Showing posts with label clay~ceramic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clay~ceramic. Show all posts

Saturday, 17 October 2026

Withdrawn Ceramic Bodies : The ceramic withdraws from making, but not from correspondence.

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.

Persistent Bodies .

The withdrawn ceramic as a material body that remains spatially receptive without becoming infinitely malleable or fully knowable.

For Moreton the spatial proposition is situated between persistence and openness. The ceramic's material condition has changed decisively, but its capacity to enter new relations has not been exhausted. Its futurity lies neither in a return to clay nor in an imagined future object, but in the encounters its persistence continues to make possible.

The ceramic withdraws from making, but not from correspondence.


Withdrawn Ceramic Bodies ~ Interiority, Persistence, Correspondence

The withdrawn ceramic body occupies an interval between the completion of making and the continuation of spatial relations. Firing changes the condition of clay, carrying provisional gestures, pressures, resistances and material negotiations into a persistent ceramic body. Yet this withdrawal from the immediate activity of making does not constitute an ending. The ceramic remains available to other bodies, architectures, atmospheres and encounters that its formation could not have anticipated.

Interiority emerges through this altered condition. It is not confined to a cavity or enclosed volume, but develops through relations between surface, aperture, shadow, light, air and surrounding space. The ceramic body gathers these relations without containing them. Its material persistence allows earlier encounters to continue differently, while its withdrawal preserves an element of unknowability: what has become materially present cannot be reduced to the intentions or events through which it was made.

The withdrawn ceramic therefore becomes a persistent body of correspondence. It carries traces of making into situations where they can be encountered, altered in significance and furthered through new relations. The work does not resolve the propositions gathered within it; it gives them another material condition from which to continue.

Withdrawal is thus not the opposite of hospitality. It is another condition through which hospitality becomes possible. The ceramic does not remain available to every form of intervention, yet it continues to receive light, atmosphere, movement and the attention of other bodies. Its persistence holds this tension between material resistance and relational openness.

The spatial proposition remains unfinished in a particular sense: not because the ceramic has failed to reach completion, but because its capacity to enter correspondence exceeds the event of its making. The body persists; the relations continue; the proposition remains~in~play.





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.


Wednesday, 7 October 2026

The Permeable Threshold as~ Anarchive~Interval~Interiority~Becoming



The Permeable Threshold ~ Anarchive, Interiority, Becoming

What remains from making is not necessarily what making has finished with.

Fragments, failed firings, architectural notations, images and unfinished thoughts continue to gather as bodies of potential. Through the anarchive, these residues are not simply returned to the past; they become available for other movements, entering provisional arrangements from which further propositions may emerge.

Clay troubles these gatherings. What has been assembled in images and thought encounters material resistance, the pull of gravity, the uncertainty of construction and the transformations of fire. The ceramic body that emerges does not resolve these encounters into a singular form. Its apertures, asperities and chambers hold traces of relations that continue beyond the circumstances of their making.

Bachelard's interiority and Manning's anarchive sound differently here, remaining distinct while entering correspondence through the ceramic. The permeable threshold is neither simply an opening nor a boundary. It is a material condition through which interior and exterior, archive and anarchive, persistence and possibility become available to one another.


What has withdrawn from making may still be gathering elsewhere.


The ceramic persists, while its propositions remain~in~play: open to other bodies, other readings, other spatial situations not yet encountered.






The Permeable Threshold: Russell Moreton, Bachelard, and the Anarchive as Generative Engine.

Abstract
This paper examines the contemporary ceramic and spatial practice of artist-researcher Russell Moreton through a dual theoretical framework that bridges process philosophy and spatial phenomenology. Moving away from the traditional view of the archive as a static repository for historical documentation, this study explores how Moreton operationalises studio residues—what this paper defines as "material outliers"—into a dynamic, forward-looking creative engine. By synthesizing Erin Manning’s concept of the anarchive with Gaston Bachelard’s phenomenology of interiority and elemental fire, we map a hybrid studio-led methodology. This process moves non-linearly from an anarchival pool of fragments into speculative multimedia collages, before undergoing physical "material troubling" in the clay studio. The resulting ceramic works—white-painted, perforated "Permeable Chambers"—defy the traditional inside/outside binary, preserving a surface Ecology of Asperities fixed by the kiln fire. Ultimately, this paper argues that Moreton’s spatial practice offers a vital model for contemporary art research, demonstrating how embracing material errors and systematic variations keeps a creative practice radically open to future potential.

Keywords: Russell Moreton, The Anarchive, Gaston Bachelard, New Materialism, Phronesis, Permeable Chambers, Ceramic Research.





