ROOTED RELATIONS
Cultivating Emotional Intelligence via Creative Practice: An Embodied Framework for Relational Meaning-Making
Attunement
Before entering ‘Rooted Relations’, I invite you to pause. There is no single route through this research and no concession to legibility. You may begin where something catches your attention, follow a connection between sections, move backwards, return to something later, or spend time with images or encounters that interest you. The route you take is your decision.
This is intentional. The research began with an encounter that I could not fully explain. What should have been an ordinary family dog walk in the nearby woodland, became questions about what might be noticed if we slowed down and paid closer attention the otherwise unseen. From here, the research moved through making, materials, environments, sensation, emotion and reflection attending to those questions. It did not however develop as a straight line. Ideas were revisited, interrupted and changed through practice, altered through each reciprocal encounter.
‘Rooted Relations’ explores how embodied participation in creative practice can contribute to the cultivation of emotional intelligence through relational meaning-making. Throughout its network is a proposal that meaning does not necessarily being with an intention and end with an outcome, but that meaning can emerge between the practitioner, material, environment, memory and the decisions made along the way. This research became as much about noticing how I participated through auto-ethnographic methods as it was about what I produced.
Some sections that follow describe encounters that investigated the purpose of this practice and others examine the theoretical roots that helped me to understand what was happening. They are connected, but they do not need to be approached as a sequence. Like the root system from which this research takes its name, some pathways remain visible whilst others continue beneath the surface. It is part of what this research has come to understand about connection: meaning can change through the encounter itself.
So, I invite you to begin wherever you choose.
Threshold
“I can see now that I can hear, look Mum!”
My son said this during our first visit to a tree, as he pointed up, anthropomorphising its different forms, which would later bring to the surface more questions which helped to shape this research. We had attached a biosonification device [Fig 2] to its protruding roots, curious to hear the electrical waves and pitch from the otherwise unseen micro-fluctuations within [Fig 3]. I remember us looking up into the canopy, both the familiar sounds of birdsong and rustling leaves surrounding us, alongside the unfamiliar biological signals being created. Within those moments, I stopped trying to understand the experience and just listened.
The warmth of the summer day, rough bark beneath my hands and the constant irritation of hay fever all belonged to an ordinary family dog walk, stopping to adventure along the way. Yet the sounds of my new ‘adventuring device’ (biosonification) altered something. My attention shifted. The trees no longer felt like resting points. Places to breathe and relax. There was more.
At the time, I couldn’t explain why the encounter stayed with me. It resisted easy description. Weeks later I found myself returning, not because I was searching for answers, but because I had begun asking questions.
I recognise this as a Threshold, not as a boundary to cross, but the moment an ordinary experience began asking something more of me.
Figure 2: Pariso, 2026. ‘Biosonification’, Digital photograph of biosonification device ‘Plantsplay’ on tree root
Figure 3: Pariso, 2026. Screenshot of ‘Plantsplay’ app parameter mapping, creating generative music
Beneath the surface
The unseen connections beneath the surface remain largely unnoticed, yet their binding and unwinding and continual movement shape the relationships and experiences than unfold above. It is in observing the otherwise buried that will form part of the conceptual ground from which this research grows.
Embodied cognition, embodied perception and embodied connection create a synergy for the conceptual underpinning for cultivating emotional intelligence through relational meaning-making. An interconnected and evolving way of understanding creative practice as an embodied and relational experience.
Together they move attention away from the production of final outcomes and towards participation as a process itself through which knowledge, perception, connection and emotional understanding are in constant development.
Embodied Cognition: How do we know through bodily experience?
Although environmental psychology and cognitive sciences largely acknowledge embodied perception, western philosophy has traditionally characterised the mind as the primary site of knowledge, separating cognition from whole bodily experience and the interconnectedness of minds, bodies and environments (Westermann, 2020). However, embodied cognition proposes that understanding develops through the body’s active engagement with the world, where perception, movement and action are inseparable from thinking itself (Merleau-Ponty, 2012).
Within creative practice, this philosophical position, can be observed in moments when practitioners instinctively recognise that a mark, movement, material, colour or compositional decision feels appropriate before they are able to explain why. Tacit knowledge contributes to creative decisions (Polanyi, 1966), whilst sensory and bodily memory, and lived experience contribute to the decisions made throughout the creative process, where knowing is developed through repeated encounters, physical interaction and attentive engagement (Merleau-Ponty, 2012; Ingold, 2013). Making through touch and material engagement generates meaning during creative practice (Ingold, 2013).
