Persistent Bodies ~ Correspondence Kept~in~Play

Persistent Bodies ~ Reading, Clay, Ceramic

Confessional : Vessel, Sculpture or Fiction.

A Troubling Interiority. 300926

 

A Propositional Setting for a Spatial Practice.

 

Confessional : Vessel, Sculpture or Fiction?

 

Other Bodies~Other Propositions

 

Gatherings For Speculative Bodies.

Confessional and Conversational Spaces.

Study Spaces~Research Creation : Seating with Cabins.

Confessional Spaces~Spatial-Situationist Apparatuses : A Line of Flight, Vessel, Sculpture or Fiction.

 

Interior Social Places : Perforated Inner Spaces~Intervals~Interiorities

 

 

Pigeon Houses/Dovecotes for Philosophers.

 

What do I know?

Michel de Montaigne.

 

A house for confessing animals.

Michel Foucault.

 

A "line of flight" (ligne de fuite) is a core concept developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus. It represents an act of escape, a sudden rupture, or a creative vector that allows a rigid system to break down and transform into something completely new.

 

 

Clay-Ceramic/Thinking Architectures/Interior Places.

2024. Ceramic. 260mmL x 350mmH x 160mmW.

 

The ceramic is therefore not a conclusion to making but a speculative body within its continuation: a sensate chamber in which material, spatial and philosophical relations can gather, weather and begin again.

 

In troubled times they all sought to experience life away from social definitions of success or failure. From there, these primitive huts marked personal, original inquires into the ever-mysterious nature of human existence.

 

Anne Cline. A Hut of One’s Own

 

Life Outside The Circle Of Architecture.

 

 

Collages.

Spatial and Reading Apparatuses.

Making Spatial Research Creation.

 

Pink Cosmos~Panopticon : Research Collage~Diffractive Inclusions and Annotations.

 

Body, Personal Relations and Spatial Values. Yi-Fu Tuan, Space~Place~Perspective of Experience.

Reading does not remain outside making. Its soundings pass between bodies of thought, images, materials and places, sometimes surfacing as propositions, sometimes withdrawing into the material conditions of a work.

The reading body moves between these correspondences without requiring them to converge. Ingold, Manning and Barad remain distinct within this gathering, their differences continuing to resonate through the movements of spatial practice. Clay encounters these soundings otherwise. Through making and firing, propositions acquire another condition of existence: a materially persistent body whose interiority remains open to further encounter.

What persists is not an idea preserved intact, but the possibility of its becoming otherwise.

Reading~clay~ceramic: persistent bodies already enduring their weather~~world, carrying relations forward into situations not yet known.

What is gathered is never simply contained. It passes between bodies, withdraws, and remains~in~play.

The Reading Body ~ Correspondence Without Convergence

The reading practice brings Ingold, Manning and Barad into correspondence, not to reconcile their thinking, but to allow their differences to remain active within the work. Each becomes a distinct sounding within a wider field of inquiry, offering ways of attending to movement, material relations, touch and the emergence of bodies. Their thinking is neither applied to the ceramic nor secured within an explanatory framework. It enters the movements of making, where it may be taken up, resisted, altered or carried elsewhere.

The reading body acts as an intercessor within this gathering. It moves between texts, images, materials and architectural situations, allowing propositions to pass between them without determining their final destination. Sometimes a correspondence surfaces explicitly, finding expression in a written proposition or a material decision. At other times, its sounding withdraws, becoming less immediately recognisable while remaining active within the ceramic's spatial and material relations.

Reading, in this sense, becomes a practice of ambiguous inhabitation. The reading body dwells within the relations between ideas and things, neither standing outside them as an observer nor dissolving into their differences. It keeps these relations available~in~play, allowing them to acquire other conditions of existence through making.

The ceramic body becomes one such condition. What has been encountered through reading may persist there, though not necessarily as a recognisable idea or an identifiable influence. It may surface as an aperture, a chamber, a resistance of material, an uncertain interior or a relation between bodies. The correspondence has changed its condition without exhausting its possibilities.

The reading body carries the soundings forward, allowing them to surface, withdraw and enter other bodies. Its work is not to preserve an idea intact, but to sustain the possibility of its further becoming.

The ceramic becomes materially persistent, while the propositions that have passed through its making remain available~~withdrawn for futurity.

Withdrawn Ceramic Bodies

What Kind of Body Gathers a Chamber?

Diffraction~Hospitality~Atmosphere: A Spatial Matrix of Moreton’s Spatial Inquiry

Cromer Open Exhibition 2026

A situated spatial proposition.

In What Kind of Body Gathers a Chamber?

Russell Moreton brings two withdrawn ceramic bodies into a spatial correspondence through proximity, surface and aperture. Their weathered surfaces retain the material traces of gesture, pressure, abrasion and the uneven accumulation of slips and residues. Perforations interrupt the ceramic planes, opening their materially persistent bodies towards one another and the surrounding environment. Their offset arrangement establishes a spatial interval that is neither fully enclosed nor simply given in advance.

The work proposes a chamber that emerges through the relations between bodies rather than being contained within either one. Its spatiality is not reducible to the dimensions or formal characteristics of the individual ceramics. It develops through the conditions of their gathering, through the differences that remain active between them, and through the possibilities of encounter that their arrangement makes available.

This proposition provides a situated instance of Moreton’s developing spatial inquiry, articulated through the matrix Diffraction~Hospitality~Atmosphere. These terms identify three interdependent operations through which spatial relations become perceptible, consequential and open to further forming. They do not constitute successive interpretive stages, nor do they impose a theoretical explanation upon an otherwise completed work. They identify the conditions through which the ceramic bodies operate as a propositional form of spatial practice.

The question is therefore not simply what kind of object constitutes a chamber, but what kind of gathering allows a chamber to emerge. The work approaches this question through the material persistence of the withdrawn ceramic bodies and the continuing spatial relations they make possible.

Diffraction: the production of consequential difference.

