The Geopoetics of Drawing; a Literature Review

By 10th January 2022 Creative Practice, Writing

Much of the literature surrounding The Geopoetics of Drawing presumes a great deal of prior knowledge about complex ideas relating to philosophy, ethics, anthropology, psychology and geography. Some key texts and authors also use vague, poetic language or academic sesquipedalian speech (the use of big words to sound smart) to communicate ideas. The accompanying Glossary summarises some key terms and theories (including, but not limited to, terms used within this paper) in the hope that conversations around this topic may be more inclusive. Italicized text indicates that the term can be found in the Glossary.



Theoretically and materially considering the diverse ways in which to understand and approach place, environment and that which is non-human. The mutually enriching parallels between mark-making and the geopoetical approach have the potential to unearth new ways of responding to the Earth as part of a developing, expanded and eco-sensitive drawing practice.

Geopoetics offer a theoretical framework for the reconsideration of the Earth, the experience of which can be understood through philosophical, spiritual and scientific perspectives. Practice-based approaches to research, embodied knowing and expanded geographies can help to explain the transformational impact of art-making on morality and sustainability. Art, specifically drawing, may be an effective vehicle away from an anthropocentrically conditioned self.

The growing field of Drawing Research includes practice, investigation, reflection, theorising and experimentation (Garner, 2008; Petherbridge, 2008) yet phenomenological studies of place-based mark-making practices are rare (Sarkar, 2021). ‘Poetics’ refers to Aristotlean poetic intelligence (the fundamental dynamics of thought) and is therefore inclusive of all artforms (White, n.d.a), yet most geopoetical literature concerns itself with poetry. As such, Geopoetical Drawing in the Expanded Field appears to be a completely unexplored area of investigation.

As an interdisciplinary and untapped field, the availability of specific, peer-reviewed literature is limited. Therefore, this review takes an expanded methodology in including the theoretical approaches that underpin a geopoetical markmaking practice, in which contemporary research published within the last decade sits alongside older key texts.


Understanding Geopoetics

Responding to a threatened biosphere with ecocritical and inspirational reasoning, Kenneth White coined the term ‘Geopoetics’ (Graziadei, 2011), which, etymologically translating as ‘earth-making’, can be considered an ‘action’. The Scottish Centre for Geopoetics (Bell et al, 2020, p.2) offers 7 key defining elements of geopoetics: an epistemological centring of Earth; a heightened sensory and noetical awareness of Earth; an intention to overcome dualistic mind:body and human:non-human distinctions; learning from others who have sought a new approach to thinking and living; a creative, geological, geographical, philosophical, scientific or otherwise multidisciplinary expression of the Earth; multidisciplinary contributions to the wider geopoetical discourse; and, the potential for radical individual, cultural and societal renewal.

As a multidisciplinary composite field of action, inquiry (Skinner, 2020; White, 1994b) and route-finding creative theory-practice, geopoetics encompasses multiple, holistic, creative manifestations (Magrane et al, 2020; Magrane, 2021; White, n.d.a) of:  geography (Madge, 2014); space, place and landscape; language; ecological anthropospherics; Noospherics; the Anthropocene; the more/other-than-human; the human-non-human interchange and the reimagining and equitable resetting of human-nature relationships (Brownlow, 1978, cited in Ryan, 2020, p.104; Madge, 2014; Magrane et al, 2020; Magrane, 2021), any of which can be expressed creatively scientifically, existentially, emotionally and/or spiritually (Golańska and Kronenberg, 2020).

Ecopoetics’ is sometimes used interchangeably with geopoetics (Magrane et al, 2020; Skinner, 2020) whereas some argue that eco-poetics is a broad term that relates to Earth ecologies, and geo-poetics is concerned with the mineral kingdom only (Clifford and Williams, 2020). This is comparable to Ryan’s (2020) ‘phyto-(geo)poetics’: meaning-making with the botanical world. White and Poulet (2014) demand distinction altogether, comparing the meaningful, coherent, inner strength of geopoetics with the delusive contentment that comes with confusing, disparate ideologies of ecopoetics.

The applications of geopoetics is vast (Graziadei, 2011), spanning from restorative, meditative, creative methodologies (White, 1989, cited in Graziadei, p. 164), philosophical Nietzschean epistemological frameworks of imaginative mimesis and diegesis (Günzel, 2001, cited in Graziadei, p. 163), to the ‘everyday intelligence’ of place as an analytical tool for textured commentary (Italiano, 2009, cited in Graziadei, pp. 165-166). However, despite any differences, Geopoetics consistently promotes a protective, biocentric and empathetic reconsideration and reconfiguration of the dominant anthropocentrism of Western culture (Golańska and Kronenberg, 2020; Magrane et al, 2020).


Reconsidering the Land

There are three main approaches to interpreting moral questions surrounding human:non-human relationships within environmental ethics; anthropocentrism (e.g. Vardy and Grosch, 1999), physiocentrism/ecocentrism (e.g. Leopold, 1949, cited in Millstein, 2018) and theocentrism (Ott, 2020). Human:non-human relationships are also a foundation for sub-divisional ideas surrounding ecofeminism, ecophenomenology, social ecology (Molina-Motos, 2019). White and Poulet (2013) describe three types of ecology; Haeckelian biological ecology, Wellsian human:social ecology and Batesons ecology of mind. Each of these dynamics provide a perspective in understanding nature.

Dominant perspectives

Western thought and science have been developed on a categorical, dualistic and reductive world-view between humanity and nature that has been built upon over centuries (Coleman, 2016; Ingold, 2000; White, 1994a). Abrams (1997) believes the human:non-human disentanglement coincided specifically with the introduction of the [abstracted] alphabet. Language was still sensuous and embodied within indigenous/oral cultures yet this became overshadowed by self-reflexive Western philosophies – a culture which reflects [primarily through printed word] its egocentric priorities back to itself.

However, the historical rise of anti-nature philosophies can be clearly tracked: from Plato/Aristotle’s hierarchical systems, through to Virgil/Horace’s notion of the nature ‘retreat’, Christian teleologics as argued by Augustine/Aquinas, the Renaissance civilization and escape of nature, Cartesian subject-object celebration of man over nature, the material:moral:political augmentation of nature-contact during the Age of Discovery – of which Kubrin (2002-3, cited in Morgain, 2013, p.299), asserts that Western Enlightenment rejection of a ‘superstitious’ Europe made it easier to invalidate the religious:magical beliefs of those they dehumanised and colonised –  and the Industrial exploitation and commodification of the environment (McWilliam, 2008; White, 1994a). Now we are in a period of ‘ungroundedness’, abandoning our earthly roots in pursuit of perpetual, meaningless Capitalism (White, n.d.a).

