{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033561792863359446, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007615317667536988, 'mean_word_length': 5.285470085470085, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Learning and Experiencing Intra-active Public Pedagogies in Melbourne’s Laneways: Becoming Part of the Palimpsest

Through an analysis of street art in Melbourne, Australia, we re-think pedagogies in the interest of publicness as being activist, experimental, and demonstrative, showing how these aspects can be problematised through a new materialist lens. In doing so, we begin to flesh out what we are calling a pedagogy of intra-action. We first briefly define street art, discussing how it has been presented as a democratising practice much in the spirit of Gert Biesta’s ‘pedagogy in the interest of publicness’. We then provide a brief historical overview of street art in Melbourne as well as present some current issues surrounding it. Finally, we consider the phenomenon of street art with new materialist theories, using Karen Barad’s idea of intra-action to re-think Biesta’s ideas about how pedagogies in the interest of publicness are activist, experimental, and demonstrative. In this paper, we seek to further understand Gert Biesta’s pedagogy in the interest of publicness.

about how to expand this concept to take into account aspects of public pedagogy that Biesta and others using his work have not fully explored, especially those aspects that move beyond the human (Phillips & Montes, 2017;Truman, 2016). Walter and Earl (2017), for example, discuss the 'anthropocentric bias' in Biesta's concept of pedagogy in the interest of publicness, explaining that the eco-artists they researched 'focus attention, create, reclaim, inform, and re-envision possibilities for human-nature interactions, and have many educative outcomes depending on who is creating and viewing them at a particular time and place ' (p. 147). Biesta's conception of publicness focuses on human togetherness, whereas the eco-artists Walter and Earl (2017) researched understand the "public" to be "not just the plurality of human beings, but also the plurality of 'all our relations'" (p. 147). In fact, these artists insist that the public "includes non-human beings inhabiting the natural world as well" (p. 147). Other scholars (Phillips & Montes, 2017;Truman, 2016) are also interested in expanding the idea of publicness beyond Beista's focus on human togetherness and do this via the theoretical realm of new materialisms. Phillips and Montes (2017), for example, conducted sensory ethnographic research, in which they forwarded sensorial, embodied, and emplaced 'lifeworld entanglements ' (p. 5), with/in an arts activism project focused on increasing awareness of refugee rights. They explored the importance of considering affective, aesthetic, and embodied learnings about the policing of space when seeking to understand pedagogies in the interest of the public and what it means to foster citizenship that takes into account place, environment, ontology, and action.
Here, building upon this work, we hope to bring a new perspective to this scholarship as we expand and complicate Biesta's (2012Biesta's ( , 2014 concept of pedagogies in the interest of publicness into what we are calling a "pedagogy of intra-action," drawing upon Karen Barad's (2007) concept of intra-action, which highlights the entangled and co-created nature of all individuals and entities. This idea points to "the mutual constitution of entangled agencies" (p. 33). With interaction, various entities entering into a relationship exist independently before their encounters with each other. The concept of intra-action, however, forwards the idea that entities only emerge or become what they are through encounters with others. With intra-action, the ability to act grows out of the relationship or interaction (Truman, 2016, p. 94). As Barad explains, 'Agencies are only distinct in relation to their mutual entanglement; they don't exist as individual elements' (p. 33). The concept of intra-action is part of Barad's larger theory of agential realism, which posits that the universe is made up of a series of inseparable intra-acting agencies. This conceptualization of how things become and interact changes how we think about knowledge creation and how we categorise and create boundaries around and between entities. Because everything is so deeply entangled, when we focus on any one part of this entanglement in order to study it, or create artificial boundaries between entities, we are making 'cuts' that inevitably include certain things and exclude others, draw attention to certain things and ignore others, facilitate certain actions and discourage others. Think, for instance, about how we create artificial separations through constructing sociocultural categories such as object and subject or human and nature. Such 'agential cuts' (Barad, 2007) are tied up with power and ethics, as they help determine what gets attention, socially, politically, economically, and historically, and what does not. When we consider everything as entangled with everything else, we also, then, must rethink relationships with other humans, non-humans, materials, and discourses, and thus must revise our own ethical obligations with/in the world (Kerr, 2014). Through this visual essay we are attempting to think with and enact new materialist ways of being, thinking, doing, and valuing through experiencing street art intra-actively.
We donned these metaphorical lenses of intra-action as we wandered Melbourne's laneways and viewed and experienced the laneways' pedagogies, as we took the photos for this essay, and as we curated this collection. Through this work we are attempting to re-think Biesta's ideas about how publics and pedagogies in the interest of publicness are activist, experimental, and demonstrative. We reconceptualize activist pedagogies to highlight how our ability to act relies on both human and nonhuman agents, and forward the idea that nonhuman entities are agential as well. We reconceptualize experimental pedagogies to highlight the emergent, unfinished, and unplanned nature of pedagogy, and consider the numerous possible outcomes that could emerge as spatial, temporal, historical, social, ethical, cultural, environmental and political materialities come together. We reconceptualize demonstrative pedagogies to focus on how they embody and enact entangled ontologies and intra-activity themselves via the ways in which they reveal how the categories and false binaries used to define and regulate street art practices are leaky and porous (Cooper & Sandlin, 2020).
Activist Pedagogies: Togetherness and Mutual Constitution-The Artist, the Wall, the Paint, the Stencil, the Street, the Photographer, the Tourist, the Laneway Biesta's activist pedagogies involve individuals "acting in concert" to create alternative ways of being and doing "public relationships-in-plurality" (Biesta, 2014, p. 22). Because for Biesta, humans never act alone or in isolation, action and activism thus necessarily involve other people and things to react to our actions and to take up the activities we start. Intra-action expands this idea of relationship even further, and helps us recognise that our ability to act relies on human and nonhuman agents, and that nonhuman entities are agential as well. As Shabbar (2016) posits, Barad's work reveals "how experience and knowledge emerge out of multiple interactions between human bodies and the environments in which they are embedded" (para. 16). Barad's (2007) way of viewing material-discursive practices thus "cuts [agency] loose from its traditional human orbit" (p. 235). One way our work is expanding Biesta's of activism, then, involves broadening who/what counts as the actors that create pedaogies via the enactments of relationships. In the case of street art as pedagogy, we posit that the actors creating those pedagogies include a host of human and nonhuman agents; paint and clay and paper on walls are not just representational but are material phenomena that have the agential capacity to "affect bodies in new and unpredicted ways" and to "produce political potentials" (Shabbar, 2016, para. 4). To re-imagine street art as a pedagogy in the interest of publicness through the lens of a pedagogy of intra-action, we must consider the specific walls, buildings, and other objects where street art is created, the people it speaks to, the political commentary it expresses, the aesthetics of its design, the slate of bluestone it may be written on, or the bitumen surface of the roads or walls after the rain has made designs seep and transform; the scratching in the back of a tram chair or the sharpie marks on the public seats are all part of the pedagogical possibilities. Stickers, poles, trees, laneways are all active parts, creating a pedagogy of togetherness. Through intra-action this togetherness is morethanhuman-human. These relationships through their mutual constitutions intra-act, and perform enactments of pedagogies as relationships. In doing so the pedagogical is also transformed and in a constant state of performativity.

