Conversation #68
Art-based and Creative methods for urban research
by Stefania Crobe
University of Palermo, Italy
In 1929, with his painting La Trahison des images, René Magritte famously declared, “Ceci n’est pas une pipe," challenging the relationship between representation and reality. He highlighted the distinction between an image and what it represents. In a similar short-circuit, Gregory Bateson, in Mind and Nature (1984), revisited a principle popularized by Alfred Korzybski, stating, «the map is not the territory, and the name is not the thing named». These statements highlight the complexity inherent in our understanding of urban space and territory, illustrating the many diverse ways they can be perceived across various disciplines. While acknowledging their complexity, we define them as collective and mutable entities, existing as a locus of relationships between people and places, thereby creating new conditions of possibility.
In recent times, we have observed a gradual expansion of disciplinary boundaries, leading to the creation of new values and interpretative frameworks. This evolution aims to address contemporary challenges by acknowledging the complexity of knowledge processes that extend beyond traditional fields of expertise and the limitations of specialization. The significant breadth of perspectives in urban planning is aptly represented by a diverse group of intellectuals who have chosen to challenge the excessive specialization prevalent in modern science to better understand the interconnections between elements and the overlapping of different fields. This includes the merging of technical skills with concepts, images, symbols, practices, and processes. In this ongoing transformation, one notable approach to revealing the diversity of urban spaces and territories—and to fostering new connections— includes using art-based methods and co-creative practices.
Although the discussion around art-based research (ABR) first emerged and was widely applied in educational contexts (Eisner, 1975), we are now witnessing its growing relevance in planning disciplines as well. This represents a broader conceptual framework that serves as a “beyond-disciplinary” alternative to traditional paradigms, enabling a better understanding of complex phenomena. As Barone and Eisner highlight, art-based research “[...] provides the opportunity to see new portraits of phenomena, diversifies our perspectives, and liberates the gaze through which we approach the world around us” (Barone & Eisner, 2011). It goes beyond traditional representations and deepens our understanding of important social, political, and educational issues. The significance of experience and creativity as essential tools for critical emancipation, long recognized by educators—for instance, in the work of John Dewey—has recently been acknowledged in urban planning, as pointed out by Carpenter and Horvath (2022). This shift emphasizes the value of unconventional and sensitive methods of analysis and research for generating new forms of knowledge. Such an approach is particularly evident in practices of knowledge co-production, which can foster the creation of new meanings, experiences, understandings, relationships, and situations.
In urban studies, incorporating art—especially relational spatial art practices—fosters "porous" processes for knowledge production. This approach facilitates mutual exchange among the research subjects and objects, as well as between research, community, city, and society. Such subjective and embodied experiences can lead to collective empowerment, creating a critical space for mutual learning through shared exchange and non-hierarchical knowledge production. This represents an engaged process that, on one hand, challenges the entrenched boundaries of various disciplines and, on the other, transcends the typical spatial confines of academic research. Artistic experiences, when utilized as a research methodology, create new educational environments where shared experiences promote collective learning. They also enable the construction and deconstruction of our understanding of territory. By recognizing the imaginative nature of art as a valid approach to acquiring knowledge and self-awareness, as highlighted by Mills (1958), we acknowledge the crucial role imagination plays in shaping social practices. This perspective underlines imagination's ability to create visions of what our society should strive for and what it could potentially become (Greene, 1995:5). Ultimately, this approach aims to awaken untapped potentials and aligns closely with the primary goals of planning.
By highlighting the significance of creative methods, sensitive language, and imaginative exercises drawn from art, it is posited that the evolving dialogue between urban and artistic practices holds considerable potential for urban studies. Employing creative and embodied methodologies can inspire critical perspectives and deepen our understanding of complex social phenomena that are often overlooked by conventional knowledge systems. The collaborative creation of previously nonexistent relationships can challenge the principles and frameworks that shape and represent urban space, thus expanding urban planning towards a more imaginative and critically radical approach.
Art-based methods and alternative spaces for learning and knowledge production are considered to set in motion critical spatial practices and contribute to urban research and planning. As some authors suggest, the recovery of a dialogue between artistic practice and spatial planning has considerable potential to inspire and develop critical approaches to cities and forms of mutual learning.