An alternative approach

Humankind falsely believes itself to be of equal force to nature, yet our fixation of cataloguing everything could also be obscuring our route out of ecological catastrophes. Altering our perception of nature is literally a matter of human survival (Dickson and Clay, 2020).

Acknowledging that Anthropocentric critique favours Global Northern perspectives (DeLoughrey, 2019), the nature-based Reclaiming tradition of paganism criticizes and implicates the mechanistic approach of modern science with oppression, environmental destruction and colonialism. They reject the disconnection of materiality and spirit respond by identifying with the knowledge dismissed by religion and science (Morgain, 2013).

Despite Einstein expressing sorrow about the incompatibility of logical clarity and embodied truth, we need to move beyond this proliferating dualistic approach and actively pursue new visions of the future (White, 1994b). This is championed by Starhawk (1999, cited by Morgain, 2013, p.296), who encourages us to embrace contradiction with ‘both/and’ thinking as opposed to the culturally dominant ‘either/or’ mindset. Conventional science – challenged by the irregular, fluctuating, unpredictable complexities of quantum physics and thermodynamics – cannot claim to have all the answers we need (White, 1994b). Through an indigenous lens, botanist Kimmerer (2013) explores the liminal spaces between modern and traditional sciences and how human:non-human connections can cultivate more sustainable practices.

Madge (2014) describes how the ecohumanities are also making attempts to challenge this Western academic and societal preference to rational argumentation (whilst disregarding more bodily forms of knowing). Ingold (2000) believes anthropology is particularly helping to close the gap between the humanities, natural sciences and arts.


Experiencing Place

Phenomenological philosophy can help us to reframe nature away from the dominant Western Cartesian approach. May (1958, cited in Hoelterhoff, 2010, p.66) conceived three means by which to understand human experience – umwelt (the physicality of internal and external environments), mitwelt (personal relationships), and eigenwelt (individual’s unconsciousness) – through which we can comprehend nature-based experience.

Perception and Experience

Ingold (2000) counters Gibson’s theory of direct perception in that the brain is not a data-processing machine (an ‘internal’ mind), but rather that perception is a consequence of the whole-body immersion and movement of the perceiver within their environment (the mind as ‘external’). This is comparable to Deleuze (1991, cited by White, n.d.b., para.8), who proposed that thought is not reflective of a link between two objects, but that it takes places within a relationship to earth and territory. Jokela (2008), in reference to Norberg-Schulz’s ‘genius loci’, reflects on the convergence of place, heritage and identity in the belief that place is identity-forming geographical entity.

Taïeb (2020), however, believes that inhabited spaces – our perceptions of which are bounded by assigned functionalities, internalised social norms and knowledge of place – eventually become little more than the scenery of our actions as we stop perceiving them altogether.

Whitehead (1929, cited by Sjöstedt-H, 2016) suggests a panexperientialist philosophy of organism, in which perception is shared by both object and viewer in a synthetisation of mind and matter. Although Western science rejects such anthropomorphism on grounds of epistemological humility (Taylor, 2021), Caracciolo (2014, cited in Ryan, 2020, p.112) counters consciousness-attribution with consciousness-enactment, suggesting that subjects (e.g. a rock, animal, plant, landscape) can communicate in the first person by granting the reader access to its mind. Similarly, Abrams (1997) explains how the mind is understood by the Navajo people as a participatory wind as opposed to a personal possession. Therefore, all elements within an inhabited ecosystem contribute to a state of mind, which in turn, is the source of shamanistic/sorcerer gifts.

Alaimo (2010, cited in Coleman, 2016, p.88) emphasizes the mutual entanglement of the human:non-human through literal, permeable contact zones, supporting Bachelard (1958), Lowenthal (1961, cited by Magrane, 2015, p.87-88), and White (n.d.a), who argues that it is essential for Geopoets to maintain contact between thought and feeling, idea and sensation, further underlining the importance of imagination rooted in earth-based lived experience. In particular, Rawson (1969, cited in Petherbridge, 2008, p.32) defined drawing as the most ‘fundamentally spiritual’ of all creative pursuits as markmaking has a symbolic relationship with experience.


Kala (2017) demands recognition of the spiritual potential of nature conservation. Nature-based spiritualities have historically been and continue to be an important global force. Lovelock’s (1972, cited by Taylor, 2011, p.14) science-based Gaia hypothesis has been influential within “dark green” spirituality, which Taylor (2011) considers to be religion-like beliefs and practices defined by the intrinsic value of nature. Many different experiences and insights lead towards these “dark green” cosmovisions – which includes but is not limited to: cosmogony, religion, perceptions of belonging to nature, a sense of interconnected mutual dependences, place-based human humility, environmental intrinsic valuations, kinship and loyal affection for the Earth (Taylor, 2011; 2021). Specifically, to practice magic is to acknowledge the overlapping human:environment consciousness to connect to an ‘enspirited world’; through symbolic:manifest deities, pantheistic/polytheistic practices enable relationships to be developed with the aspects of the natural world they represent (Morgain, 2013).

However, Hoelterhoff (2010) repudiates ‘supernatural’, transpersonal, faith-like experiences rooted in the subjective/phenomenological as it rejects objective, empirical truths. A lack of testability does not evidence spiritual forces, nor does a dismissal of ‘Western’ science necessarily result in deep understanding. Luhrmann (1994, cited in Morgain, 2013, p. 293) argued that [pagan/magical] communities accept unconventional, irrational beliefs through a cognitive process called ‘interpretive drift’, whereby ritual and induced altered states of consciousness train the brain to be convinced of mystical workings. Yet both Hanegraaff (2003, cited by Morgain, 2013, p.293) and Greenwood (2009, ibid.) defend the kind of magical, human, analogical thinking that is rejected by modern science, with the former arguing that cognitive adjustments actually need to be made to challenge the assumptions of Western scientific thought.