Experimental Pedagogies: Emergent, Unstable, Unfinished, Polyphonic Meanings
Biesta's pedagogies in the interest of publicness are also experimental because they help generate new ways of being and doing. Applying an intra-active lens to experimental pedagogies, we see this notion of unplanned-ness expand, as intra-active experimental pedagogies consider the numerous possible outcomes that could emerge as spatial, temporal, historical, social, ethical, cultural, environmental and political materialities come together. There is an intensity of new-ness and open-endedness as human and morethanhuman entities intra-act-in the case of street art, these include the laws and policies that regulate street art, and also the ways of being and doing that construct each laneway's aesthetic and materiality. These pedagogies are emergent and neither pre-determined nor already known. The material art itself is emerging, unknown, and unplanned, as it is "unstable and permanently unfinished" and susceptible to both "material decay and erasure and to semantic refashioning" (MacDowall, 2015, pp. 26-37). The materiality of Melbourne's laneways are betwixt and between and thus are temporal, ephemeral, and transformative. Likewise, how various publics will understand or experience street art pedagogies is also unknown in advance; these liminal spaces are also contextual and subjective and can be read in polyphonic ways. The intra-activity of these streets is embodied and experimental and each time they are revisited these spaces become layered with meanings contexts, times, and places. Likewise, we can also never know in advance who publics will be. In Melbourne's laneways, one piece of art responds, interacts, intra-acts with other pieces of art, with the walls they are written upon, with those who make and those who view, those who regulate and those who capitalise. Publicness is created in rich layered environments and with the materiality of such spaces becomes part of the pedagogical experiment. As Evans (2016) notes "The public is of course no longer homogenous as major cosmopolitan cities and historic towns mix tourists and a range of business, education and leisure visitors with residents and commuting workers from many countries with differing aesthetic and moral positions" (p. 174). The dynamism of these publics is caught in a deep entanglement of meanings.