Diffraction concerns the differences produced and made perceptible through the encounter between bodies. In Moreton’s work, the two ceramic panels are neither identical units nor independent objects whose spatial significance can be established in isolation. Their distinct surfaces, perforations, orientations and relative positions become consequential through their proximity.

The material surfaces retain heterogeneous traces of making. Incisions, abrasions, deposits and changes in colour establish an uneven field in which no single mark or material condition governs the whole. The perforations further trouble the apparent continuity of the ceramic plane, producing an interplay between surface and depth, opacity and passage, material density and spatial opening.

The offset arrangement intensifies these differences. One body partially obscures the other, establishing a relation in which visibility is conditioned by position. The bodies become perceptible through one another without becoming interchangeable. Their correspondence produces a spatial situation that cannot be attributed to either ceramic independently.

Diffraction therefore operates not as a general celebration of multiplicity, but as a means of understanding how relations produce differences that matter. The chamber is not the sum of two completed forms. It emerges through their arrangement, through the intervals they establish and through the spatial possibilities that become perceptible in their encounter.

This reading also troubles the distinction between object and environment. The apertures do not merely function as formal features within the ceramic surfaces; they establish conditions through which the surrounding space participates in the work’s spatial proposition. The bodies remain materially distinct, yet their spatial consequences extend beyond their individual boundaries.

Diffraction thus identifies the first operation of the matrix: the production of spatial significance through differences that emerge in correspondence.

Hospitality: gathering without convergence.

Hospitality concerns the conditions through which bodies gather while retaining their differences. In What Kind of Body Gathers a Chamber?, this operation becomes perceptible through the tension between the material density of the ceramic bodies and the openings that interrupt their surfaces.

The perforations suggest receptivity, but they do not render the bodies wholly accessible. The ceramics retain their opacity, weight, resistance and material particularity. Their surfaces register the contingencies of making, while their apertures establish passages through which the relation between interior and exterior becomes unsettled. Hospitality is therefore neither unrestricted openness nor the disappearance of boundaries.

The chamber emerges through a gathering that does not require convergence. The two bodies do not merge into a unified architectural form, nor does their relation resolve the differences between them. Instead, their proximity establishes a provisional condition of shared spatiality in which each body contributes to the other's perceptibility without relinquishing its own material specificity.

This understanding of hospitality extends beyond the metaphor of an open container. The ceramic bodies do not simply receive other bodies into an already constituted interior. They participate in producing the conditions under which an interior, an interval or a chamber might become perceptible at all.

Hospitality consequently becomes an operation of spatial forming. It concerns the willingness of a body to enter relations through which its own conditions may be altered, while acknowledging that such alteration need not be symmetrical or complete. The chamber remains provisional because its gathering does not exhaust the possibilities of what may enter into correspondence.

Within Moreton’s spatial inquiry, hospitality therefore names a mode of relation in which difference is sustained rather than overcome. The bodies gather without becoming one, and the chamber persists as a condition of encounter rather than a completed enclosure.

Atmosphere: the sensate emergence of spatial relations.

Atmosphere concerns the conditions through which these relations acquire sensate and affective intensity. It is not an aesthetic effect added to the ceramic bodies, nor is it a quality contained within their surfaces. It emerges through the relations between material, arrangement, light, surrounding space and bodily attention.

The chamber becomes perceptible through the particular disposition of the two ceramics. Their relative positions establish depth and partial concealment; their apertures interrupt the surfaces and direct attention towards passages between bodies; their weathered materiality retains the visible consequences of making. These conditions invite an encounter in which the spatial relation cannot be reduced to a frontal view of two objects.

The atmosphere of the work is therefore relational. It arises through the way the bodies gather, through the distances and interruptions between them, and through the attention brought to bear upon their material and spatial differences. The chamber is encountered as a sensate condition whose significance develops through proximity and duration rather than through the recognition of a predetermined architectural form.

Atmosphere also extends the proposition beyond the immediate arrangement of the ceramics. The withdrawn bodies remain available for encounters in which the conditions of perception may change. Their spatial significance is not secured by a single viewpoint or exhausted by their visible configuration. The work's atmospheric possibilities depend upon the continuing correspondence between its material particularity and the bodies and environments through which it is encountered.

Atmosphere thus identifies how the gathering becomes felt. It carries the consequences of diffraction and hospitality into the sensate experience of spatial relations, without resolving those relations into a single interpretation.

The matrix: three operations, one spatial inquiry.

Diffraction~Hospitality~Atmosphere constitutes a spatial matrix through which Moreton’s work can be understood as an ongoing propositional inquiry. Each term identifies a distinct operation, but none functions independently of the others.

Diffraction makes differences consequential within the encounter. Hospitality sustains the possibility of gathering without requiring convergence. Atmosphere describes the sensate conditions through which that gathering becomes spatially perceptible. Together, these operations allow the chamber to emerge as a relational proposition rather than a pre-existing form or an enclosed volume.

Their interdependence is central to the matrix. Without diffraction, hospitality might be mistaken for an uncomplicated openness in which differences become secondary. Without hospitality, diffraction might remain an account of difference without attending to the conditions under which bodies sustain a shared encounter. Without atmosphere, the relation between the bodies might be understood only as a formal or conceptual arrangement, detached from its sensate consequences.

Atmosphere, however, does not simply complete the other two operations. It also troubles them. The felt character of an encounter may reveal differences not initially apparent, while a change in bodily attention or spatial position may alter what becomes possible within the gathering. Hospitality can therefore be reconsidered through the atmospheric conditions of encounter, just as diffraction can be re-entered through the relations that atmosphere makes perceptible.

The matrix is consequently recursive rather than sequential. Each operation can alter the conditions of the others, allowing the spatial proposition to remain active beyond a single reading.

The withdrawn ceramic body and propositional forming.

The concept of the withdrawn ceramic body provides a material basis for this understanding of spatial practice. Through firing, clay undergoes a transformation that establishes a different mode of material persistence. The ceramic withdraws from the provisional plasticity of clay, yet this withdrawal does not conclude the relations through which the body becomes spatially consequential.