Embodied Perception: How does encounter become felt?
Embodied perception understands the human experience as an active and relational encounter between body and environment, as opposed to the passive reception of sensory information (Gibson, 1966; Merleau-Ponty, 2012). Experience is shaped by movement, attention and previous encounters, meaning that what is perceived depends as much upon the body’s engagement with its surroundings as upon the environment itself. The body does not simply observe the world but participates within it (Merleau-Ponty, 2012).
Sustained engagement allows perceptive knowledge to develop as attention becomes responsive to what materials and environments offer in practice. Texture may invite touch, sound may prompt movement or changing reaction, whilst resistance, rhythm or light can alter how an action is approached. Gibson’s (1979) theory of affordances describes these possibilities as the relation between the environment and the individual. What a material affords depends not only on its properties, but on what the practitioners can perceive and do with it.
Perceptive engagement has been charted in contemporary neuroaesthetics research which demonstrates perceptual and embodied processes activating embodied simulation. Aesthetic encounters enable viewers to experience gesture, movement and expressive qualities through bodily resonance rather than detached observation (Nalbantian, 2008).
Embodied Connection: How is connection experienced through embodied participation in creative practice?
Creative practice is often described as an individual act of expression. However, connection suggests that meaning does not reside solely within the practitioner or the resulting work. It develops through the reciprocal relationships that form within and around practice, between practitioner, material, environment and ultimately other people who encounter it. That individual intention is shaped by the encounters themselves, allowing meaning to evolve through participation, influencing both current and future making (Abram, 1996; Barad, 2007; Ingold, 2013).
Whilst related understandings of embodied connection appear across disciplines, this research explores its application within creative practice as an evolving relational process and how relationships form and evolve through over time. Here, embodied connection is understood as an evolving process that is constantly formed, maintained, disrupted and renewed through ongoing engagement with materials, environments and lived experience. Meaning is developed within continual moments of negotiation, reciprocity and embodied participation opposed to practitioner-led control or direction towards materials towards a fixed outcome and more attentive to the possibilities that surface through relational engagement.
This understanding of embodied connection provides the conceptual foundation for the relational framework proposed in ‘Relational Making’, whereby creative practice is experienced as an ecology of reciprocal encounters unlike a sequence of individual decisions. The relational nature of creative practice creates opportunities not only for knowledge and meaning to develop, but also for greater awareness of how practitioners’ respond, adapt and relate within these encounters. It is within this space that emotional intelligence becomes significant.
Emotional Intelligence: How does creative practice develop emotional awareness and relational sensitivity?
Embodied cognition, perception and connection work together in synchronicity to create the conditions in which emotional intelligence can be cultivated. It is through the repeated process of encountering, responding, adapting and reflecting that practitioners develop the ability to identify or regulate emotion, becoming attentive to those feelings can inform thought, action and relationships. Mayer and Salovey (1997) describe emotional intelligence as a progression from perceiving and expressing emotion in thought to understanding and reflectively regulating it. Goleman (1995) similarly places self-awareness at the foundation of emotional competence, stating that recognising an emotional state created a degree of distance from the immediate experience rather than leaving the practitioner wholly within its influence.
This is significant for creative practice because making rarely follows a predictable path. Instead, practitioners often negotiate uncertainty, failure, curiosity and discovery, experiment with new possibilities, encounter setbacks, adapt new approaches and reflect upon their processes and outcomes. These encounters make emotion part of creative decision-making. Emotion therefore, becomes part of the information through which practice is navigated, opposed to something represented afterwards. Goleman (1995) identifies the capacity to marshal emotion in pursuit of a goal, as relevant to creativity. From this perspective, emotional intelligence is more than a cognitive skill, it is an embodied process that develops through lived experience.
Creative practice becomes a space in which self-awareness and relational sensitivity are cultivated through reflective engagement with materials, environments and practice (Finlay, 2002). These interactions rarely follow a linear progression. ‘Relational Making’ offers a way of understanding what sustained embodied attention can cultivate as an emergent capacity of embodied participation, exercised and refined through sustained relational engagement.
Existing Roots
New growth cannot emerge without an intricate network of roots intertwining, diverging and responding already beneath the surface, shaping conditions from which they can collectively create new life. This research has developed much in the same way. ‘Existing Roots’ acknowledges the thinkers whose work has nourished the ground from which the research has grown, and begins so in Figure 4 which visualises the living network whereby together they form the conceptual network underpinning the enquiry, each contributing a different perspective on embodied experience and relational meaning-making.