Demonstrative Pedagogies: Beyond Dichotomous Binaries, Interim Spaces, Resisting Definition and Censure, Revealing Complicated Relations
Finally, Biesta's (2014) pedagogies in the interest of publicness are demonstrative because they show that "it is possible to do things differently" (p. 22). Laneway pedagogies, viewed through an intra-active lens, also demonstrate new possible ways of being and relating as they embody and enact entangled ontologies and intra-activity themselves. One way they do this is revealing how the categories and false binaries that are used to define and regulate street art practices are leaky and porous. Discourses surrounding graffiti have been "framed and mapped through a series of twofold constructs: public/private space, visible/invisible walls, legal/illegal practices, vandalism/art and art/advertising" (Dovey, Wollan, & Woodcock, 2012, p. 38). In some stores you cannot purchase spray paint without identification or their sale is limited to a few cans as legal measures are enforced to curb graffiti. At the same time thousands of tourists flood these laneways every day, led by local tour guides promoting the creative vibrancy, diversity, and ingenuity of Melbourne. The material reality encountered and experienced when meandering through the actual streets and laneways of Melbourne demonstrates more complicated messages. These intra-active entanglements destabilise such falsely constructed binaries and focus on a more onto-epistemological understanding of how such sites are pedagogical. Within the laneways of Melbourne there is a complex web of relations, some sanctioned and permissible, and others illegal. The walls and poles are covered in stickers, stencils, and tags. Some of the art is in a constant state of movement and change while other aspects stay forever silently clinging to the walls. Graffiti tags sit atop or next to stencil art; stickers affix to small sculptures that are placed on larger murals. The messages communicated through the art also reveal the intra-active nature of relations, as they provide critical commentary on the unequal relations between Aboriginal Australians and settler-born soldiers in Australia's wars, and reveal how the families that have contributed most soldiers to wars across the Commonwealth are from the Lovett family, from Gunditjmara land. These entanglements reveal how street art operates in the spaces between the dichotomous binaries. The material experience of these streets demonstrates how graffiti is "regarded as both streetart and vandalism; it seeks both the privacy of crime and the publicity of exhibition. Graffiti takes on both positive and negative symbolic capital; it both sells and pollutes these places, streets and buildings" (Dovey, Wollan, & Woodcock, 2012, p. 38).
The walls also demonstrate that the authority attempting to control street art is never complete or lasting. This authority can and always will be resisted and within the ethos of street art graffiti and hip-hop counter culture these spaces are interim. The walls are palimpsests thick with paint, as layers peek through and reveal how the art always persists, despite attempt to constantly patrol and erase it. The art gets removed, built upon, and re-written. The walls themselves reveal how power dynamics are always resisted, as street artists will "continue to create those signs in the city's interim spaces: the spaces of what Dickens calls the 'in-between,' in which 'urban inscription' allows the city to become 'known through the bodily, rhythmic writing and re-writing of it'" (Young, 2010, p. 113). Finally, intra-activity is revealed as our own subjectivities became entangled with the walls, the streets, and with each other as we walked together photographing and talking about Australian musicians, about politics in the United States, and about refugees being detained at Australia's shores.

Rethinking Publics, Becoming Part of the Palimpsest
Through this work we are seeking to reconceptualize public pedagogies through the geographically located graffiti/street art of Melbourne, as we think-with these concepts as laneway pedagogies. Laneway pedagogies are more than tags, stencils, legalities, artists, audiences, and cleaners who tabula rasa unsanctioned walls, and the values held toward street art; all these and more are part of the intra-acting entanglement of street art. Street art is a performance, a dance between all of these elements, and within this dance new iterations and meanings fold in and over one another. In this visual essay we 're-turn' (Barad, 2014) to the same locations; we walk the same laneways as we fold into and become-with the mattering of these living laneway pedagogies. We become part of the palimpsest that claims and reclaims the public sphere. In doing so, we develop a unique politics of public pedagogy that speaks with, and back to democracy-its consumption, its demise, and its renewal.
Viewing street art through an agential realist lens complicates all dualistic notions of graffiti, and positions these entities as entangled, agentic actors. Viewing the pedagogies of Melbourne's laneways as an entanglement of the morethanhuman helps us envision a more complicated public and to view 'publicness' beyond only a consideration of individual, separate human actors. Using intra-action we must consider the public as a web of entanglements that are social, political, environmental, ethical, material, spiritual, cultural and subjective, and thus must address the new responsibilities emerging from such entanglements. In this way we de-center the anthropocentric by exploring both the tangible and intangible as they create publicness that operates in multiplicities, entanglements, and assemblages. In doing so, we also expand our ethical obligations beyond other humans, to include non-human entities. These new ethical obligations require us to view Melbourne's street art pedagogies as constituted through intra-actions among many entities, including artists, local residents, visitors from all over the world, business owners, politicians, law makers, cleaning crews, physical places, walls, streets, painting materials, and discourses about street art and graffiti, vandalism, tourism, and commercial value, processes of commodification, privatization, and securitization and, finally, geographical and historical contexts. An intra-active lens that disrupts bounded and dichotomous thinking also helps us recognize understand how boundary-making practices create material consequences for Melbourne's street artists and street art, making some people and practices more visible and others impossible to see, making some valued and others discarded, making some praised and some criminal. The lens of intra-action also helps us see that these divisions are false and can be re-created differently in ways that disrupt these taken-for-granted categories and the unequal power relationships they are steeped in.