The surfaces retain traces of pressure, abrasion, incision and material resistance. The apertures establish continuing relations between the ceramic bodies and their surroundings. The arrangement allows these materially persistent bodies to participate in a chamber that remains open to further encounter.

This distinction between material persistence and spatial closure is important. The ceramics persist as particular bodies, but the chamber they gather is not permanently secured by their material endurance. Its spatial significance continues to emerge through the relations in which the bodies participate. The work is materially particular without being propositionally exhausted.

Here, form~~forming provides a further articulation of the matrix. Form names the particular configuration through which the ceramic bodies become encounterable; forming names the continuing activity through which their relations acquire further spatial consequences. The chamber is not simply a form that has been completed. It is a spatial condition that continues forming through the correspondence of bodies, apertures, surfaces and environments.

The withdrawn ceramic body therefore operates as a persistent spatial proposition. Its material state endures, while the relations through which it becomes perceptible remain capable of alteration. The work does not contain a finished account of the chamber. It sustains the conditions through which the chamber can continue to be encountered and thought otherwise.

Cromer as situatedness and further correspondence.

Presented within Cromer Open Exhibition 2026, What Kind of Body Gathers a Chamber? becomes available for encounters beyond the circumstances of its making. The exhibition establishes a further situation in which the ceramic bodies can be approached through different bodily positions, readings and relations.

This situatedness should not be understood as a contextual explanation that determines the work's meaning in advance. The significance of Cromer as a particular place would require further investigation of its material, historical, architectural, social and environmental conditions. What the exhibition establishes is the opportunity for the work to enter another field of correspondence.

Within Moreton’s spatial inquiry, such an encounter may be understood through diffractive hospitality. The exhibition does not simply receive an already completed proposition. It provides conditions through which the proposition may become available to other bodies, while those encounters may alter how the work is perceived and understood. The ceramic bodies remain materially persistent, but their spatial consequences are not exhausted by the studio or by the intentions that informed their making.

The work thus enters a wider ecology of spatial practice in which making, material persistence, situated encounter and further forming remain interconnected. Its future is not a predetermined extension of its original conception. It lies in the possibility that the relations it establishes may be re-entered, troubled and altered through encounters that cannot be fully anticipated.

Conclusion: what kind of body gathers a chamber?

What Kind of Body Gathers a Chamber? proposes that a chamber need not be understood as a completed enclosure or as a volume contained within an individual object. It may emerge through the relations between materially persistent bodies whose differences remain active, whose gathering remains provisional, and whose spatial consequences continue to develop through sensate encounter.

Diffraction~Hospitality~Atmosphere identifies the matrix through which this proposition operates.

Diffraction makes differences consequential; hospitality sustains gathering without convergence; atmosphere allows the relations between bodies to acquire spatial and affective intensity. Their interdependence enables the chamber to emerge as a relational condition rather than a predetermined form.

Moreton’s spatial inquiry is propositional because it makes such conditions available for encounter without determining their eventual consequences. The withdrawn ceramic bodies are not simply representations of architecture, nor are they objects whose spatial significance ends with their production. They are materially persistent bodies through which further spatial relations can form.

The chamber therefore remains unfinished, not because the ceramics are incomplete, but because their spatial proposition is open to further correspondence. The work gathers without containing, persists without closure and continues to form through the bodies and environments with which it may become otherwise.

The chamber is not simply what the ceramic bodies enclose. It is what becomes possible through their gathering.

Attentiveness as a Sensate~Heuristic Inquiry : A Spatial Practice.

I think the distinction we have been developing allows attentiveness to become much more than a general artistic virtue. In Moreton's practice, it can be understood as a sensate mode of inquiry: a way of knowing that occurs through bodily exposure to materials, spaces, atmospheres, images, histories and other bodies.

Attentiveness as Sensate Inquiry

For Moreton, attentiveness is sensate because the practice does not locate knowledge exclusively within conceptual reflection or detached observation. Knowing emerges through the body's participation in situations: through looking, touching, moving, listening, inhabiting, making and responding to the resistances and affordances encountered within particular spatial and material conditions. Attentiveness is therefore not simply a concentration upon something already constituted as an object of knowledge. It is an openness to the ways in which an encounter may alter what is available to perception and thought.

This distinction is important to Moreton's understanding of site-based practice. A site is never encountered as a neutral geographical container within which artistic activity subsequently takes place. It is already constituted through material, architectural, historical, atmospheric and bodily relations. To attend to a site is consequently to become situated within these relations. The body encounters temperature, scale, texture, sound, light, weight, movement, spatial enclosure and exposure alongside memory, association, reading and imagination. These registers cannot always be separated into discrete categories because their significance emerges through their correspondence. The sensate is therefore not simply sensory experience understood as a collection of perceptions; it is the condition through which heterogeneous registers begin to matter to one another.

This makes attentiveness inherently relational. Moreton's practice does not treat the perceiving body as an autonomous observer standing outside a world of objects. The body is itself one participant within an encounter that includes materials, architectures, apparatuses, images, texts, weather, light and other bodies. Attending to clay, for example, means becoming responsive to its plasticity, weight, moisture, resistance, drying, fracture and transformation. These are not merely technical characteristics of a material. They become active conditions within which decisions, gestures and propositions are continually revised. The material consequently participates in the production of what can be known. Making becomes a form of inquiry because the act of making changes the situation from which further understanding can emerge.

Here heuristic inquiry and sensate attentiveness become inseparable. Heuristic describes an inquiry whose direction is discovered through the encounter rather than fully determined in advance; sensate describes the bodily and material register through which that discovery occurs. Moreton's practice therefore does not proceed from a conceptual proposition towards its material realisation in a straightforward movement. It moves through an iterative field of encounter, response, resistance and adjustment. The process might be understood as:

encounter ~ attention ~ making ~ resistance ~ adjustment ~ correspondence ~ further encounter

Wayfaring attentiveness names the movement through this field. To wayfare is not simply to travel from one predetermined point to another. It is to make one's way through an environment whose conditions continually participate in the journey. Moreton's movement between site, reading, image, drawing, collage, architecture and clay operates in this manner. A text can redirect a reading of a site; a site can alter a material proposition; material resistance can produce a new drawing; a photographic image can return through a ceramic form; a ceramic body can subsequently alter the perception of the architectural environment in which it is encountered. The pathway is consequently produced through movement itself.

