Reflecting in and directly after the session, I was struck by how productive the group was, what participants were able to create within three hours was remarkable. I decided to begin with a simple warm-up exercise: a continuous line portrait of the person sitting next to them. We repeated this activity later, after the first mark-making task, to see how their confidence and line quality shifted. The second round was noticeably freer and more expressive; the drawings felt looser, less self-conscious.
Fig 1
Playing music in the background created a relaxed, collaborative atmosphere. I deliberately reduced verbal instruction and avoided demonstrations, a choice I initially found challenging but ultimately saw as beneficial. It allowed participants to interpret materials in their own way and to take ownership of the process. While my workshop plan was originally quite structured, I found that loosening it created a more inclusive, low-pressure environment where participants could explore rather than perform.
Fig 2
As the session progressed, I became aware of moments when participants reverted to familiar or “safe” skills, especially once we moved onto fabric. When work began to be displayed on the wall, I sensed a subtle shift, a re-emergence of conventional thinking and comparison. This observation connects to my positionality as a UAL tutor; I found myself questioning whether my institutional identity carried implicit expectations about what counted as “good” or “successful” work, and whether participants were responding to those perceived standards.
Fig 3
This aligns with bell hooks’ (1994) reminder that “the classroom remains the most radical space of possibility,” a place where power dynamics and creative hierarchies must be continually interrogated. By holding back instruction, I aimed to decentralise authority, echoing Freire’s (1970) call for education as a process of “co-intentional learning,” where both teacher and student learn through shared inquiry.
From a research perspective, this reflexive approach, observing my own influence within the workshop, reflects a creative ethnographic stance. My interpretation of participants’ artefacts and verbal reflections revealed tensions between freedom and familiarity: while some embraced experimentation, others defaulted to established textile techniques when uncertainty arose.
Fig 4
This dynamic mirrors Gray and Malins’ (2004) argument that creative research must balance “critical reflection and material thinking,” recognising that what makers produce and how they speak about it are both forms of knowing. By observing this interplay, I could see how fear of failure and notions of skill still shape creative behaviour, even in supposedly playful, process-led contexts.
Fig 5,6,7
Running the session through the UAL Insights outreach programme was hugely beneficial. The logistical support (materials, facilities, and participant coordination) meant I could focus fully on facilitation and observation. The informal lunch break on the roof of the dye garden also contributed to the sense of community and reflection; participants’ conversations there offered further insight into their emotional engagement with the process.
Overall, while I was perhaps over ambitious with the sessions activities, allowing tasks to merge organically created space for deeper engagement. Stripping back structure enabled longer periods of experimentation and conversation, aligning with my research focus on inclusivity, material exploration and alternative pedagogical rhythms.
Fig 8
References
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.
Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design. Aldershot: Ashgate.
hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Images
Fig 1-8 [T, Mahendrakumar], (27/09/2025) *From mark to material: explorations in experimental textiles delivered by Romany Taylor with CSM Outreach 2025*