with different types of balls, which they could cover in paint and throw at … <\/p>\n