Making Sense utilises art practice as a pro-active way of thinking that helps us to make sense of the world. It does this by developing an applied understanding of how we can use art as a method of healing and as a critical method of research. Drawing from poststructuralist philosophy; psychoanalysis; arts therapies; and the creative processes of a range of contemporary artists; the book appeals to the fields of art theory; the arts therapies; aesthetics and art practice; whilst it opens the regenerative affects of art-making to everyone. It does this by proposing the agency of transformative therapeutics; which defines how art helps us to make sense of the world; by activating; nourishing and understanding a particular world view or situation therein. The purpose of the book is to question and understand how and why art has this facility and power; and make the creative and healing properties of certain modes of expression widely accessible; practical and useful.
2014-07-16 2014-07-16File Name: B00MENQQJ0
Review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. well-informed but could have dug deeperBy Michael LewynThis fact-filled book profiles three suburbs whose developers sought to be innovative: Irvine near Los Angeles; Columbia between Baltimore and Washington; and the Woodlands near Houston. These suburbs; mostly built in the 1960s/70s/80s; attempted to improve upon typical suburbia in various ways: Irvine by promoting multifamily housing; Columbia by promoting racial integration; and Woodlands by trying to prevent pollution-creating water runoff. As Forsyth points out; these suburbs were successful in many ways: they made money for their developers; and their residents are at least as contented as those of other places.However; these suburbs turned out not to be all that revolutionary in some ways; for example; all three became just as car-dependent as typical suburbs. Was this inevitable? Forsyth does point out that these suburbs had lots of cul-de-sacs (which tends to impair walkability by making people go out of their way to reach destinations). She also notes that the suburbs werent significantly less compact than new urbanist suburbs being built at the time of the book. But at the time of the book; those suburbs were so new that perhaps they werent the best basis for comparison.A more informative discussion would have compared the book to the not-so-car-dependent railroad suburbs of New York; Philadelphia and Washington. Had Forsyth done so; she would have noted how spread out the three "new towns" she profiles were; for example; these suburbs she profiles have densities of 3500-5000 people per square mile; more than many suburbs but fewer than many railroad suburbs such as Bronxville; New York (6700 people per square mile) or Arlington; Va. (over 8;000 per square mile). In addition; one major difference between these three suburbs and railroad suburbs is distance from other transit-oriented areas: these suburbs were all quite far from regional downtowns; while the most transit oriented suburbs are "inner ring" suburbs bordering central cities.