The human experience is viewed as something that responds to encounter, where body, material, emotion and environment converge. It is here that perception becomes lived, relationships begin to form, making becomes responsive and emotional understanding starts to emerge. Every theoretical perspective represented within the map contributes to this central conversation.
‘Rooted Relations - a Conceptual Ecology’ [Figure 4] brings together these perspectives into relation, introducing them as active companions throughout ‘Rooted Relations’, informing the questions asked throughout my practice whilst allowing new understanding to emerge. Neither conversation is placed in hierarchy above another.
How might emotional intelligence function as an embodied framework for relational creative practice?
How does the Relational-Making Process support meaning-making in embodied creative practice?
How can emotional intelligence contribute to knowledge through sensory, emotional and material engagement with the natural environment?
It is within this space where these existing roots intersect and this research is proposed. Embodied connection, within cultivating emotional intelligence through relational meaning-making and the relational making process does not seek to replace the theories that came before them, rather grow alongside existing conversations by considering connection as a lived process that is cultivated, sustained, disrupted and renewed within and around creative encounter. It is to be considered that, every act of relational making becomes another point of growth within an already living root system.
Relational Making
The Threshold encounter did not conclude when I left the trees. It continued in the studio [Fig 5-10]. Making became another thread of encounter, extending the questions first raised beneath the canopy into dialogue with material, movement and memory. Instead of translating observations into resolved pieces, the creative process itself became the site whereby meaning developed. Each make and material experiment had me question and understand in different ways, but each either returned me to the original encounter or produced another. None of which were created to reproduce what I had seen or felt, but each to experiment and research.
Figure 5 - 10: Pariso, 2026. ‘Relational Making - Living Archive’, Relational making process in action.
Returning to the studio, it rarely began with certainty. Materials frequently resisted initial intentions. Wire bent and shifted as I worked with it, refusing some of the structures I initially intended, wet plaster moved across wire form providing structural integrity but ambiguous affects, while polyfiller changed from a soft workable mixture into a surface with a very different quality once dried. Working in tandem with sticks meant collaborating with their natural asymmetry and the resin which was filled in altered the surfaces again, introducing gloss and reflection. Paint colour chosen my son (actively taking control from my own making) and taking inspiration from the woodland itself altered visual attention through tone and texture. My bodily response changed and gestures slowed. I repositioned myself around the work, altered the pressure of my touch and returned repeatedly to surfaces before deciding what to do next. These were not simply technical elements to overcome, they all became active conditions within the making.
I became more attentive to the sensorial qualities being encountered during the making of ‘Relational Making - Living Archive’ [Fig 5-10], extended those experienced through ‘Threshold’. As I slowed, sound became a part of the process, the subtle sounds produced through touch at the point of contact between paint, brush and material. Brush choice consequently became responsive not only for visual effect but also for how they felt in action - their resistance, the pressure and the noise each stroke produced. When experimenting, whilst effective for applying colour, their sound and tactile response made the sensory encounter feel incongruous with what I was trying to express.
Forest-bathing audio was also introduced in the studio as a way of further engaging the slower and more attentive state of breathing that I had experienced when I was physically amongst the trees during ‘Threshold’. Reconnecting with embodied perception discussed in ‘Beneath the Surface’, I became more aware of my own physical and emotional state during making.
The boundary between observing and making had become more difficult to separate. I was no longer looking at nature and making something about it. I was physically participating in an encounter with it. Observation occurred through touch, movement and material touch not only with nature but through relational making in the studio. What I noticed outside could alter what I did inside, while the material encounters in the studio subsequently changed what I noticed on returning. My observation shifted to where the exposed roots met the ground [Fig 12], noticing the skin-like quality of the bark at this point of connection. It was smoother to the touch than I had previously acknowledged in comparison to the rest of the tree [Fig 11].
Figure 11: Pariso, 2026. ‘Tree bark texture’, Digital photograph
Figure 12: Pariso, 2026. ‘Exposed root texture’, Digital photograph
This reciprocal quality was pivotal to the development of the Relational Making Process [Fig 13] methodology. The process had originally begun during previous enquiry into how relational decision-making might develop through embodied participation, affect and sensory awareness in creative practice (Pariso, 2026). Through subsequent practice however, the methodology I acknowledge, is as much participatory as it is relational. ‘Sensory awareness’ changed to ‘sensory engagement’, whilst ‘releasing control through gesture and process’ evolved into ‘negotiating control’. These changes reflect what I was I was experiencing materially. Decisions were not made by me in isolation, then imposed upon passive materials, they emerged through an ongoing exchange between intention, bodily response, material behaviour and environmental memory. The Relational Making Process remains responsive to practice and is not a fixed sequence, but a process that should be tested, questioned and reshaped through repeated encounters.
