These may seem obvious statements, yet there is sometimes an oversimplification for defining creative practice. There can feel a pressure to position a practice into one, maybe two, categories of method or disciplines.

We recently gave a talk to a group of art historians, and it was apparent that the way we consider our practice does not neatly adhere to discipline definitions. We include a slide in our presentation titled Ecologies of Method that attempts to map some methods that can apply to our work and practice. The map is not fixed or complete; it is fluid according to who we are at that point in time and the nature of the current research.

As a collaborative practice, it feels fitting to consider the ecologies of practice in order to acknowledge the shifting nature of our work and the individuals involved. It is a term we choose to define our own ways of creating. Perhaps external researchers will contextualise us in other specific ways. However, for us it is a context we feel suits us for now.

Maybe the drive to isolate, categorise and limit to a specific framework can be seen as a mirror to past attitudes to the environment. Without considering the complexities, can we underestimate the impact we can have? So, instead of valuing one discipline or method above another, we can acknowledge that various approaches can intersect with each other into a rich tapestry of actions and reactions. Perhaps Ecologies of Method are appropriate when considering the complexity of the wider world we work within - after all, it is much more complex than we like to see.