[Xmca-l] Re: discussing "Posing the question"

[Martin John Packer]

Neurath was also an important member of the Vienna Circle, and one of the editors, with Carnap and Morris, of the ambitious "Foundations of the unity of science: Toward an international encyclopedia of unified science."

Martin

On Jun 4, 2014, at 5:04 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been reading a lot about the work of Otto Neurath, who is mentioned
> briefly by Vygotsky in the context of his discussion of "rudimentary
> functions" (e.g. Rock, Paper, Scissors in making decisions). He was
> apparently involved in the Munich soviet, briefly imprisoned, then a city
> official in "Red Vienna", where he seems to have become more interested in
> museum curating than anything else. His big dream was to design something
> called the "Vienna Method" which later became "Isotype", the "International
> System of Typographical Education" that forms the basis of most of our
> translinguistic street signs and danger instructions today. The idea was to
> make Vienna's museum's accessible to foreigners, children, and other
> illiterates. With the Anschluss, Neurath and his wife took refuge in
> Rotterdam, where she died. He then fled to England in an open boat with the
> woman who was to become his third wife and co-designer (and they were
> immediately separated and interned as enemy aliens upon their arrival!). It
> was apparently during the channel crossing that he came up with the
> quotation he is most remembered for, "We are like sailors who must rebuild
> their ship on the open sea, never able to dismantle it in dry-dock and to
> reconstruct it there out of the best materials.”
> 
> It's a pretty good description of the way Isotype works--the system is okay
> for giving you here and now, but it has to convey negation and
> conditionality through red circles and triangles, which are only mean that
> if you already know that they do. It seems to me that Neurath is
> essentially pursuing the same problem as Rolf, in exactly the same
> context--how do you get children to go from non-symbolic appreciations of
> art to higher sorts? And it seems to me that intrinsically linguistic
> systems, like negation and conditionality, are key.
> 
> David Kellogg
> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> 
> 
> On 30 May 2014 00:13, Rolf Steier <rolf.steier@intermedia.uio.no> wrote:
> 
>> David and Ed, I'm going to think about this a little more but first thank
>> you for these thoughtful responses,
>> rolf
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Rolf
>>> 
>>>       Thanks for giving me an opportunity to think more about mimesis.
>>> Some rambling follows:
>>> 
>>>     Gebauer and Wulf in Memesis (around p315 there is a summary of much
>>> of what I am paraphrasing/interpreting) suggest that mimesis concerns the
>>> making  [I think here about your conversation with Huw about 'discovery'
>>> and 'making'] of symbolic worlds with, for instance, gesture, Such worlds
>>> have an existence of their own; i.e. they can be understood from within
>> in
>>> their own terms. These symbolic worlds are transformations of a prior
>> world
>>> (the world of 'Others') into the world of 'I/we.'  Mimesis is realized,
>> in
>>> essence, as a dialogic activity (I don't think this necessarily excludes
>>> narration, but I could be wrong) taken by participants, a deed or doing.
>> In
>>> this frame Mimetic Gesturing is one way of transforming the 'Other';
>>> however depiction (as distinct from Mimetic Gesturing) seems another.
>>> 
>>>    So, perhaps (and this is complete speculation) the girls have
>>> purposively intertwined their depiction of the body of the figure in the
>>> work with its title to produce/make, in their eyes, a 'standalone'
>>> dialogical event (or symbolic world). Perhaps, the gesturing is for the
>>> self and/or friend (I mean I/we). In any case, in this framing the
>>> transformation has its roots in the object of representation and is
>>> realized in the gesture and its uptake by the recipient. So your
>> questions
>>> below are critical.
>>> 
>>>    I hope this makes some sort of sense as I am still thinking about
>>> mimesis and depiction.
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> On May 27, 2014, at  4:24 PM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>> Thank you for asking this because I had been reflecting some after
>>> sending the previous email and thought this topic might need more
>>> discussion. I view mimesis as one form of gestural depiction. Streeck
>>> defines Mimetic Gesturing as “the performance of gestures to depict
>>> physical acts or behavior” (p 144 of Gesturecraft).