Scientific approaches

Attraction of landscape is explained by research into environmental aesthetics as life-sustaining places evoke strong positive responses rooted in sociobiological evolution (McWilliam, 2008); we are hardwired to respond positively with nature. Nature Connectedness is a field of psychological inquiry that investigates these subjective relationships with the world via contact, emotion, compassion, meaning and beauty (Lumber et al, 2017). Feeling connected to Nature has a statistically significant positive impact on eudaimonic and hedonic mental wellbeing (Howell et al, 2013; Pritchard et al, 2020). Organisations such as The Mental Health Foundation and WWF (Baldwin-Cantello et al, 2021) champion nature for positive wellbeing and is an area that has investment from the UK Department for Environment (2020).

However, Hoelterhoff (2010) accuses ecopsychology of abandoning research-focused approaches, arguing that ecopsychologists who advocate revolutionary worldviews are no longer scientists but evangelists who peddle a convenient modern reworking of New Age spirituality. Although statistically significant human:environment relationships may be established through environmental-behaviourist approaches, there is a lack of depth regarding human:ecology exchange. None of this offers a practical, empirical foundation on which to base psychology, and thus instead belongs in the realms of eco-philosophy (ecosophy) or eco-spirituality.

Geopoetics in practice can be understood through any or all of these lenses.


Poetics in Practice 

Making as research

Similarly to Geopoetics, Drawing Research is considered ‘making knowledge’ (Garner, 2008), a denkraum process of thinking with and through drawing to make discoveries and consider potentialities (Rosenberg, 2008).  Analogous to Nietzsche’s metaphysical concept of the artist-philosopher (White, n.d.b), artistic practice is a disruptive process of generating research that challenges dualistic approaches to knowledge that embraces new ways of thinking (Golańska and Kronenberg, 2020). Drawing requires both low (openness/receptiveness) and high (logical/analytical) focus thinking; to draw, one needs to be alert, organised and rational whilst observing time and space as part of an open-mindedness to the situation (Eames, 2008).

Artistic interpretations of the land arise from the cultural place, moment, geography and worldview we inherit/inhabit (Blaeser, 2020; Jokela, 2008) as part of a Relative Constructivist approach (Riley, 2008). Indigenous creative expression – informed by multiple ‘ways of knowing’ (e.g. kinship, empiricism, imagination) within a reciprocal cultural ontology – is built on intergenerational investment in place, in which artists are considered shamanic keepers of memory. Blaeser (2020), who reflects their native cosmology by creating picto-poems rooted in eco-signs, describes how Geopoetics sits within this tradition.

Understanding natural phenomena as independent agencies, in which they are ‘active’ cocreators of knowledge (Barrett, 2014, cited in Golańska and Kronenberg, 2020 p.307) invites philosophical-creative potentialities between human:other-than-human artistic collaboration (Magrane, 2015), such as Louise Bourque’s burial of film (Ryan, 2020).

Embodied Aesthetics

The Kantian sublime is the bridge that connects geoaesthetics to philosophical notions of body, object and self (Dixon et al,2013, cited in Magrane, 2015, p.88). Dewey (1934, cited in McWilliam, 2008, p.32) argues that aesthetic beauty emerges from the relationship between individual and object, in what he calls ‘the experience’. The senses – of which touch is the most dominant for artists (Eames, 2008) – are the keys to experiencing the ‘landscape from within’ (Jokela, 2008).

Comparable to the Hegelian concept of art (Riley, 2008), embodied knowledge that arises from direct contact within the world is crucial within the making process (White, 2003;2004, cited in Golańska and Kronenberg, 2020, p.308).

The coalescement of Gibson’s theory of ecological perception and Merleau-Ponty’s theory of phenomenological embodiment explains how creatively responding to a site is a form of embodiment, traces of which are left within the art (Sarkar, 2021). Poetry:Art emerges from tracking movement through space (Turnbull, 2020) through a physical:spiritual process known as ‘Transmotion’ (Vizenor, 2015, cited in Blaeser, 2020, p.39).

Magrane (2015) believes that a site can be enriched and possibly recalibrated as a result of mindful immersion and subsequent geopoetic expression. Jokela (2008) reflects on the meditative, holistic and aesthetic significance of space:time interactions with nature (e.g. hunting, foraging), by examining the environment in regards to objective, emotional and textual meaning.


Similarly to how Talbot (2008) describes how the work they produce is a method of orientating themselves in the world, Hawkins (2020) encourages an expanded field of geography within geopoetics – from artistic composition, to where we are in our disciplines. Phillips (2013, cited in Blaeser, 2020, p.37) describes how cosmologies may manifest in art through layout, relational processes and/or layering; for example, Perez (2020) reflects his Pacific Islander heritage by interpreting the blank page as an ocean, and Saunders (2019) situates their drawing practice – which investigates how applied line can be used to support:enhance biodiversity – within the Expanded Field of Drawing.

Berman and Burnham (2016) describe how ‘Earthworks’ are eco-sensitive artificial geographic modifications in which the lands material, spatial, temporal and environmental dynamics are investigated and translated into site-specific art (e.g. Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty, and Andy Goldworthy’s Woodline). However, Matless and Revill (1995, cited in Coleman, 2016, p.94) accuses art that ‘reworks nature’ is a form of capitalist exploitation and thus isn’t as ethical as it appears.

Acker (2020) highlights how art – politically rich with emotion and human experience – is not always welcomed within traditional geographic conversations despite its potential contributions within geographical thought. However, regardless of if geopoetics adopts an inclusive, expressive approach or an elitist, aesthetic practice, Madge (2014) asks who exactly has the peer validation skills to assess the artistic value of geopoetical works – the geographer or the artist?



The framing of the Climate Crisis has an enduring impact on how it is addressed both personally and in policy, but traditional ecological knowledge can be a useful navigational tool. Sustainability could be achieved from adopting a perspective of interdependency thus the dominant perpetuating economic-socio-political assumptions borne from the Anthropocene should be challenged (Magrane, 2018). Whether regarded as an environmental or national/global security issue, an apocalyptic issue or a revolutionary social opportunity (Hulme, 2009, and Manzo, 2012, cited in Magrane, 2018, p.157), geohumanities/geopoetics should focus on exploring new insights and practices in regards to how we deal with the pressing Climate Crisis (Magrane, 2021), which Hackmann et al (2014, cited in ibid.) described as much of a social problem as a material one.