This also clarifies why Moreton's research collages are important within the practice. Their fragments, annotations, images, diagrams and architectural references do not merely document thought that has already taken place. They provide a spatial condition in which thought can remain in movement. Reading becomes a sensate activity because the eye moves across fragments, pauses, returns, makes connections and encounters interruptions. The collage becomes a heuristic apparatus through which relations can be tested without requiring immediate resolution. Thought is spatialised through the body of the reader.

The same principle extends into Moreton's photographic assemblages and ceramic bodies. In each case, heterogeneous registers are brought into proximity, but proximity alone is insufficient. The more significant movement is from gathering towards correspondence. Bodies begin to affect the conditions of other bodies. This is where the notion of timbre becomes useful. Timbre can be understood as the sensate quality of a relational accord: not a property possessed by an individual body, but something produced through the way bodies, materials, spaces and forces enter into correspondence.

The analogy of the flute makes this distinction particularly clear. The timbre of a flute is not contained within the instrument, nor is it produced by the breathing body alone. It emerges through the encounter between breath, body, instrument, air, material resistance, resonance and architectural environment. The player listens to the sound produced and adjusts the body again; the instrument responds to the altered breath; the room participates in the resonance. The bodies do not simply gather. They wayfare together.

Moreton's sensate attentiveness operates similarly. It seeks neither to master the material nor to dissolve the distinction between bodies. Instead, it develops an attentiveness through which bodies can enter into reciprocal adjustment. This is why correspondence is more useful than simple relation. Relation can describe a connection between things; correspondence suggests an ongoing process in which the participants are changed by their encounter.

Within this framework, atmosphere is not an additional layer placed around the work. It emerges through the sensate correspondence of bodies, materials and spatial registers. Topophilia may describe the attachment through which a place begins to matter; interiority describes the gathering and folding of relations; timbre describes their sensate resonance; atmosphere describes the wider field that becomes perceptible through this resonance. These are not separate stages but overlapping conditions within an ecological spatial practice.

The withdrawn ceramic makes this particularly evident. Firing withdraws clay from its provisional state and gives the material a new persistence, but it does not terminate the relations through which the work can continue to matter. Its apertures, cavities, surfaces, traces and intervals remain capable of encountering light, architecture, atmosphere, movement and other bodies. Its interiority is therefore not simply an enclosed physical space. It is an open capacity for further correspondence.

This is what allows the notion of infinite interiority to become productive. The ceramic does not contain an infinity of meanings or preserve every encounter that has contributed to its making. Rather, its interiority remains inexhaustible because no encounter can finally determine what it may become in relation to another body. The ceramic registers without exhausting; it persists without closing; it withdraws without becoming isolated.

Attentiveness is therefore sensate because it is fundamentally concerned with what bodies can do together. It is an embodied form of inquiry in which perception is already participation, and participation is already a form of knowing. The practitioner does not first perceive a world and then act upon it. Perception, making and thought continually modify one another.

Moreton's wayfaring attentiveness can consequently be understood as an ethics and poetics of responsiveness: an ongoing willingness to remain exposed to what materials, places, architectures and other bodies might disclose. Its purpose is not to arrive at a definitive knowledge of the site, the material or the work, but to sustain the conditions under which further correspondence remains possible.

Attentiveness is sensate because it is not attention directed towards a world from outside. It is the body's participation in a world that is already moving through it.

And this gives us, I think, a very strong conceptual chain for the practice:

sensate attentiveness ~ heuristic inquiry ~ wayfaring ~ correspondence ~ accord ~ timbre ~ atmosphere ~ further bodies

The crucial point is that timbre is not the destination of this sequence. Like the sound of the flute, it is the quality of an ongoing accord. The bodies continue to wayfare; the resonance changes; another encounter becomes possible.

Attentiveness ~ Timbre ~ Wayfaring

A reading apparatus for sensate heuristic inquiry

Attentiveness here is not a looking towards something from outside. It is a becoming involved with what is already moving between bodies.

The site is encountered through temperature, scale, texture, sound, light, weight, memory, architecture and atmosphere; clay through resistance, moisture, gravity, fracture, surface and transformation. These are not simply sensations gathered by a perceiving body. They become correspondences through which the body, material and environment begin to alter one another. Russell Moreton: Correspondence

The heuristic therefore begins in the sensate.

Reading, walking, making, drawing, photographing and inhabiting become ways of moving through an uncertain spatial field. A text can redirect a site; a site can redirect material; material resistance can redirect a drawing; an image can return through ceramic. The pathway is made through the movement itself.

Perhaps this is why the flute offers such a useful sounding.

Breath does not simply enter the instrument. Breath, body, flute, air, material resistance, architecture and listening enter into an accord. Timbre is produced between them. The bodies do not merely gather.

They wayfare together.

The same possibility begins to appear within Moreton's spatial bodies. Research collages hold thought in movement. Photographic assemblages construct provisional environments. Ceramic bodies withdraw from clay while remaining open to further correspondence. The gathered does not become contained; it becomes available for another encounter.

Timbre names something of this felt middle: the sensate resonance of bodies entering correspondence without becoming identical.

The withdrawn ceramic extends this condition. Its apertures, surfaces, cavities and intervals do not close its interiority. They allow it to remain receptive to light, architecture, atmosphere, movement and other bodies. Its persistence is therefore not an ending but a capacity.

Sensate attentiveness ~ heuristic inquiry ~ wayfaring ~ correspondence ~ accord ~ timbre ~ atmosphere ~ further bodies.

What is gathered is never simply contained.

It continues to resonate.