>>>> 
>>>> I absolutely agree that posing with an artwork can be interpreted as
>>> mimesis. Where this becomes more complex (and I think interesting!) - Is
>>> when we ask what it is that is being depicted? If we use Episode 1 from
>> the
>>> article (Figure 6 on p160) - it might be that the girls are depicting the
>>> body of the figure in the work. Another interpretation could be that they
>>> are depicting the painting itself (with the implication that they are
>>> acknowledging the intentionality of the artist in forming her own
>>> depiction). I believe that at some point in this interaction, the girls
>> are
>>> implicitly acknowledging the intentionality of the artist because the
>> girl
>>> on the left incorporates the title of the work (Four Artists) into her
>>> interpretation. I chose to use the term ‘posing gesture’ as a form of
>>> gestural depiction that is distinct from mimesis. I think that
>>> relationships between the artist, figure, artwork, and visitors are
>> complex
>>> and that some aspect of these relationships might be lost if we interpret
>>> it only as a gesture “depicting a physical act.” There is also the issue
>> of
>>> who the gesture is for (the self, the friend, or both). Perhaps this
>>> contradicts my previous email a little, but thank you for asking me to
>>> reflect on it again.
>>>> 
>>>> Ed - what do you think? Maybe there is a broader question here about
>> the
>>> object of representation.. what a gesture is of? and who it is for?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
>>>> Rolf
>>>> 
>>>>      If you would, could you say more why you think 'depiction' rather
>>> than 'mimesis' better captures the dialogic relationship between the
>>> participants. An example from your paper would be helpful.
>>>> 
>>>> Ed Wall
>>>> 
>>>> On May 27, 2014, at  8:14 AM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello David,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your comments and for sharing your book as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You noted that you found the idea of young people posing for Flickr a
>>>>> little depressing - and I can certainly understand this. Not to add
>> to
>>> this
>>>>> depression, but remember that few young people even visit museums at
>>> all
>>>>> outside of school visits! I don’t think that ‘flickr’ was a
>>> particularly
>>>>> large motivator in the end. The most surprising finding that led to
>>> this
>>>>> study was that visitors “pose” naturally. Many many people when
>>> approaching
>>>>> Munch’s “The Scream” would bring their hands to their faces to
>>> “scream” as
>>>>> a part of normal museum practice. I think the exciting thing is
>>> building
>>>>> off of this natural tendency to create richer engagements and
>>> conversations
>>>>> with and about the art- Not to replace interactions with the works
>> with
>>>>> photo taking activities. Although it is also interesting to see what
>>>>> expectations youth bring to these experiences.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You also provided a few questions that I wanted to follow up on. You
>>>>> mention a distinction between “mimesis” and “depiction” that I think
>> is
>>>>> really interesting. I actually spent a great deal of time debating
>> the
>>>>> appropriate concept to use to describe these activities and I think
>>> both
>>>>> are appropriate and share subtle distinctions. I agree that ‘mimesis’
>>>>> implies a dialogic relationship between the participant and the
>>> artwork -
>>>>> but I would also argue that ‘depiction’ better captures the dialogic
>>>>> relationship between the participants. I used the concept of
>> depiction
>>> to
>>>>> be consistent with Streeck’s framework.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You also mention that assuming gestures are either iconic or deictic
>>>>> suggests that artwork does not have ideal content? Maybe you can
>>> elaborate
>>>>> on what you mean by ideal content? I hope that I didn’t give the
>>> impression
>>>>> that I feel visitor gestures are limited to these types (A goal of
>> this
>>>>> article was to introduce posing as a unique gestural activity).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:18 AM, David Kellogg <
>> dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think I'd like to try to tie the discussion of Rolf Steier's
>>> intriguing
>>>>>> article to a book we published in January here in Korea, a book
>> which
>>> is
>>>>>> also related to the discussion of Vygotsky, the Imagination, and
>>>>>> Creativity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since we are discussing posing and artworks, let me provide the
>> cover
>>> of
>>>>>> our book, a painting by the Russian children's portraitist Nikolai
>>>>>> Bogdanov-Belsky.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ISBN=8994445536
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The book contains three very different works by Vygotsky on
>>> creativity and
>>>>>> imagination, which we translated into Korean: his "popular science"
>>> account
>>>>>> ("Imagination and Creativity in the Child", which was published in
>>> JREEP in
>>>>>> 2004), "Imagination and Creativity in Adolescence", which was
>>> published in
>>>>>> "Pedology of the Adolescent" and which can be found in the Vygotsky
>>> Reader
>>>>>> (Blackwell, 1994) and "Imagination and its Development in
>> Childhood",
>>> part
>>>>>> of which appears in Volume One of the English Collected Works.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But the cover painting really says it all in gesture: Vygotsky
>>> asks--and
>>>>>> answers--the question of why one form of creativity after another is
>>>>>> exhausted, when the child's imagination is still developing
>>> vigorously. The
>>>>>> child poses. Then, at a certain point, the child becomes
>>> disillusioned with
>>>>>> mere posing and becomes interested in drawing. The child draws.