Artists as Activists

Geographic issues enriched through creative-critical means help reach new audiences (Magrane, 2021) and are thus a world-making force (Hawkins, 2020). Buttimer (2010, cited in Magrane, 2015, p.94) looks to geophilosophical and holistic geopoetics to seek a radically better way of living, as transactional ecology and resulting aesthetic opportunities can lead to human:land:ecosystem change (Gobster et al, 2007, cited in Sarkar, 2021, p.15).

Wilson (1984, cited in Taylor, 2021, p.36) described art as a tool for discovery and artists as ‘expert observers’, both of which are able to instruct society through aesthetical ‘pleasing’. Geopoets are assuasive agents of change due to their skill in emotively expressing socio-environmental injustices (Dickson and Clay, 2020). Local identity and tradition, which are often rooted in earth-practices, are also enhanced and/or (re)constructed through the artistic embodiment of moving through nature (Jokela, 2008).

The ethical knowledge-production processes behind Geopoetics/Geoart is a form of eco-sensitive artivism that encourages non-hierarchical resilience and sustainable development (Golańska and Kronenberg, 2020). We can better discern and reply to the complex needs of the more-than-human by moving beyond mere ethical principles to embodied ethical practices (Alaimo and Hekman, 2008, cited in Coleman, 2016, p.88).

Many artists opting to promote empathetic perceptual engagement of land (Sarkar, 2021), and although Challen (2019) believes that the emerging generation of artists will track public anxiety about the Climate Crisis, they question why artists ‘should’ address the climate crisis when other professionals do not experience that obligation.

Regardless of whether or not individuals have belief in divine beings, participants of ‘Dark Green Religion’ (of which eco-sensitive artists can be considered part of) tend to feel a responsibility and empathy towards living things that facilitates protective cooperative action. This shared, religion-based worldview has the potential to heal social divisions and be a basis to create a more sustainable, respectful world (Kala, 2017; Taylor, 2011).

Eco-Literacy and Morality

The Age of Tech has fortified instrumental evaluations of the environment yet spending time with nature develops meaningful relationships, a sense of belonging, and awakened responsibility towards the earth as a result of awakened intrinsic valuations (McWilliam, 2008). The heightened awareness resulting from both observational (Ruskin, 1857, cited in Petherbridge, 2008, p.31) and site-specific drawing (Sarkar, 2021) can result in a sense of moral responsibility brought about ‘eco-literacy’ (Nelson, 2013, cited in Blaeser, 2020, p.30). Sarkar’s (2021) Merleau-Ponty:Gibson theory of embodied perception supports such environmental interaction and socio-political action, as ecological awareness and concern is heightened as a result of making nature-based art .

Influenced by Dewey, pedagogist Ho-Chul Lee developed a ‘living drawing’ approach to underline the relationship between aesthetic experiences and moral education. Through drawing practices, emotion, imagination and embodied reason were demonstrated to promote empathy, leading to moral reasoning and in turn moral action (Kim, 2016).


Art helps develop a centered awareness of self in relation to, and how to live within, the world (Phillips, 2013, cited in Blaeser, 2020, p.37). Not only does site-specific art alter how audiences perceive and engage with the space it occupies (Taïeb, 2020), but also, through interpretation, demands that the reader/viewer embody an alternative perspective (Blaeser, 2020). Taylor (2021) builds on the transformational potential of Leopold’s (1949, cited in ibid. p.34) Land and kinship ethics in regards to the conservation of biological diversity; creative interspecies collaboration could potentially develop revolutionary levels of appreciation towards other species (Jevbratt, 2010, cited in Ryan, 2020, p.111).

There is an optimism that if a growing percentage of the human population develop genuine relationships and care for the earth, then we can look forward to healthy and resilient environmental and socio-ecological systems (Kala, 2017; Taylor, 2021) Kimmerer (2013) hopes for a world where stories, rooted in science but framed by an indigenous perspective, guide people to develop meaningful relationships with the Earth. Coleman (2016) hopes that power is influenced by artistic and socio-economic-political transformative actions.

Socio-political divisions are also challenged when diverse groups collaborate around environmental issues, which they often do (Adamson, 2012, cited in Coleman, 2016, p.88). However, when working within communities whom do not share one’s culture, race, language, country and/or history, it is essential to adopt a decolonised approach in order to navigate difficulties surrounding ethics, power and representation (McGiffen, 2020), as the Western approach to environmental catastrophe circles the novelty of disaster rather than acknowledge the associated historical continuity of dispossession and crisis caused by colonialism (DeLoughrey, 2019).



Although there is a considerable gap in the research surrounded the Geopoetics of Drawing, markmarking seems to lend itself to eco-sensitive geopoetical theory and embodied practice. Drawing fosters a multifaceted and experiential type of knowledge, a type of ‘knowing’, is crucial in unearthing ethical considerations, and developing meaning of any depth in how we relate to the Land.

Nature connectedness, especially that which recognises kinship, is a transformational process that heightens and intertwines both ecoliteracy and moral action. Mindful, creative interpretation of place can support an existential and spiritual transformation of self within the artist. The ethical practice, production and sharing of art:drawing helps to untangle and challenge centuries of anti-environmental, dualistic Western thinking and its subsequent Anthropocenic eco-societal damage. Western societies can learn a lot from – but not appropriate – indigenous cosmologies and other forms of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in pursuit of a deeper geopoetical connection with Nature.

Art is world-changing for its power to make facts relatable and emotively communicate personal experiences – both human and non-human – to wider audiences. Thus, artists – independently and/or in collaboration with communities and organisations – offer a strong voice in how we ought to relate to the Earth and in procuring new visions for a sustainable future. Eco-sensitive artists are encouraged to situate themselves within an expanded vision of creative geographies and adopt a decolonised practice that actively challenges eco-societal exploitation. However, at such pivotal point in our Anthropocenic history, there are questions about how duty-bound artists are to respond as canaries, healers, soothsayers or visionaries.

There are three interwoven pathways to understanding the earth and kinship ethics; direct experience in Nature, the sciences and the arts (Taylor, 2021). Creative, scientific, material, existential, emotional and spiritual transformation – on which the survival of humanity relies – requires an integrated both/and approach to all three.



