Peer Presentation Insights: Refining an Intervention on Cultural Appropriation

The recent peer presentation and critique session was invaluable, providing insights and affirming that others are still shaping their Action Research Projects (ARPs). I found the discussion of Fflur’s ARP particularly compelling, as it aims to help first-year students express their personal Creative Identity more openly. This resonates with my own approach in running first-year drawing workshops to help students express themselves. These workshops, which focus on collaborative work, allow students to make and discuss work as a group, gently reminding them of their inherent Creative Identity, even in something as simple as their preferred media. Sabrina highlighted the importance of scaffolding, providing objectivity for students to ease into their creative identity without feeling overly exposed to peers and staff.

For my intervention, peer feedback was crucial in refining my approach. I sought input on three primary elements:

1. Creating a space for discussing Cultural Appropriation (CA) and Appreciation.
2. Organising a drawing session to explore CA.
3. Examining how CA manifests in AI, given its inherent biases.

• Establishing a Space for Discussion

Creating a space for open discussion of CA, fostering a collaborative environment in which I am an enabler rather than tutor, is vital so that everyone has equal agency. I suggested a workshop or museum visit, inclusive of both staff and students. This approach, as mentioned by Cai and echoed by Kayalvizhi, ensures the intervention “pushes up and down,” benefiting everyone. Such a setting encourages shared learning experiences and diverse perspectives, which would be more dynamic than a stataic online resource. Participants could lead discussions on specific exhibits related to CA, ensuring the workshop is not instructor-dominated and promotes active participation.

• Drawing Session to Explore Cultural Appropriation

Drawing provides a concrete way for participants to process and express their thoughts. From the papers below, which are additional to the resources listed in the previous post, the act of sketching fosters a dialogue between the creator and their work, ‘thinking through making’, and makes abstract concepts more tangible. The challenge lies in making this activity actionable. Feedback from the peer-led discussion suggested that a drawing and discussion workshop, followed by a museum visit, would be effective. Participants could respond to their experiences through various media – drawing, painting, film, sound, conversation – catering to different learning styles.

The culmination of these responses could be an exhibition at LCF, showcasing the collective exploration and reflections on CA. This would include a panel discussion and be followed by a reflection session and questionnaire, allowing participants to discuss their learnings and the workshop’s impact. This not only validates participants’ efforts but also creates a resource for ongoing dialogue within the institution, perhaps involving LCF’s Centre for Sustainable Fashion, which emphasises inclusivity and ethical practice.

• Addressing Cultural Appropriation in AI

Examining CA within the context of AI, given its inherent biases, is highly relevant as AI becomes more integrated into creative fields. Introducing discussions on current controversies and court cases related to AI training on unlicensed use of cultural images would provide context.

This aspect of the workshop sparked the liveliest discussion in the peer session, particularly with insights from Kayalvishi at CCI. I am concerned that AI can be used creatively yet perpetuate cultural biases inherently in the software. This affirmed my desire to use both analogue and digital means to explore CA. Analogue drawing uniquely helps us work through ideas, so it may be overly ambitious to include a dedicated session on AI. Instead, AI could be briefly discussed in the initial session, possibly integrating AI into the drawing process as an iterative exploration.

Overall I think the format of the sessions could work well, now I need to address how I would facilitate feedback, and use it to form the basis of my longer discussion of CA.

1. Schön, D. A. (1983). ‘The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action’.
2. Goldschmidt, G. (1991). ‘The dialectics of sketching’. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123-143.
3. Tversky, B., & Suwa, M. (2009). ‘Thinking with sketches’. In ‘Tools for innovation’ (pp. 75-95). Oxford University Press.
4. Garner, S. (1990). ‘Drawing and designing: The case for reappraisal’. Journal of Art & Design Education, 9(1), 39-55.
5. van Sommers, P. (1984). ‘Drawing and Cognition: Descriptive and Experimental Studies of Graphic Production Processes’. Cambridge University Press.