Feedback from the group reflection and post-workshop questionnaires revealed strong affective themes. Many participants described feeling “liberated” by the “no right or wrong” approach. One teacher reflected that “it freed me up and gave me permission to be creative,” while another valued the “reassuring” non-judgemental atmosphere. The simple repetition of a warm-up exercise (a continuous line portrait done twice) allowed participants to see their own relaxation unfold, moving from self-consciousness to flow.
This reinforced a broader pedagogical concern. Several teachers noted that fear of failure and limited time for experimentation restrict students’ creative risk-taking in schools. If teachers themselves rarely experience the freedom to play, how can they model it for their learners? As Harris (2020) argues, the increasing prioritisation of STEM subjects in the national curriculum has contributed to a devaluing of creative exploration, positioning art and design as peripheral rather than essential. The workshop therefore became a small act of resistance, a reassertion of creativity as a critical and embodied practice.
The artefacts produced (diverse, layered, and expressive) reflected a genuine engagement with material process. Despite minimal instruction, participants generated an impressive range of outcomes, often surprising themselves with what emerged. A few commented that the abundance of materials made the session feel “less sustainable,” prompting reflection on abundance and restraint in creative learning.
What stood out most was how collaboration and display shaped behaviour. As work began to fill the walls, a subtle awareness of visibility emerged. Some participants commented that seeing others’ work was motivating; for one, it risked reintroducing competition. These dynamics reflected how even in seemingly playful, process-led contexts, traditional hierarchies of assessment and comparison can resurface.
This observation connected back to my positionality as a UAL tutor. I wondered whether participants expected a particular level of aesthetic or technical output and whether my presence inadvertently reinforced those expectations. Braun and Clarke’s (2023) reflexive thematic analysis framework helped me interrogate this, emphasising that interpretation is always situated within the researcher’s own assumptions and social position.
The data collected from questionnaires, verbal exchanges, and visual documentation suggested clear shifts. Confidence in using experimental methods rose markedly, with seventeen participants reporting feeling “very confident” post-workshop (up from five before). Many planned to incorporate warm-up exercises, open-ended mark-making, and time-limited creative challenges into their own classrooms.
More importantly, participants described how the session made them empathise with students’ experiences of vulnerability, uncertainty, and risk. One teacher reflected, “Doing this reminded me what it feels like not to know what you’re doing, that’s what my students feel all the time.” This awareness is precisely what I hoped to foster: inclusivity through shared creative vulnerability.
In hindsight, ‘Mark to Material’ became both a workshop and a mirror, reflecting how creative educators negotiate confidence, structure, and spontaneity. The triangulation between my facilitation, Oliver’s observation, and participants’ reflections revealed how learning environments can evolve when authority and authorship are shared.
As a piece of creative ethnography, it affirmed the value of listening through making and of recognising that reflection happens not only in words but in gestures, textures, and collective rhythm.
Ultimately, the workshop reaffirmed my belief that inclusivity in art and design education begins not with access to materials or facilities, but with permission: permission to play, to fail, and to find meaning in process.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023) “Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide.” London: SAGE.
Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) “Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design.” London: Routledge.
Harris, A. (2020) “Creative Ecologies and the Future of Education.” Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kara, H. (2015) “Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide.” Bristol: Policy Press.