Embodied reflexivity encouraged continual attention towards bodily experience throughout documenting the research throughout Rooted Relations (Finlay, 2002). Reflective journalling, sensory documentation and the theoretical perspectives of Barad (2007), Merleau-Ponty (2012) and Ingold (2013) helped to articulate what was occurring during ongoing encounters in practice. Throughout this process, I began to recognise recurring relationships between perception, sensory engagement, response, material behaviour and decision-making.
Barad’s (2007) intra-action and non-unilateral causality, Merleau-Ponty’s (2012) embodied perception and Ingold’s (2013) correspondence with materials helped me to recognise that material encounter was not just illustrative of the research, it was one of the places in which the research itself was also taking place. This became further understood during making encounters in ‘Relational Making’.
The Relational Making Process [Fig 13] has evolved from these theoretical viewpoints and repeated encounters and provides a visual representation of how decision-making developed through this practice research. It is a responsive process in which transactional control, transactional making, interactional encounter and relational meaning-making continually negotiate with eachother.
Reciprocal Encounters
During a repeated visit to the ‘Threshold’ tree, my attention was shifted to the dandelions in a nearby graveyard. Until this point, listening and recording previous encounters had been largely associated with sound: environmental woodland noise, tree biosonification recordings and acoustic qualities noticed during making. The graveyard besides the woodland introduced a different kind of attentiveness. The fragility of the dandelions, their surroundings and my own response to them and their biosonification made it difficult to approach the encounter with the same intention to observe, record and make.
Instead I paused. Paused on encounter, became silent. And found myself silent and slower, more attentive during making. Almost respective to the environment to where the encounter begun.
I found the fragility of encounter lead me away from previous sculptures in their original sense, and more towards experimenting with broken glass [Fig 14-15] - a surface which directly reflected the encounter through explosive change in direction, fragility and transparent reflective surface, forcing me to slow down and observe. This remained a process of active dialogue, and participation via encounter, but remained unresolved as I no longer felt connected to taking the work further beyond Figure 21. It had fulfilled it’s purpose of experimentation, answering the questions I was exploring, so I ultimately made the decision to not pursue making it further. This became an act of relational meaning-making within the Relational Making Process [Fig 13], as the encounter enabled me to recognise when my relationship within the work had reached its natural conclusion.
Figure 14 - 15: Pariso, 2026. ‘Uncharted Resonance - Living Archive’, Relational making in action.
However, still feeling disconcerted by the biosonification recordings taken of the dandelions had me research the method in which they are produced. Understanding that the movement of water altered the biosonification recordings (Shapiro, nd), I moved away from the fractured glass and introduced acrylic onto canvas and paper [Fig 16-18], alongside experiments with water and breath without knowing precisely what each would produce. Breathing being my particularly poignant throughout ‘Threshold’.
Figure 16 - 18: Pariso, 2026. ‘Uncharted Resonance - Living Archive’, Relational making in action.
A mark could be interrupted by water, sprayed and smudged onto the canvas, a surface could change through drying, a breath blowing the water and paint around could alter colour composition and traditional harmony. The making environment to which I was participating within was no longer something I encountered, I was part of an ongoing exchange with it, responding to each stage of the process and understanding perception as participatory and reciprocal (Abram, 1996).
This was the start of active listening within my practice, not solely to others or my environment, but also to myself. I was learning to recognise when the work was asking me to pause, step back, adjust or continue. Reciprocity became less about materials responding to my actions, this was about my willingness to respond to them in return. The encounter becoming a dialogue meant staying open to where that dialogue might lead.
Entanglements
As the research was beginning to take root, the relationship between the creative processes became increasingly difficult to contain within a neat framework. I began to recognise that relational engagement did not always feel relational. I could remain involved in making, responding to materials and making decisions while becoming caught within a more transactional way of working. The process could continue and relational knowledge could still develop, but without me feeling particularly connected to or engaged by it. I recognised this in ‘Uncharted Resonance - Living Archive’ [Fig 14-15] when during experimentation, my connection to the work had become diminished, hence I decided not to pursue the creative work any further beyond experimentation phase. Alongside this was ‘Relational Making - Living Archive’ [Fig 5-10] when the making process had become increasingly transactional and my decisions being driven more towards resolving the object than responding to material or ‘Threshold’ encounter. This observation was important as participation alone did not necessarily cultivate emotional intelligence as I acknowledged that I sometimes needed to consciously change how I was participating.