Abram, D. (1997) Spell of the sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Acker, M (2020) ‘Lyric Geography’ In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice,1st ed. UK, pp. 131 – 162
Baldwin-Cantello, W., Zamperoni, V., Harvey, B., Goodman, J., Baird, R. and Fisher, R. (2021) Thriving with Nature.2nd ed. [eBook] UK: Pyramid Press. Available at: <> [Accessed 24 December 2021].
Bell, S., Bissell, N., Kockel, U., Sutherland, C. and Watson, C. (ed.) (2020) STRAVAIG #8: Rivers and Forests (Vol. 2) [eBook] Edinburgh: The Scottish Centre for Geopoetics, p. 2. Available at: <> [Accessed 1 December 2021].
Berman, I. and Burnham, D. (2016) Expanded Field. New York: Applied Research and Design Publishing.
Blaeser, K. (2020) ‘A Cosmology of Nibi; Picto-poetics and palimpsest in Anishinaabeg watery geographies’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice, 1st ed. UK, pp. 29 – 47
Challen. C. (2019) ‘Art Post Climate Change’, The Critical Fish(2), pp. 8 – 10
Clifford, P. and Williams, T. (2020) ‘The Limits and Promise of Urbopoetics: washpark, collaboration, and pedestrian practice.’ In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice,1st ed. UK, pp. 259 – 269
Coleman, V. (2016) ‘Emergent Rhizomes: Posthumanist Environmental Ethics in the Participatory Art of Ala Plastica’, Confluencia,31(2), pp. 85 – 98
DeLoughrey, E. M. (2019) Allegories of the anthropocene.Durham: Duke University Press. Available at:
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Department of Health and Social Care, Natural England, and Rebecca Pow MP (2020) New sites to test how connecting people with nature can improve mental health. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 24 December 2021].
Dickson, E. and Clay, N. (2020) ‘Geopoetics as a Collaborative Encounter: Performing poetic political ecologies of the Colorado River’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice, 1st ed. UK, pp. 270 – 284
Eames, A. (2008) ‘Embedded Drawing’. In: S. Garner (ed.), Writing on Drawing,1st ed. UK, pp. 125 – 139
Garner, S. (2008) ‘Towards a Critical Discourse in Drawing Research’. In: S. Garner (ed.), Writing on Drawing,1st ed. UK, pp. 15 – 26
Golańska, D. and Kronenberg, A. K. (2020) ‘Creative practice for sustainability: A new materialist perspective on artivist production of eco-sensitive knowledges’, International Journal of Education through Art, 16(3), pp. 303 – 318. doi: 10.1386/eta_00035_1
Graziadei, D. (2011) ‘Geopoetics of the Island. Strategies against Iconic Isolation’. In: Mastronunzio, M. and Italiano, F. (ed.), Geopoetiche: Studi di geografia e letteratura, 1st ed. Milan, pp. 163 – 181
Hawkins, H. (2020). ‘Preface’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice,1st ed. UK, pp. vi – xiii
Hoelterhoff, M. (2010) ‘Saving Ecopsychology from itself: The Need for Scientific Enquiry’, History and Philosophy of Psychology, 12(1), pp. 63 – 68
Howell, A. J., Passmore, H.-A. and Buro, K. (2013) ‘Meaning in Nature: Meaning in Life as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Well-Being’, Journal of Happiness Studies,14(6), pp. 1681 – 1696. doi: 10.1007/s10902-012-9403-x.
Ingold, T. (2000) The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London, England: Routledge.
Jokela, T. (2008) ‘A Wanderer in the Landscape: Reflection on the Relationship between Art and the Northern Environment’. In: G. Coutts and T. Jokela (ed.), Art, Community and Environment: Educational Perspectives,1st ed. Chicago: Intellect Press, pp.3 – 27.
Kala, C. P. (2017) ‘Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources through Spirituality’, Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences,5(2), pp. 24 – 34. doi: 10.12691/aees-5-2-1
Kim, J. (2016) ‘Living drawing : Aesthetic teaching for moral artists’, Journal of Moral Education,45(4), pp. 465 – 480. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2016.1239573.
Kimmerer, R. W. (2013) Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Harlow, England: Penguin Books.
Lumber, R., Richardson, M. and Sheffield, D. (2017) ‘Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection’, PLoS ONE,12(5), pp. 1–24. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177186.
Madge, C. (2014) ‘On the creative (re)turn to geography: poetry, politics and passion’, Area, 46(2), pp. 178 – 185. doi: 10.1111/area.12097.
Magrane, E. (2015) ‘Situating Geopoetics’, GeoHumanities,1(1), pp. 86 – 102. doi: 10.1080/2373566X.2015.1071674
Magrane, E. (2018). ‘Healing, Belonging, Resistance, and Mutual Care: Reading Indigenous Ecopoetics and Climate Narratives’, Literary Geographies, 4(2), pp. 156 – 170
