Theorising out of practice, I would argue, involves a very different way of thinking than applying theory to practice. It offers a very specific way of understanding the world, one that is grounded in (to borrow Paul Carter's term) “material thinking” rather than in conceptual thinking. Material thinking draws attention to the relations that take place within the very process or tissue of making. In this conception the materials are not just passive objects to be used instrumentally by the artist, but rather the materials and processes of production have their own intelligence that comes into play in interaction with the artist's creative intelligence. If creative arts “research” commences in our dealings with the tools and materials of production, rather than a self-conscious attempt at theorization, how do we begin the task of developing creative arts research pedagogies from the bottom up? How does one devise a pedagogical strategy that makes “practical sense”, but does not merely fall back into a skills based pedagogy? This question has become particularly critical at a time when art education has become so driven by conceptual and thematic concerns that materials and processes are conceived instrumentally to be used in the service of an idea, rather than as productive in their own right. Beginning with David Hockney's “hands on” investigation into whether Ingres had used optical devices in his drawing of Madam Godinot (1829), this paper investigates Heidegger's notion “handlability” as a pedagogical model for addressing the operations of material thinking in creative arts research.