Indeed, the exploration of art-based methods and visual narratives reveals their significant potential to reshape how we perceive and engage with urban spaces and territories. These creative practices foster new ways of learning, interpreting, and transforming the urban environment. Integrating these methods not only enriches our understanding of urban dynamics but also opens up possibilities for sustainable and socially just urban futures. On one hand, the intersection of imagination and critical awareness can empower communities and challenge dominant narratives, encouraging inclusive and participatory processes of urban reconfiguration during action-research efforts. On the other hand, within planning education programs, imaginative exercises offered by art practice —through the free play of ideas— could provide an unexplored potential for fostering deeper and more meaningful learning. This is particularly relevant in disciplines characterized by complexity that cannot be reduced to purely technical and functional perspectives. Such practices enable the development of sensitivity and a capacity for critical and creative analysis, which are essential for shaping a new generation of planners capable of addressing the complex and evolving challenges of a changing world.
References:
Barone T.; Eisner E.W. (eds) (2012). Arts based research. Sage Publications: Los Angeles.
Carpenter J.; Horvath C. (2022). «Co-Creation and the City: Arts-Based Methods and Participatory Approaches in Urban Planning». Urban Planning 7(3): 311-14.
Eisner E. (1975). The perceptive eye: toward the reformation of educational evaluation. Occasional paper of the Stanford Evaluation Consortium. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Greene M. (1995). Releasing the imagination, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Mills W.C. (1958), The Sociological Imagination, New York: Free Press
Thank you for your interesting and thought-provoking contribution to EURA conversations. I fully agree that it is high time we interrogate the possibilities that this new, transdisciplinary approach brings to our students of cities and city making. Art-based methodologies are often argued to help bring to light “epistemic silences” and to give them “voice.” A lot of the excitement around these methodologies and ideas center on their ability to connect, reveal, create and resonate, as you have articulated in your piece. Indeed, you present a number of important arguments, two of which I would like to engage with you on.
First, you put forward that art-based approaches can, “foster “porous” processes for knowledge production.” As these approaches are increasingly used in practice, what types of imaginaries and knowledge of cities are emerging? Are there patterned similarities and differences between them? And moreover, can these approaches be used beyond research and by communities, civil society, and governments who aim to find new solutions to persistent problems? Are there illustrative examples our readers can consider when thinking about the knowledge creation potential of these new approaches?
Second, you bring up the argument that “the recovery of a dialogue between artistic practice and spatial planning has considerable potential to inspire and develop critical approaches to cities and forms of mutual learning.” I must say that I agree. And yet, I wonder about the accessibility of these approaches, and whether they will end up fostering mutual learning between “the usual suspects.” This makes me wonder about efforts to ensure that these novel approaches are accessible and inclusive, especially to those research stakeholders who are often at the margins of the work that we do.
Thank you once again for a very interesting and novel blog!
Thank you for your thoughtful engagement with my contribution. You raise an important question about the imaginaries and knowledge of cities that emerge from art-based methodologies and their broader applicability. I would argue that the value of these approaches lies not in providing definitive answers but in their ability to deconstruct established knowledge and imaginaries, facilitating paradigm shifts and fostering critical spatial thinking.
In today’s global capitalist context, art is often co-opted. It is frequently viewed as mere decoration or a tool for boosting economic growth, overlooking its deeper, transformative power. As Marcuse highlights, art—born from imagination—has the radical potential to free our thinking and feeling, enabling us to envision and act “otherwise.” For this reason, art-based methodologies transcend disciplinary boundaries. Their use as informal educational processes fosters collective subjectivization, encouraging critical engagement and the co-creation of knowledge. Concrete examples of this potential include video research projects (e.g. Sandercock and Attili’s) or co-creation workshops often conducted with marginalized groups, frequently excluded even from participatory processes that, paradoxically, sometimes are instrumentalized to reinforce dominant narratives. For further reading, the first double issue (summer 2025) of the Journal of Creative Research Methods by Bristol University Press aims to highlight the intersections between creative methods and knowledge production, bridging academic and practitioners’ perspectives.
With reference to the second point, art-based approaches can foster inclusivity by engaging diverse perspectives. Embedding these methodologies within urban planning education—particularly through service learning and action research projects—can significantly amplify their impact. Institutionalizing such approaches in academic curricula can cultivate a deeper commitment to social engagement and drive meaningful change beyond the classroom.
While the emancipatory potential of art-based methodologies is evident, ensuring their accessibility and integration into urban studies and planning practices will be key to fully realizing this potential.