Attentiveness — how the body becomes receptive

Heuristic inquiry — how knowing emerges through encounter

Wayfaring — how the inquiry moves

Correspondence — how bodies alter one another

Accord — how they begin to move together

Timbre — how that accord becomes sensately perceptible

Atmosphere — how the resonance extends between bodies

Further bodies — how the proposition remains open

Hortus Conclusus~The Troubled Hospitality of Interiorities 2026 : A Serious Place, Peter Zumthor on sheltered places of great intimacy where I want to stay for a long time.

Interiority/Atmosphere

The hortus conclusus is revisited not as a model of enclosed harmony, but as a situated body through which the troubled relations of shelter, difference, alienation and atmospheric openness become available for further spatial inquiry.

The important continuity is that the earlier material already understands place as something cultivated through sensory and material relations. The later matrix does not replace that understanding; it makes its tensions more explicit. Hospitality becomes more rigorous when it can accommodate alienation, and interiority becomes more generative when enclosure is understood as a condition continually negotiated through other bodies.

For Moreton, the key conceptual shift is from the earth as something that binds people to place towards earth~clay as a body through which place, making and belonging are continually negotiated. It brings in his earlier pastoral research into direct correspondence with his ceramic practice without making his ceramics a representation of the garden.

Reading Material (Waverley Project) 

Developing  a continuous argument about the hortus conclusus as a model of sensory experience, pastoral practice, contemplation, and spatial identity. 

Felt Relations~Sympathy : What things feel when they shape each other.

Exploring Materiality and Connectivity in Anthropology and Beyond.

Philipp Schorch, Martin Saxer, Marlen Elders.

In The Gathering Shadows of Material Things.

Tim Ingold.

The Sympathy of Things.

Lars Spuybroek

https://www.flickr.com/photos/russellmoreton/

Original research material from Interiors UCA Farnham 2014.

With a refined selection of materials, Zumthor creates a contemplative space that evokes the spiritual dimension of our physical environment. In doing so, he emphasises the role that the senses and emotions play in our experience of architecture (Zumthor 2011: 15).

The garden is enclosed on all sides yet open to the sky: an architectural setting that offers both protection and openness. Zumthor describes such spaces as "sheltered places of great intimacy where I want to stay for a long time" (Zumthor 2011: 15).

For Zumthor, the garden is more than a collection of plants. Every species evokes distinct memories of light, smell, sound, and touch. Gardens become places where sensory experience and memory are inseparable:

"Every plant name listed here evokes a distinct image; with each of them I associate specific lighting, smells and sounds, many kinds of rest, and a deep awareness of the earth and its flora." (Zumthor 2011: 15)

He continues by describing the garden as the most intimate form of landscape:

"A garden is the most intimate landscape ensemble I know of. In it we cultivate the plants we need. A garden requires care and protection. And so we encircle it, we defend it and fend for it. We give it shelter. The garden turns into a place." (Zumthor 2011: 15)

The enclosed garden becomes a sanctuary—a small protected world held within a larger landscape. As Zumthor observes, "something small has found sanctuary within something big" (Zumthor 2011: 15).

The medieval illustration Orchard from the Bible of Wenceslaus IV (Austrian National Library, Vienna) visualises this idea through the illuminated depiction of husbandry and communal labour within the secure enclosure of a walled garden. The image presents pastoral work as both productive and contemplative, echoing Zumthor's conception of the hortus conclusus as a protected space where cultivation, community, and intimacy converge.

Working with one's hands, cultivating the earth within sheltered spaces, becomes a shared pastoral practice that binds people to place.

Zumthor reinforces this pastoral character by placing a pavilion at the centre of the garden. He imagines it as a place for future gatherings and quiet contemplation, anticipating "the natural energy and beauty of the tableau vivant of grasses, flowers and shrubs. I am looking forward to the colours and shapes, the smell of the soil, the movement of the leaves" (Zumthor 2011: 15). The garden is therefore experienced not only visually but through the full range of the senses.

Elizabeth Knox's The Vintner's Luck similarly evokes an intimate relationship between landscape and human experience. The taste of wine becomes inseparable from the soil that produced it; earth and wine are of the same substance, united by locality and landscape.

Alexander Kluge develops a related idea in Gardens Are Like Wells, suggesting that every person possesses an "enclosed garden"—an inner space of reflection that exists regardless of one's outward life.

He writes that monasteries in medieval Europe functioned as wells in which "the clear waters of antiquity mingled with the dark waters of faith." At the heart of these monasteries lay an enclosed garden, where the finest plants and medicinal herbs were cultivated (Kluge 2011: 19).

Significantly, Kluge argues that these gardens existed outside the ordinary routines of monastic life. They were timeless places, dedicated to the Virgin Mary while remaining open to classical and alternative traditions, including Homer, Ovid, and the Gnostics. The enclosed garden therefore became a place where literature, contemplation, and spirituality could coexist. It represents an interiority capable of uniting mind and perception amid the complexity of contemporary life.

Kluge concludes that civilisation requires spaces that remain outside systems of production and utility:

"Civilisation and societies need ground that is uncultivated, gaps that are not subject to the principle of unity, something that is sufficient unto itself, which we do not consume: a sacrifice. Cities need spaces of piety." (Kluge 2011: 21)

This sentiment resonates with Richard Sennett's assertion that "we need places in which we can engage in acts of mourning." Such spaces provide opportunities for reflection, remembrance, and emotional renewal beyond the demands of everyday life.

The Development Company for Television Programmes (DCTP), in Gardens of Information, also adopts the emblem of the hortus conclusus. Here, the enclosed garden symbolises the relationship between barren landscapes and places of meaning. Their ambition is "to rescue facts from human indifference" and "to make gardens out of raw material and the bare bones of information" (Kluge 2011: 21). The garden becomes a metaphor for transforming fragmented knowledge into coherent and meaningful experience.

This understanding connects with ideas of spatial practice in the twenty-first century. Rather than forming relationships through abstract systems, institutions, or grand narratives, meaning emerges through inclusive practices rooted in particular places. The hortus conclusus can therefore be understood as a model of concentrated identity—an inquiry, a person, or a practice held within an intimate setting where thought, making, and community come together.