Introduction: The Anarchival Threshold of Clay
In contemporary ceramic research, the vessel is often trapped between two dominant frameworks: the utilitarian craft object or the static sculptural monument. This paper examines the spatial practice of artist-researcher Russell Moreton, whose work challenges both paradigms by positioning the ceramic body as an actively troubling, "Permeable Chamber" (Moreton 2026). Rather than treating clay as a passive surface onto which an artist projects a predetermined image, Moreton's methodology operates as a non-linear, processual ecology. Here, the final object is generated from the unresolved tensions of past material failures, architectural notes, and conceptual anomalies—what this paper terms "material outliers."
To unpack this highly unique practice, we combine two distinct theoretical frameworks: Erin Manning’s process philosophy of the "anarchive" (Manning 2016) and Gaston Bachelard’s phenomenology of spatial interiority (Bachelard 2014). By linking these concepts, we show how Moreton uses studio residues not as historical waste, but as live, generative forces. This paper traces how these outliers move from a chaotic "anarchive pool" into multimedia collages, undergo physical "material troubling" in the studio, and are finally transformed by fire into porous vessels. Ultimately, we argue that Moreton’s spatial practice offers a new model for contemporary art research, demonstrating how embracing material errors and anomalies can prevent a creative practice from freezing into predictable habits, keeping it radically open to new possibilities.

Methodological Framework: Processual Mapping and the Anarchive Loop
Moreton’s hybrid studio-led methodology requires an unconventional research framework. Traditional artistic research often relies on a linear sequence of reflection-on-action, where the artist looks backward to document past choices. In contrast, Moreton's practice uses a feed-forward loop that values emergence over documentation (Manning and Massumi 2014). The methodology is structured into four distinct, overlapping movements:
  1. Anarchival Gathering: The systematic collection of material and conceptual outliers—such as shards from cracked firings, stray architectural sketches, and unfinished texts. These items form a raw pool of potential energy.
  2. Provisional Collage: Bringing these different fragments together into loose, mixed-media collages. This stage acts as a diagrammatic score, offering a temporary, non-hierarchical space of "provisional hospitality" where visual and physical anomalies can sit side-by-side without needing to form a neat, final image.
  3. Material Troubling: Forcing the flat ideas of the collage into a direct, physical confrontation with the weight and resistance of clay. The maker relies on bodily intuition (phronesis) to respond in real-time to structural collapses, tears, and fissures.
  4. Permeable Synthesis: Subjecting the troubled clay to the unpredictable environment of the kiln fire. The final, white-painted, perforated chamber is displayed alongside its original collage elements, presenting the exhibition space as an open, ongoing research process rather than a static display of finished goods.

Section I: The Anarchive of the Outlier: Manning’s Feed-Forward Mechanics
To understand the generative role of the material anomaly in Russell Moreton’s ceramics, one must completely discard the traditional, linear archival paradigm. Within institutional and standard studio frameworks, the archive functions as a retrospective museum—a site of containment designed to document, classify, and ultimately freeze past production into a neat, chronological history.
In sharp contrast, Moreton’s studio operations deploy what cultural theorist Erin Manning defines as the anarchive. The anarchive is not a collection of passive, historical artifacts; it is an active "repertory of traces of events" and a "feed-forward mechanism for lines of creative process" (Manning 2016: 28). For Manning, these traces are never inert. Instead, they function as dynamic vectors of potential energy, waiting to be reactivated to trigger a new event that continues the creative process in a state of constant variation (Manning 2013).
In Moreton’s practice, the "outliers"—unresolved ceramic experiments, structural shards, unclassifiable media collages, and erratic architectural notation—are the foundational seeds of this anarchival engine. Rather than being hidden away as failures or historical detritus, these outliers are treated as speculative spatial bodies. They possess what Manning and Massumi (2014: 87) term a "pull"—an intensive, non-linear demand that pushes the studio practice out of habitual, safe patterns.
By gathering these disparate, residual fragments into provisional collages, Moreton creates a space of hospitality. The collage stage does not seek to synthesize or resolve these anomalies into a singular, harmonious narrative. Instead, it lets them sit together in their full difference, functioning as open-ended, diagrammatic scores for future physical forms. When these anarchival traces are pushed forward into clay, they break the typical artist-subject relationship. The outlier stops being a passive object from the past; it becomes a feed-forward projectile that disrupts the standard making process, ensuring that the emergent ceramic forms remain open to new possibilities.

Section II: Material Troubling, Phronesis, and the Ecology of Asperities
The transition from the flat, hospitable space of the collage to the heavy, gravity-bound reality of clay marks a shift from speculative thought to intense physical confrontation. It is here that Moreton engages in "material troubling." In this phase, the flat, accommodating space of the collage is deliberately forced to confront the stubborn, unpredictable nature of wet earth.
This phase cannot be navigated using intellectual distance or rigid blueprints. Instead, it demands what Aristotelian philosophy terms phronesis—a form of practical, lived wisdom that cannot be taught in textbooks but must be experienced in real-time through the body. In Moreton’s studio, phronesis operates as a shared, physical dialogue between the maker’s hand and the shifting state of the clay. As slab walls are raised, pierced, scored, and pulled apart, the artist does not impose a top-down, authoritarian form onto the medium. Instead, the making process becomes a live negotiation with the clay's moisture, its structural memory, and the constant pull of gravity.
This negotiated dialogue directly manifests on the object's surface as an Ecology of Asperities (Moreton 2026). Moreton does not smooth over the tears, cracks, or asymmetrical warping that happen as the clay processes the complex demands of its past outlier fragments. Instead, these structural disruptions are welcomed as meaningful traces of the making event itself (Massumi 2011).
By treating these surface scars as vital elements rather than mistakes, Moreton aligns his practice with New Materialism (DeLanda 2006). The clay is recognized as an active partner in the creative process, possessing its own internal forces, tendencies, and material memory (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). The Ecology of Asperities ensures that the emerging ceramic body retains the raw, unresolved tension of the original outliers. The physical struggles of the material are preserved, setting the stage for the final, radical transformation that occurs when the vessel enters the kiln fire.

