In the article, Writing in the Wild, written by Bjork and Shwartz, the part that struck me the most is their belief that if we were to research or write in the location of the subject that our efforts would be more successful. I found this statement to be very loaded. You can look at it in many different views and apply it to many different things. Immediately, I looked at this statement with an artistic view, in terms of inspiration and when, where and how it hits you.
I’m not an artist by any means but we’ve all taken art classes over the years and inspiration is a key component to art. Inspiration can hit anywhere and anytime. Location does matter to some people while it has no affect on others. This article talks about how your environment can influence your writing and researching. This quote sums up the link between working on location and the quality of the work:
Assignments that require students to compose in situ using mobile technologies help them to achieve insight into the relationship between discourse and place
I think there are definitely benefits to working on location but not exactly in the respect that this article is talking about. If the research is being done on the computer then I don’t necessarily understand why it would matter where you were sitting while you were researching. Now, when it comes to art I completely understand.
Art
Recently in one of my other classes we had an artist come speak to us. One of his key points was that his work is much better when he is painting on location as opposed to painting from a photograph. The idea of researching and working in the location of the image being painted is obviously beneficial. But at the same time some artists have just as much success painting an image after a photograph. This topic is controversial in the way that it can be unique to every single person. Everybody has their own techniques when working on any project from art to scientific research therefore I don’t believe it necessarily matters where you are when working.