Keywords:

hortus conclusus, spatial situatedness, diffraction, hospitality, alienation, atmosphere, inhuman touch, withdrawn ceramic, permeable chamber, ceramic interiority, interiority, sensory experience, Peter Zumthor, Alexander Kluge, Tim Ingold, material correspondence, material persistence, heuristic inquiry, form~~forming, spatial propositions,

Reading Apparatus as Atmosphere/Interiority

Indexical~Sensate Bodies as visual participants through which that matrix becomes active. This preserves a useful distinction: the matrix describes the movements of correspondence; the images and ceramics are not examples of those movements but bodies that make them possible to encounter.

Hortus Conclusus ~ Indexical Bodies ~ Diffractive Hospitality

The hortus conclusus returns as a situated body of inquiry, encountered now through other indexical~sensate bodies. The garden's earlier propositions of enclosure, cultivation, intimacy and care are neither preserved unchanged nor displaced. They are diffracted through material encounters in which bodily presence becomes uncertain, surfaces retain traces of contact, and interiors emerge through relations between bodies.

In the dispersed figure, petals, pigment and linear marks trouble the body's apparent limits. Organic matter becomes detached from its originating body, entering another material arrangement. Presence persists through dispersal; the body remains perceptible while becoming unfamiliar to itself. In the perforated ceramic bodies, enclosure acquires another condition. Weathered surfaces retain the traces of making, while apertures and the interval between forms allow a chamber to emerge through proximity rather than containment.

Hospitality becomes inseparable from this troubling of bodily identity. To receive another body is not necessarily to assimilate it, nor to guarantee its belonging. The hosted body may remain unfamiliar, resistant or only partially available. Alienation therefore does not simply oppose hospitality; it marks the difference that hospitality must encounter without resolving. Diffraction keeps these relations active, allowing the garden, the image, the ceramic and the reading body to enter correspondence without converging upon a single account of interiority.

Atmosphere emerges through this correspondence as a sensate condition of material and spatial exchange. It gathers through surfaces, apertures, colour, light, organic traces, proximity and the movements of attention. The interior is no longer understood solely as a protected space within an enclosing boundary. It becomes a provisional condition continually produced and troubled through relations with other bodies.

The hortus conclusus is thus revisited not as an image of enclosed harmony, but as a persistent spatial proposition. Its questions of shelter and intimacy remain in play, acquiring further capacities through bodies that disperse, receive, resist and endure. What persists is not a completed meaning of the garden, but the possibility of encountering its relations otherwise.

Indexical and Sensate Bodies.

What kinds of bodies can gather a place, and what forms of alienation must remain possible for that gathering to stay open?

Hortus Conclusus ~ The Troubled Hospitality of Interiorities 2026.

Diffraction~Hospitality~Alienation~Atmosphere: A Situated Spatial Inquiry

1. The sheltered place and its conditions of hospitality

The hortus conclusus, or enclosed garden, offers an early proposition within Russell Moreton’s developing spatial practice. In the earlier Interiors MA material, the garden is approached as a place of sensory experience, contemplation, cultivation and spatial identity. Drawing upon Peter Zumthor’s account of sheltered places of intimacy, the enclosed garden establishes a particular relation between protection and openness: it gathers a world within boundaries while remaining open to the sky, to light, weather and the movement of living things.

The garden is consequently more than an architectural enclosure. It is a sensate gathering in which material, memory, cultivation and bodily attention become implicated in the experience of place. Its intimacy emerges through the particularity of relations between soil, plants, light, smell, sound and human activity. The garden becomes a place through the ongoing correspondence of bodies and conditions rather than through enclosure alone.

Alexander Kluge’s account of the enclosed garden as a space of reflection beyond ordinary utility extends this proposition. The garden offers a form of interiority that cannot be fully assimilated into the demands of production or instrumental purpose. Its significance lies partly in sustaining a space whose value cannot be exhausted by what it produces or how efficiently it functions.

Read through Moreton’s later spatial matrix, however, the sheltered garden becomes a more troubling proposition. What does it mean to offer shelter? Which bodies can enter? What remains outside? How does the intimacy of an enclosed place depend upon the differences it gathers, excludes or renders less perceptible?

These questions do not invalidate the garden as a hospitable space. They make hospitality more consequential. The enclosed garden becomes a situated body whose capacity to shelter is inseparable from the boundaries through which its interiority is established.

2. Diffraction ~ the difference within enclosure

Diffraction introduces a way of understanding the garden beyond the opposition between enclosed interior and open exterior. The wall does not simply divide two already constituted spaces. It participates in establishing their differences, regulating passage and shaping the conditions through which bodies encounter one another.

The garden’s enclosure produces intimacy by distinguishing an interior from its surroundings. Yet this distinction is never absolute. The sky remains present above the walls; light, air, weather and seasonal transformations enter into the garden’s conditions. Plants extend through growth, decay and reproduction, while cultivation brings human gestures into relations with material processes that cannot be fully controlled.

The garden is therefore neither entirely separate from its environment nor simply continuous with it. Its interiority emerges through a relation that simultaneously gathers and differentiates.

Diffraction allows this relation to be understood without treating difference as a problem that must be resolved. The sheltered interior and the surrounding world remain distinct, but their distinction becomes consequential through the ways they affect one another.

Within Moreton’s spatial inquiry, this operation extends to the withdrawn ceramic body. Its surface establishes a material boundary, while its apertures and spatial relations trouble the apparent completeness of that boundary. As with the enclosed garden, interiority is not simply a pre-existing space contained by a body. It is produced through the relations that establish and unsettle enclosure.

The garden and the ceramic thus become different but corresponding spatial bodies. Neither is reducible to the other, yet both make it possible to investigate how a boundary can shelter while remaining exposed to relations beyond itself.

3. Hospitality ~ the intimacy of shelter

Hospitality names the conditions through which a place gathers and sustains bodies. In the hortus conclusus, shelter offers protection and the possibility of remaining. Cultivation requires care; intimacy develops through duration, repetition and attention to the particularities of living matter. The garden is hospitable not simply because it is enclosed, but because its conditions allow relations to be maintained.