Magrane, E. (2021) ‘Climate geopoetics (the earth is a composted poem)’, Dialogues in Human Geography,11(1), pp. 8 – 22. doi: 10.1177/2043820620908390.
Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (2020) ‘Geopoetics as Route Finding’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice,1st ed. UK, pp. 1 – 13
McGiffin, E. (2020) ‘Thukela Poswayo’s poetry of dwelling’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice, 1st ed. UK, pp. 199 – 211
McWilliam, A. (2008) ‘Developing an Environmental Aesthetic: Aesthetics of the Outdoor Experience’. In: G. Coutts and T. Jokela (ed.), Art, Community and Environment: Educational Perspectives,1st ed. Chicago: Intellect Press, pp.29 – 49.
Millstein, R. L. (2018) ‘Understanding Leopold’s Concept of “Interdependence” for Environmental Ethics and Conservation Biology’, Philosophy of Science, 85(5), pp. 1127 – 1139. doi: 10.1086/699721.
Molina-Motos, D. (2019) ‘Ecophilosophical Principles for an Ecocentric Environmental Education’, Education Sciences,9(1), p.37. Available at:
Morgain, R. (2013) ‘The alchemy of life: Magic, anthropology and human nature in a Pagan theology’, The Australian Journal of Anthropology,24(3), pp. 290 – 309. doi:
Ott, K. (2020) ‘Environmental Ethics’. In: Kirchhoff, Thomas (ed.): Online Encyclopedia Philosophy of Nature / Online Lexikon Naturphilosophie. [Accessed 19 December 2021].
Perez, C. S. (2020) ‘Indigenous Pacific Islander Geopoetics’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice,1st ed. UK, pp. 324 – 340
Petherbridge, D. (2008) ‘Nailing the Liminal: The Difficulties of Defining Drawing’. In: S. Garner (ed.), Writing on Drawing, 1st ed. UK, pp. 27 – 41
Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D. and McEwan, K. (2020) ‘The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic Well-Being: A Meta-analysis’, Journal of Happiness Studies,21(3), pp. 1145 – 1167. doi: 10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6.
Riley, H. (2008) ‘Drawing: Towards and Intelligence of Seeing’. In: S. Garner (ed.), Writing on Drawing, 1st ed. UK, pp. 153 – 167
Rosenberg, T. (2008) ‘New Beginnings and Monstrous Births: Notes Towards an Appreciation of Ideational Drawing’. In: S. Garner (ed.), Writing on Drawing,1st ed. UK, pp. 71 – 92
Ryan, J. C. (2020) ‘Seismic, or Topogorgical, Poetry’.  In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice, 1st ed. UK, pp. 101-116
Sarkar, A. (2021) ‘Ecology of site-specific painting and drawing: Embodied and empathic mark-making in urban cites’, Visual Inquiry: Learning & Teaching Art, 10(1), pp. 13 – 30. doi: 10.1386/vi_00023_1.
Saunders, L. (2019) ‘Drawing in between the lines’, The Critical Fish(2), pp. 58 – 61
Sjöstedt-H, P. (2016) The Philosophy of Organism | Issue 114 | [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 13 December 2021].
Skinner, J. (2020) ‘The Unbending of the Faculties; Learning from Frederick Law Olmsted’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice,1st ed. UK, pp. 226 – 243
Taïeb, L. (2020) ‘The Poetic Lexicon of Waste: From asarotos oikos (A) to flowers (F)’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice,1st ed. UK, pp. 356 – 365
Talbot, R. (2008) ‘Drawing Connections’. In: S. Garner (ed.), Writing on Drawing,1st ed. UK, pp. 43 – 57
Taylor, B (2021) ‘Kinship through the Senses, Arts and Sciences’. In: Van Horn, G., Wall Kimmerer, R. and Hausdoerffer, J. (ed.), Planet (Vol 1), Illinois, pp. 30 – 47
Taylor, B. (2011) ‘Gaian Earth Religion and the Modern God of Nature’, Phi Kappa Phi Forum,91(2), pp. 12 – 15
Turnbull, C. (2020) ‘Rout/e’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice, 1st ed. UK, pp. 117 – 128
Vardy, P. and Grosch, P. (1999) The Puzzle of Ethics. London: Fount
White, K. (1994a) ‘On the Highway of History (Extract from Le Plateau de l’Albatros)’ [online] The International Institute of Geopoetics.Available at: <> [Accessed 1 December 2021].
White, K. (1994b) ‘Geopoetics – A Scientific Approach (Extract from Le Plateau de l’Albatros)’ [online] The International Institute of Geopoetics. Available at:> [Accessed 1 December 2021].
White, K. (no date a) ‘The Great Field of Geopoetics’ [online] The International Institute of Geopoetics.Available at: <> [Accessed 1 December 2021].
White, K. (no date b) ‘Geopoetics – A Philosophical Approach’ [online] The International Institute of Geopoetics. Available at: <> [Accessed 1 December 2021].
White, K. and Poulet, R. (2014) ‘Precision Points – Geopoetics and the other ‘geos’ – Extract from Panorama géopoétique: interviews with Kenneth White conducted by Régis Poulet’ [online] The International Institute of Geopoetics. Available at: <> [Accessed 1 December 2021].