This became more noticeable through moments of interruption, resistance or experimentation. Experimenting with materials I hadn’t before worked with unsettled my confidence, requiring me to stop, reassess and respond to what the material was doing. At times I became absorbed in trying to resolve a problem and lost awareness of the wider encounter. Re-engaging required a deliberate shift in attention, forcing myself to slow down, listen, moving, stepping away or approaching material differently. These changes in technique altered my relationship with process and the experience became less about pursing an intended direction and more about responding to both materials and what my body intuitively needed.
These experiences made it difficult to maintain a distinction between the relational making process [Fig 13] as a methodology and cultivating emotional intelligence through relational meaning-making [Fig 19] as a framework. The former described how I participated in the encounter, whereas the latter helped me to understand what was occurring when that participation became attentive, responsive and capable of change. I recognised that the two needed to operate together. Relational making provided the conditions through which perception, connection and cognition could be activated, interrupted and re-engaged, while cultivating emotional intelligence offered a way of understanding the significance of those relationships. It was through these experiences that the original framework (Pariso, 2026) has been revised from ‘stimulating’ to ‘cultivating’ emotional intelligence to reflect it’s development through sustained attention and engagement.
The framework became less concerned with fixed stages and more reflective of the movement I was actually experiencing. Perception, connection and cognition could influence one another, rather than occurring in a predetermined order, in a circular motion with fixed ending point or in isolation. Emotional intelligence was not an endpoint, but something cultivated through the capacity to notice, respond, adapt and re-enter the process differently and continually throughout. The adapted framework has therefore emerged through the same entanglement that it sought to describe. Practice changed it, while developing it changed how I practiced.
Carried
Transactional making thusfar throughout embodied participation had felt somewhat restrictive, in comparison to other modes of process. I began, however, to recognise a more embodied form of transactional making upon repeated encounter with materials, whereby the materials themselves were something I could act upon, respond to and were capable of altering my intentions dynamically. This reflected Polanyi’s (1966) explanation of tacit knowledge, where understanding develops through embodied experience, as it becomes embedded within practice rather than being consciously articulated.
Re-engaging with sculptural making [Fig 21-23] allowed me to respond to what emerged as the structures developed. Decisions became more intuitive, but not capricious as they were informed by accumulated sensory experience, previous encounters and attention. Problem solving was inherently faster. My intention remained present, but I became less concerned with determining the outcome in advance. Experimentation no longer felt fragmented as it had previously. A gesture, surface or material response could carry into another study, returning later in an altered form.
Figure 21 - 23: Pariso, 2026. ‘Living Archive’, Embodied transactional making in action.
I continued this work into further unfinished studies alongside the sculpture, practicing embodied transactional making within the relational making process.
In a further attempt to bring together the different strands of the research into a single visual encounter challenging my new knowledge of when a work is considered ‘finished’, I was concious of my own expectations around producing work for the final MA exhibition and the anxiety of how an audience might interpret my work. I recognise that Figure 20 feels more resolved than some of my more exploratory pieces, as it’s visual recognisability offers the viewer an entry point through which their own lived experience could inform their own reading of the work, allowing for a more successful personal encounter with the work itself, even though it is still visibly sketch-like and incomplete.
I feel carried by the process of embodied transactional making, rather than directing or being directed by it. Decisions can emerge through making, change direction or remain unresolved. The work does not need to arrive where I initially imagined it, they can move between one another, carrying traces of earlier encounters and into subsequent future making.
Dispersal
This research began with a moment of encounter on a family dog walk and developed through repeated encounters with materials, environments and my own responses with them. Emotional intelligence, relational making and meaning-making are all connected through creative practice in this research project.
I began to understand creative participation as a sensory experience, however this research made this understanding more complicated. I could be physically involved in making whilst emotionally distant from what I was creating. Participation alone did not create connection and connection could not be instructed into existence. I found that it relied upon sustained attention.
This became important to the development of Cultivating Emotional Intelligence through Relational Meaning-Making [Fig 19]. I came to understand emotional intelligence as something that could be developed through these moments of attention and response. Sensory and emotional responses become part of how I made decisions, alongside material and environmental encounters something to response to and with.