The earlier material’s emphasis on shared cultivation is important here. Working with the hands becomes a practice through which people and place are brought into correspondence. The garden is not merely an image of intimacy; it is a condition of activity, care and material engagement.

Yet hospitality cannot be understood as an uncomplicated openness. The garden’s capacity to shelter depends upon its capacity to establish boundaries. It gathers particular bodies and conditions while remaining selective about what it protects, cultivates or allows to flourish. The same enclosure that affords intimacy may also produce separation.

Moreton’s later formulation of hospitality makes this tension explicit. Hospitality is not the dissolution of boundaries, nor the guarantee that those who gather will become familiar to one another. It is a willingness to sustain encounter while allowing difference to remain consequential.

The garden consequently becomes a troubling host. Its intimacy is neither innocent nor complete. It depends upon relations of care and exclusion, proximity and distance, cultivation and resistance. These conditions do not simply negate hospitality; they reveal its material and spatial complexity.

The withdrawn ceramic body extends this question into another register. Its apertures offer the possibility of passage, but its material density remains. Its surfaces retain their resistance, and its interiority is never wholly available. The ceramic gathers without becoming an unrestricted container. Its hospitality consists in the spatial relations it makes possible, rather than in the promise of complete access.

4. Alienation ~ the unfamiliar within the sheltered place

Alienation introduces a necessary disturbance into the intimacy of the garden. It names the strangeness that persists within a gathering, even where care, familiarity and protection are established.

A sheltered place does not eliminate the unfamiliar. Plants, soil, weather and other material processes exceed the purposes assigned to them. The garden changes through conditions that cannot be wholly anticipated. Its living bodies participate in relations whose consequences may remain uncertain, resistant or beyond human understanding.

Alienation therefore need not be understood simply as exclusion from a place. It may also emerge within the place itself, when what is encountered cannot be fully assimilated into an existing understanding of its interiority.

This distinction troubles the assumption that hospitality culminates in familiarity. The garden may be intimate without being entirely knowable. Its shelter may sustain relations whose differences cannot be reconciled, and its interiority may remain open to conditions that unsettle the very identity it appears to protect.

For Moreton, this provides an important correspondence with the withdrawn ceramic. The ceramic persists as a materially particular body, but its relational capacities exceed the meanings assigned to it. Its apertures, weathered surfaces and material traces invite attention without guaranteeing comprehension. The body may become intimate through encounter while remaining strange.

Hospitality and alienation are thus not mutually exclusive. They are interdependent conditions through which the limits of an encounter become perceptible. Hospitality allows a relation to continue; alienation prevents that continuation from being mistaken for complete knowledge or possession.

The sheltered place becomes productive precisely where its intimacy remains troubled.

5. Atmosphere ~ the sensate life of interiority

Atmosphere brings these relations into the register of bodily experience. In the earlier garden material, sensory memory, light, smell, sound and the movement of plants contribute to the experience of an intimate landscape. The garden’s atmosphere does not reside in any single element. It emerges through the correspondence of bodies, materials, architectural boundaries and temporal changes.

The garden is therefore not a static container for an atmosphere that has already been formed. Its atmosphere develops through the conditions of shelter and exposure, cultivation and weather, proximity and movement. The enclosure participates in the atmosphere without determining it completely.

This understanding extends to Moreton’s ceramic bodies. Their surfaces, apertures and spatial arrangements establish particular conditions for light, shadow, bodily attention and surrounding space. Atmosphere emerges through these relations rather than being added as an aesthetic quality to the finished work.

The relationship between garden and ceramic becomes especially productive here. Both gather conditions of interiority while remaining exposed to transformations beyond their boundaries. Both establish a particular spatial situation without fully containing the relations through which it becomes sensate.

Atmosphere is therefore the field through which hospitality and alienation become felt. It allows intimacy to persist alongside strangeness, and it carries the consequences of spatial gathering beyond the limits of an individual body.

6. Inhuman touch ~ the more-than-human interior

The garden also opens the earlier material towards the question of inhuman touch. Its sensory life cannot be reduced to human perception, even though human experience remains central to the garden’s cultivation and appreciation. Soil, plants, water, light and weather participate in material relations that exceed the intentions through which the garden is designed or maintained.

This does not require the garden to be understood as a self-contained organism or as a harmonious ecological whole. Its relations may include dependence, resistance, interruption and transformation. The garden’s aliveness emerges through interactions whose consequences are not fully determined by human intention.

Read alongside Moreton’s correspondence with Karen Barad, this unsettles the assumption that the human subject encounters an entirely separate material world. The boundaries between bodies and environments become consequential through the relations in which they participate. Inhuman touch names a proposition through which the material conditions of encounter are understood as active rather than merely passive.

The withdrawn ceramic offers a different but related material situation. It is not alive in the same sense as a plant, nor does it need to be anthropomorphised to participate in an ecology of relations. Its material persistence, apertures and surfaces affect the conditions through which light, atmosphere and bodily attention become possible.

The garden and ceramic therefore remain distinct while troubling the boundary between human-centred experience and the more-than-human relations that sustain it. Their correspondence allows interiority to be reconsidered as an active, permeable condition rather than a space possessed by an autonomous subject.

7. From the hortus conclusus to the Permeable Chamber

The earlier garden proposition and Moreton’s later Permeable Chamber can now be brought into correspondence without treating the ceramic as a translation of the garden.

The hortus conclusus gathers intimacy through enclosure, cultivation and protection. The Permeable Chamber gathers through the material persistence of ceramic bodies, their apertures and their relations with surrounding space. Both make interiority available as a situated experience, but they do so through different material and spatial conditions.

The garden’s enclosure establishes a sheltered interior that remains open to the sky and to the transformations of living matter. The ceramic chamber establishes a provisional spatial relation through bodies that gather without fully containing the interval between them. In both cases, interiority becomes consequential through the relation between gathering and exposure.