Aijaz, A. (2018) ‘Wordly Texts and Geographies of Meaning’, Literary Geographies, 4(2), pp. 150 – 155
Ali, M. S. (2020) ‘Ethical Archetypes in Environmental Histories’, Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge, (36), pp. 3 -17. doi: 10.20415/rhiz/036.e01.
Anderson, T. and Guyas, A. S. (2012) ‘Earth Education, Interbeing, and Deep Ecology’, Studies in Art Education, 53(3), pp. 223 – 245. doi: 10.1080/00393541.2012.11518865.
Bachelard, G. (1958) The Poetics of Space.Reprint, USA: Beacon Press, 1994.
Banazek, K. (2020) ‘Bodies Belong to the World: On Place, Visuality, and Vulnerability’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice, 1st ed. UK, pp. 18 – 28
Barclay, L. and Gifford, T. (2018) ‘The Art and Science of Recording the Environment’, Leonardo,51(2), p. 184. doi: 10.1162/LEON_a_01517.
Beckenstein, J. (2011) ‘Janet Culbertson the Toxic Wilderness’, Woman’s Art Journal, 32(1), pp. 22 – 29. Available at: (Accessed: 3 November 2021).
Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing.London: Penguin Books (1990)
Berger, J. (2005) Berger on Drawing. Co Cork: Occassional Press, p. 3
Berghuijs, J., Bakker, C. and Pieper, J. (2013) ‘New Spirituality and Social Engagement’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,52(4), pp. 775 – 792. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12062.
Bird-David, N. (1999) ‘”Animism” Revisited: Personhood, Environment, and Relational Epistemology’, Current Anthropology, 40(1), pp. 66 – 93. Available at:  (Accessed: 3 November 2021).
Carlson, A. (2018) ‘Environmental Aesthetics, Ethics, and Ecoaesthetics’, Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 76(4), pp. 399 – 410. doi: 10.1111/jaac.12586.
Carroll, N. (2012) ‘Art in an Expanded Field’, Nordic Journal of Aesthetics,23(42), pp. 14 – 31. doi: 10.7146/nja.v23i42.5873.
Carvalho, I. C. de M., Steil, C. A. and Gonzaga, F. A. (2020) ‘Learning from a more-than-human perspective. Plants as teachers’, Journal of Environmental Education, 51(2), pp. 144 – 155. doi: 10.1080/00958964.2020.1726266.
Coutts, G. and Jokela, T. (eds.) (2015) Art, community and environment: Educational perspectives.Bristol, England: Intellect Books.
Cucen, A. K. (2016) ‘Ethic of Respect for Nature in Deep Ecology’, Oxidation Communications, 39(3–II), pp. 2809 – 2819. Available at: (Accessed: 26 November 2021).
Dal Farra, R. (2014) ‘Balance-Unbalance: Art and Environmental Crisis’, Leonardo,47(5), p. 490. doi: 10.1162/LEON_a_00815.
DesJardins, J. R. (2001) Environmental ethics: An introduction to environmental philosophy.3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Di Paola, M. (2015) ‘When Ethics and Aesthetics Are One and the Same: A Wittgensteinian Perspective on Natural Value’, Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture, 9(1), pp. 19 – 41. doi: 10.1558/jsrnc.v9i1.15828.
Dowd, M. (2018) ‘Bewitched by an Elf Dart: Fairy Archaeology, Folk Magic and Traditional Medicine in Ireland’. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 28(3), pp. 451 – 473. doi:
Dzwonkowska, D. (2018) ‘Is Environmental Virtue Ethics Anthropocentric?’, Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics,31(6), pp. 723 – 738. doi: 10.1007/s10806-018-9751-6
Garner, S. (ed) (2012) Writing on drawing. Bristol: Intellect.
Garner, S. (ed.) (2013) Writing on drawing: Essays on drawing practice and research. Bristol, England: Intellect Books. (2021) ‘GEOPOETICS’. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 3 November 2021]. (2021) ‘Scottish Centre for Geopoetics – a relationship to the earth and the opening of a world’. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 3 November 2021].
Gkargkavouzi, A., Halkos, G. and Matsiori, S. (2019) ‘A Multi-dimensional Measure of Environmental Behavior: Exploring the Predictive Power of Connectedness to Nature, Ecological Worldview and Environmental Concern’, Social Indicators Research, 143(2), pp. 859 – 879. doi: 10.1007/s11205-018-1999-8.
Graham, M. (2017) ‘Ideas about Nature in American Art and Visual Culture’, International Journal of Arts Education, 12(3), pp. 1 -12. doi: 10.18848/2326-9944/CGP/v12i03/1-12.
Harries, K. (2011) ‘What Need is There for an Environmental Aesthetics?’, Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, 22(40/41), pp. 7–22. doi: 10.7146/nja.v22i40-41.5186.
Herva, V-P. and Ylimaunu, T. (2009) ‘Folk Beliefs, special deposits, and engagement with the environment in early modern northern Finland’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology,28(1), pp. 234 – 243. doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2009.02.001
Hicks, L. E. (2012) ‘Sustainability and What it Means to be Human’, Studies in Art Education,53(4), pp. 267 – 269. doi: 10.1080/00393541.2012.11518868.
Ibanga, D. A. (2018) ‘Concept, Principles and Research Methods of African Environmental Ethics’, Journal of Pan African Studies,11(7), pp. 123 – 141. Available at: (Accessed: 26 November 2021).
Jordheim, C. B. (2020) ‘All Visuals Have Sound: The Verbalization of Geography and the Sound of Landscape’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice,1st ed. UK, pp. 60 – 73
Koehrsen, J. (2018) ‘Eco-Spirituality in Environmental Action: Studying Dark Green Religion in the German Energy Transition’, Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture,12(1), pp. 34 – 54. doi: 10.1558/jsrnc.33915.
Kopnina, H. et al. (2018) ‘Anthropocentrism: More than Just a Misunderstood Problem’, Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 31(1), pp. 109 – 127. doi: 10.1007/s10806-018-9711-1.
Kortetmäki, T. (2016) ‘Is Broad the New Deep in Environmental Ethics? A Comparison of Broad Ecological Justice and Deep Ecology’, Ethics & the Environment, 21(1), pp. 89 – 108. doi: 10.2979/ethicsenviro.21.1.04.
Kurczynski, K. (2011) ‘Drawing Is the New Painting’, Art Journal, 70(1), pp. 92 – 110. doi: 10.1080/00043249.2011.10791065.
Lorusso, S. and Braida, A. M. (2012) ‘Art and Environment as Media for Ecosustainability, Ethics and Aesthetics’, Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage / Quaderni di Scienza della Conservazione, 12, pp. 55 – 78. Available at: (Accessed: 3 November 2021).
Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (2020) Geopoetics in Practice. Oxen: Routledge
Masaki, E. K. (2021) ‘Locked into the Anthropocene? Examining the Environmental Ethics of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’, Ethics & the Environment, 26(1), pp. 1 – 19. doi: 10.2979/ethicsenviro.26.1.01.
McDonald, H. P. (2014) ‘Environmental Philosophy as a System: From Environmental Ethics to Environmental Philosophy’, Value Inquiry Book Series,273, pp. 385 – 389. Available at: (Accessed: 26 November 2021).
McDonald, H. P. (2014) ‘Toward a Deontological Environmental Ethics’, Value Inquiry Book Series, 273, pp. 17 – 50. Available at: (Accessed: 26 November 2021).