Section III: Bachelardian Topographies: Fire Analysis, Intimate Immensity, and the Permeable Chamber
Once the anarchival intensities of the outliers are physically forced into the clay, Moreton’s work moves into a deeply phenomenological realm. The final, white-painted, perforated vessels function as Permeable Chambers—tangible, architectural manifestations of what Gaston Bachelard explores in The Poetics of Space. Bachelard asserts that "inhabited space transcends geometrical space" (Bachelard 2014: 67), arguing that our domestic shelters and intimate corners are psychological realms that house human memory, reverie, and the soul. Moreton’s chambers are precisely this: non-functional, experienced architectures that prompt an immediate psychological response from the viewer.
To understand how these chambers achieve their unique interiority, one must look to Bachelard’s broader elemental imaginary, particularly his analysis of fire. In Bachelard’s philosophy, fire is the ultimate dialectical element—it is both a destructive force and a material paradise that purifies and creates (Bachelard 1964: 7). The kiln fire acts as the definitive threshold of transformation in Moreton's practice. The fire takes the scarred surfaces of the clay—the Ecology of Asperities—and permanentizes them. The cracks, score marks, and punctured voids are not treated as structural flaws; through the fire, they become the vital windows that allow the interior of the vessel to breathe.
This process directly addresses the classic Bachelardian dialectic of inside and outside. The geometric division of inside and outside usually blinds us, turning space into a rigid binary of positive and negative, open and closed (Bachelard 2014: 228). Moreton’s Permeable Chambers completely deconstruct this binary. By coating the heavily textured exteriors in matte white paint and perforating the walls, the pieces refuse to keep their interior spaces completely hidden or separate. Light, shadow, and air pass continuously through the clay boundaries. The chamber becomes a site of intimate immensity—a miniature structure that holds a vast, silent, and contemplative interior world (Bachelard 2014: 192). It offers the viewer a safe space for psychological refuge and deep daydreaming, while remaining fundamentally independent, mysterious, and closed off from easy consumption.

Conclusion: The Open Threshold
Russell Moreton’s spatial practice offers a profound reimagining of how material history, studio labour, and physical objects interact within contemporary art research. By refusing to discard the residues, cracked experiments, and erratic notations of his past work, Moreton demonstrates that the material outlier is not a sign of failure or waste, but rather the most critical asset a generative system possesses. The anarchive workflow successfully moves the studio archive out of its traditional role as a passive graveyard of documentation, turning it instead into a vital, forward-pushing engine for new work.
Through the distinct phases of provisional collage, material troubling, and the transformative threshold of the kiln fire, these anarchival fragments are systematically processed without ever being forced into a neat, uniform resolution. The final Permeable Chambers stand as physical proof of this negotiated dialogue. Marked by an Ecology of Asperities and shifting between interior darkness and external light, these porous vessels dismantle the classic Bachelardian binary of inside and outside. They achieve an intimate immensity—inviting the viewer into a space of quiet contemplation while remaining completely autonomous, mysterious, and independent.
Ultimately, Moreton’s methodology offers a valuable blueprint for the broader field of artistic research. It proves that when an artist surrenders absolute control and enters into a reciprocal, bodily dialogue (phronesis) with a resistant medium, the resulting objects escape the trap of being easily consumed or used up. By weaving the anomalies of the past into the physical forms of the present, the creative process remains a vital, living threshold—radically alive, continuously breathing, and forever open to the future.

Bibliography
  • Bachelard, G. (1964) The Psychoanalysis of Fire. Translated by A. C. M. Ross. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Bachelard, G. (2014) The Poetics of Space. Translated by M. Jolas. New York: Penguin Books.
  • DeLanda, M. (2006) A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London: Continuum.
  • Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by B. Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Manning, E. (2013) Always More Than One: Individuation’s Dance. Durham: Duke University Press.
  • Manning, E. (2016) The Minor Gesture. Durham: Duke University Press.
  • Manning, E. and Massumi, B. (2014) Thought in the Act: Passages in the Ecology of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Massumi, B. (2002) Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke University Press.
  • Massumi, B. (2011) Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurrent Arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Moreton, R. (2026) 'The Ceramic Body is an actively Attentively~Troubling Permeable Chamber', Russell Moreton Research Journal, 16 September [Online]. Available at: russellmoreton.com (Accessed: 21 September 2026).