The difference is equally important. The garden’s hospitality may be understood through practices of cultivation, care and shelter. The ceramic chamber troubles these conditions through material withdrawal, resistance and the persistence of bodies that cannot be fully assimilated to human purposes. Its openings do not guarantee access, and its gathering does not resolve alienation.

Diffraction~Hospitality~Alienation~Atmosphere therefore provides a matrix through which these two spatial propositions can enter correspondence. Diffraction identifies the differences produced through their distinct modes of enclosure and permeability. Hospitality considers how each gathers bodies and sustains relations. Alienation preserves the unfamiliarity that remains within those relations. Atmosphere describes how their spatial conditions become sensate and consequential.

The matrix does not collapse the garden and ceramic chamber into a single model. It allows each to trouble the other, making possible a more complex understanding of interiority as a condition that shelters while remaining exposed, gathers while retaining difference, and persists without becoming fully resolved.

Conclusion ~ the troubled hospitality of interiority

The hortus conclusus remains a significant body within Moreton’s spatial practice because it offers an early proposition concerning the relation between enclosure, sensory experience, contemplation and care. Revisited through Diffraction~Hospitality~Alienation~Atmosphere, however, the sheltered garden becomes more than an image of protected intimacy. It becomes a situated condition through which the limits and responsibilities of hospitality can be examined.

The garden gathers, but does not escape the differences through which its interiority is established. It shelters, but cannot wholly determine the relations that enter its boundaries. Its atmosphere emerges through bodies and processes that exceed the intentions of its cultivation. The sheltered place is therefore hospitable without being entirely knowable.

The withdrawn ceramic body carries this difficulty into another material register. It persists without closing its spatial proposition, offering a body through which intimacy, resistance and indeterminacy may become consequential. Its chamber is neither wholly enclosed nor entirely open; it gathers relations without resolving their differences.

Moreton’s spatial inquiry develops through this correspondence between situated bodies. The earlier garden and the later ceramic chamber remain materially and conceptually distinct, yet each allows the other to be encountered otherwise. The spatial matrix does not provide a final synthesis. It sustains the conditions through which these bodies can continue to trouble and extend one another.

The proposition is therefore not simply that a place should be hospitable. It is that hospitality becomes spatially consequential when it remains responsive to the alienation, difference and more-than-human material relations that its gathering cannot fully resolve.

The sheltered place persists, but its interiority remains in formation. It gathers bodies without possessing them, sustains intimacy without guaranteeing familiarity, and remains open to the atmospheric indeterminacies through which further spatial propositions may emerge.

Spatial Situatedness as a Spatial Practice : The Speculative~Troubling Body.

Troubling Bodies of Inquiry ~ Situatedness ~ Correspondence

A speculative spatial practice developed through sensate attentiveness, heuristic making and diffractive hospitality. It proceeds through situated encounters between bodies, materials, architectures, texts, images and atmospheres. These encounters do not seek convergence but sustain correspondence: the reciprocal alteration of bodies whose differences remain active.

Making becomes a means of spatial inquiry; interiority a condition of gathering; atmosphere a field of affective exchange; and material persistence a capacity for futurity. The resulting spatial propositions remain particular in their material conditions yet open to further encounters.

Situatedness is therefore neither a fixed position nor a disciplinary identity. It is an ongoing practice of becoming-with: a way of locating, troubling and extending the relations through which spatial propositions come into being.

Metaphysics/Atmospheric Cosmogonies : Bodies in the space of photography.

The speculative body

The title opens a question about how worlds come into being through relations between matter, space, thought and atmosphere. Rather than treating metaphysics as an abstract system imposed upon material experience, the inquiry could ask how a world is assembled through particular encounters, and how its apparent coherence is troubled by what it cannot contain.

Possible host: a philosophical community, an interdisciplinary research group, or a place where cosmological, ecological and material understandings of the world meet.

The metaphysical body troubles the distinction between abstraction and material experience.

Sainsbury Centre : Brian Clarke, Hans Coper.

The collection as a troubling body

This reference brings ceramics into proximity with architecture, glass and the institutional conditions through which objects are encountered. The productive question is not simply what Moreton might learn from particular artists, but how a collection might be engaged as a spatial body: how objects, display, architecture, histories and visitors make one another perceptible.

Possible host: a collection, museum or curatorial research programme willing to explore relations between objects, architectural interiors and embodied attention.

The collection troubles the distinction between object and architectural setting.

Diffraction ~ Hospitality ~ Atmosphere: A Situated Spatial Inquiry

Russell Moreton is developing a speculative spatial practice through which clay, ceramics, architecture, reading, drawing and material atmospheres become sites of heuristic inquiry. The practice investigates how heterogeneous bodies can enter correspondence without requiring convergence, and how their encounters might produce new conditions for spatial thinking, inhabitation and learning.

The proposed inquiry seeks a situated host whose material, historical, social or ecological conditions can participate in the development of the work. Rather than arriving with a predetermined outcome, Moreton would develop a period of attentive engagement through which the host environment, its bodies and its existing forms of knowledge could alter the direction of the inquiry.

The intention is to establish a reciprocal arrangement: a practice that contributes new ways of attending to a site's bodies and relations, while allowing that site to generate propositions unavailable within the studio alone. Outcomes might include ceramic and spatial interventions, research collages, writing, shared encounters or other forms developed in response to the conditions encountered.

The inquiry asks how diffractive hospitality might operate as a spatial practice: how different bodies can learn with one another, how atmospheres emerge through their co-presence, and how the resulting propositions can remain available for further correspondence beyond the period of engagement.

These are different problems, and they should not be forced into a single explanatory framework. Their value lies in the differences they introduce into Moreton's situatedness.

This is also where the concept of diffractive hospitality becomes useful. A host need not be an organisation that agrees with the inquiry or immediately recognises its vocabulary. It might be a place whose existing practices make the inquiry difficult, or whose forms of knowledge reveal limits in the practitioner's own assumptions.

A troubling body is one that does not simply receive the practice, but changes what the practice is able to ask.