McShane, K. (2018) ‘The Role of Awe in Environmental Ethics’, Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 76(4), pp. 473 – 484. doi: 10.1111/jaac.12595.
Miller, J. M. (2020) ‘Mischaracterizing the Environment: Hardy, Darwin, and the Art of Ecological Storytelling’, Texas Studies in Literature & Language,62(2), pp. 149 – 177. doi: 10.7560/tsll62203.
Naess, A. (1973) ‘The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary’, Inquiry, 16(1-4), pp. 95 – 100, doi: 10.1080/00201747308601682
Nannicelli, T. (2018) ‘The Interaction of Ethics and Aesthetics in Environmental Art’, Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 76(4), pp. 497 – 506. doi: 10.1111/jaac.12601.
Naor, L. and Mayseless, O. (2020) ‘The therapeutic value of experiencing spirituality in nature’, Spirituality in Clinical Practice,7(2), pp. 114 – 133. doi: 10.1037/scp0000204
O’Brien, T. (2016) ‘Radical environmentalism: nature, identity and more-than-human agency’, Social Movement Studies,15(5), pp. 540 – 541. doi: 10.1080/14742837.2016.1149463.
Oleksijczuk, D. (2021) ‘Creative Ecologies: How Might We Live in the Ruins of the More-Than-Human Anthropocene?’, PUBLIC,32(63), pp. 5 – 11. doi: 10.1386/public_00056_7.
Papalois, Z. A. and Papalois, K. B. (2020) ‘Bioethics and Environmental Ethics: The Story of the Human Body as a Natural Ecosystem’, New Bioethics,26(2), pp. 91–97. doi: 10.1080/20502877.2020.1767919.
Pereira, M. and Forster, P. M. (2015) ‘The Relationship between Connectedness to Nature, Environmental Values, and Pro-environmental Behaviours’, Reinvention: An International Journal of Undergraduate Research,8(2), p. 1. Available at: (Accessed: 3 November 2021).
Pitt, H. (2015) ‘On showing and being shown plants – a guide to methods for more-than-human geography’, Area,47(1), pp. 48 – 55. Available at: (Accessed: 3 November 2021).
Pugh, J. (2020) ‘The aesthetics of island space: Perception, ideology, geopoetics’, Island Studies Journal,15(2), pp. 387 – 390. Available at: (Accessed: 3 November 2021).
Rabinowitz, P. M., Pappaioanou, M., Bardosh, K. L. and Conti, L (2018) ‘A planetary vision for one health’, BMJ Global Health.[Online] 3(5), e001137, doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001137.
Rawlings, A. (2020) ‘Geopoetics of Intime and SUND: Performing geochronology in the North Atlantic’. In: Magrane, E., Russo, L., De Leeuw, S. and Perez, C. S. (ed.), Geopoetics in Practice, 1st ed. UK, pp. 88 – 100
Richardson, M., Hunt, A., Hinds, J., Bragg, R., et al.(2019) ‘A Measure of Nature Connectedness for Children and Adults: Validation, Performance, and Insights’. Sustainability.[Online] 11(12), p. 3250. doi:10.3390/su11123250.
Rowe, S. (n.d) Ecocentrism and Traditional Ecological Knowledge[online] Available at: <> [Accessed 19 December 2021].
Ruskin, J. (1857) The Elements of Drawing.New York: Dover Publications (1971), p. 13
Sailakumar, S. and Naachimuthu, K. P. (2017) ‘A phenomenological approach to understand the nature based experiences and its influence on holistic development’, Indian Journal of Positive Psychology,8(2), pp. 186 – 195. Available at: (Accessed: 3 November 2021).
Saito, F. (2014) ‘Knowing by doing in sixteenth-century natural magic: Giambattista della Porta and the wonders of nature’, Circumscribere, 14, pp.17 – 39
Schenk, P. (2014) ‘Inspiration and Ideation: Drawing in a Digital Age’, Design Issues,30(2), pp. 42 -55. doi: 10.1162/DESI_a_00261.
Shaw, J. (2016) ‘Archaeology, climate change and environmental ethics: diachronic perspectives on human:non-human:environment worldviews, activism and care’, World Archaeology,48(4), pp. 449 – 465. doi: 10.1080/00438243.2016.1326754.
Sorrel, J. N. (2008) ‘Dualities within Drawing and the Work of Artists in an Expanded Field’, Scope: Contemporary Research Topics (Art & Design), 3, pp. 142 -148. Available at: (Accessed: 3 November 2021).
Taylor, B. (2001) ‘Earth and nature-based spirituality (part I): From deep ecology to radical environmentalism’, Religion,31(2), pp. 175 – 193. doi: 10.1006/reli.2000.0256
Taylor, C. (2019) The Tao of revolution. UK: Stairwell Books.
Underhill, R. (2018) Framing Nature Toolkit: A guide on how words can help wildlife.[eBook] The Public Interest Research Centre. Available at: <> [Accessed 3 November 2021].
Valera, L., Vidal, G. and Leal, Y. (2021) ‘Beyond Application. The Case of Environmental Ethics’, Tópicos. Revista de Filosofía,(60), pp. 437–459. doi: 10.21555/top.v0i60.1122.
Van Alphen, E,. (2008) ‘Looking at Drawing: Theoretical Distinctions and their Usefulness’. In: S. Garner (ed.), Writing on Drawing, 1st ed. UK, pp. 59 – 70
Van Horn, G., Wall Kimmerer, R. and Hausdoerffer, J. (ed.) (2021) Planet (Vol. 1). Illinois: Center for Humans and Nature Press.
Vasko, Z. (2021) ‘Visiting, attending and receiving: Making kin with local woods’, International Journal of Education through Art,17(1), pp. 45 – 53. doi: 10.1386/eta_00050_3.
Vennatrø, R. and Høgseth, H. B. (2021) ‘Craft as More-Than-Human: Practice-led research in a posthumanist perspective’, FORMakademisk,14(2), pp. 1 – 13. doi: 10.7577/formakademisk.4205.
Wallen, R. (2012) ‘Ecological Art: A Call for Visionary Intervention in a Time of Crisis’, Leonardo,45(3), pp. 235 – 242. doi: 10.1162/LEON_a_00365.
Weida, C. L. (2013) ‘Frederick Froebel’s philosophies of drawing: Play, representation and invention’, Visual Inquiry: Learning & Teaching Art,2(1), pp. 43 – 54. doi: 10.1386/vi.2.1.43_1.
Weida, C. L. and Marsh, J. (2013) ‘Soft and Sustainable Studio Work: Recycling Media, Representing Ecology, and Re-envisioning Craft With the International Fiber Collaborative’, Journal of Art for Life, 5(1), pp. 1 – 20. Available at: (Accessed: 3 November 2021).
White, K. (no date c) ‘The Atlantic Shore – A Letter on the origins of Geopoetics’ [online] The International Institute of Geopoetics. Available at: <> [Accessed 1 December 2021].
White, K. (no date d) ‘Open Perspectives: Biology, sociology, geopoetics’ [online] The International Institute of Geopoetics. Available at: <> [Accessed 1 December 2021].
White, K. (no date e) ‘Letter from the Geopoetic Studio’ [online] The International Institute of Geopoetics. Available at: <> [Accessed 1 December 2021].
Whitebook, J. (2002) ‘Slow Magic: Psychoanalysis and “The Disenchantment of the World.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 50(4), pp. 1197 – 1217. doi:
Yu, D. S. (2015) Mindscaping the landscape of Tibet: Place, memorability, ecoaesthetics.New York, NY: De Gruyter.
Zylstra, M. et al. (2019) ‘Integrating multiple perspectives on the human-nature relationship: A reply to Fletcher 2017’, Journal of Environmental Education, 50(1), pp. 1 – 10. doi: 10.1080/00958964.2018.1497582.

Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.