The Relational Making Process [Fig 13] has also changed through this research. The methodology originally created to understand relational decision-making and my own changing state of attention. Through making, I began to see that the sections could not remain fixed. A change in one could affect another, and the process could move back and forth depending on the encounter. This relationship between the methodological process [Fig 13] and framework [Fig 19] is brought together in the Rhizomatic Map [Fig 24], where the two are shown as connected and continually informing eachother.
There are things I understand now that I could not have articulated at the beginning. I now recognise that embodied participation involved more that physical involvement. It requires attention to what is happening within the encounter and a willingness to let that affect what happens next.
The encounters documented here will continue into future making, carrying the traces of decisions and emotions with them. This research disperses rather than concludes, leaving the framework open to further testing, questioning and development. If emotional intelligence can be cultivated through how we attend and respond within creative practice, what might become possible when this extends beyond the individual maker?
REFERENCES
Abram, David. (1996). The spell of the sensuous : perception and language in a more-than-human world. Vintage Books, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. NC: Duke University Press.
Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120052 [Accessed multiple times]
Gallese, V. (2017). Visions of the body. Embodied simulation and aesthetic experience. Aisthesis (Italy), 10(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.13128/Aisthesis-20902 [Accessed multiple times]
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems·. Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hoffman et al. (2021) as observed in Jalifi, S., Krumm, G., Marchesini, M., & Filipetti, V. (2025). Creativity and Emotional Intelligence in Adults: A systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Research. Creativity : Theories - Research - Applications, 12(2). [Accessed multiple times]
Ingold, T. (2013). Making anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. In Making Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559055 [Accessed multiple times]
Ingold, T. (2017). On human correspondence. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 23(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.12541 [Accessed multiple times]
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is Emotional Intelligence? [Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence] (D. J. Sluyter, Ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice., & Landes, D. A. . (2012). Phenomenology of perception (T. Carman & D. A. Landes, Trans.). Routledge.
Nalbantian, S. (2008). Neuroaesthetics: neuroscientific theory and illustration from the arts. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1179/174327908X392906 [Accessed multiple times]
Pariso, A. (2026). How does relational decision-making shape embodied participation in creative practice?. Accessible via: https://www.aliciapariso.co.uk/post/relational-making
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Logic of Tacit Inference. Philosophy, 41(155), 1–18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3749034 [Accessed multiple times]
Shapiro. (nd). as observed in Haigney, S. (2020). The lessons to be learned from forcing plants to play music. NPR. Accessible via: https://www.npr.org/2020/02/21/807821340/the-lessons-to-be-learned-from-forcing-plants-to-play-music
Westermann, C. (2020). Poiesis, ecology and embodied cognition. Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, 18 (1)(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1386/tear_00023_1 [Accessed multiple times]
VISUAL ROUTE
Figure 1: Tree bark - relational digital transformation. Original photograph by the author, transformed in Adobe Photoshop. 2026
Figure 2: Biosonification. Original photograph by the author of biosonification device ‘Plantsplay’ on tree root. 2026
Figure 3: Screenshot of ‘Plantsplay’ app on Author’s mobile device recorded parameter mapping, creating generative music. 2026
Figure 4: Rooted relations - conceptual ecology. Original ecology of ideas created by the Author in Adobe Fresco and Adobe Photoshop 2026
Figure 5 - 10, Relational Making - Living Archive. Relational Making Process in action Creative methodology. Author original contribution. 2026. Accessible via: https://www.aliciapariso.co.uk/portfolio-collections/living-archive
Figure 11: Tree bark texture. Original photograph by the author. 2026
Figure 12: Exposed root texture. Original photograph by the author. 2026
Figure 13: Relational Making Process. Creative methodology. Author original contribution. 2026.
Figure 14 - 18: Uncharted Resonance - Living Archive. Relational Making Process in action Creative methodology. Author original contribution. 2026. Accessible via: https://www.aliciapariso.co.uk/portfolio-collections/living-archive
Figure 19: Cultivating emotional intelligence through relational meaning-making. Theoretical framework. Author original contribution. 2026.
Figure 18: Entangled Matter. Digital layered graphite drawing created by the Author in Adobe Fresco. 2026 https://www.aliciapariso.co.uk/portfolio-collections/my-portfolio/natural-form-illustration
Figure 21 - 23: Living Archive. Embodied Transactional Making in action. Author original contribution. 2026. Accessible via: https://www.aliciapariso.co.uk/portfolio-collections/living-archive
Figure 24: Rhizomatic Map for Relational Practice. Diagram. Author original contribution. 2026.
Comments