>> Then,
>>> at a
>>>>>> certain point (usually right when the child appears to be making
>> real
>>>>>> progress), the child becomes disillusioned with drawing and takes up
>>>>>> writing. The child writes. Then, at a certain point (usually, as
>>> captured
>>>>>> by Bogdanov-Belsky, right when the child begins to learn how to
>> write
>>>>>> compositions in school) the child becomes disillusioned. The now
>>> powerless
>>>>>> and disillusioned daydream, which we extravagantly call
>>> "imagination", is
>>>>>> all that is left.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I liked the article. I loved the idea that recreating a painting as
>> a
>>>>>> "tableau vivant" includes both an external plane (dialogue) and and
>>>>>> internal one (narrative). I thought the ability of the author to
>>> recover a
>>>>>> kind of underlying structure of pose, comparison, focus, and
>>> adjustment
>>>>>> from the careful analysis of two incidents was actually very
>>> convincing and
>>>>>> shows the power of a theoretically informed analysis over a
>>> statistically
>>>>>> equipped but merely empirical one. I also find this underlying
>>> structure
>>>>>> far more helpful than the usual vague talk about extra-corporeal
>>> artistic
>>>>>> experience and reflection that we get, even in the work of Bakhtin.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But I confess, I found the idea that children spend their days in
>>> museums
>>>>>> recreating paintings with their bodies for a Flickr account a little
>>>>>> depressing. I wonder if there is any evidence that the evident
>>>>>> understanding that emerges leads to any actual creativity or even
>> any
>>>>>> posing outside the museum. Perhaps, if it doesn't, that is a good
>>> thing:
>>>>>> Munch, in addition to being a smoker, was a notorious depressive.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Some specific questions:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> a) On p. 149, the author says that "meaning is embedded in the
>> word".
>>>>>> Doesn't this imply a conduit metaphor? Isn't it more likely--on the
>>> basis
>>>>>> of the author's own argument--that the way in which words carry
>>> cultural
>>>>>> meaning is by forcing the hearer to re-enact the meaning making
>>> itself?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> b) On p. 151, the author appears to confuse the concept of metaphor
>>> with
>>>>>> Lakoff and Johnson's "conceptual metaphor". Also, I can't see how
>>> children
>>>>>> can develop concepts from metaphors, because it seems to me that in
>>> order
>>>>>> to have a metaphor you need a concept first.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> c) On p. 152: if we assume that visitor gestures are either iconic
>> or
>>>>>> deictic, doesn't that suggest that artwork has no ideal content at
>>> all?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> d) On p. 152, the bottom: isn't "depiction" more of a NARRATIVE
>>> stance,
>>>>>> while mimesis is a more DIALOGIC one because it places us inside the
>>>>>> artwork? Just a thought.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I remember taking part in an art exhibition in my wife's hometown of
>>> Xi'an
>>>>>> in China twenty years ago where we left a huge canvas by the exit
>> and
>>>>>> invited all the viewers to try to paint something. It was at a big
>>>>>> university and some of engineering students tried gamely, until the
>>> art
>>>>>> students came along and painted everything black. Interestingly,
>>> though,
>>>>>> neither the engineering students nor the art students tried to
>>> reproduce
>>>>>> any of the artworks--they were more interested in looking out the
>>> window
>>>>>> than in looking back at the exhibition.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 23 May 2014 01:09, Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
>>> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear XMCA,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rolf Steier is now on XMCA, and his article "Posing the question"
>> is
>>> open
>>>>>>> on the T and F website:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/.U3zs4Sjsq24
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Just click on the green button to the right side of the article.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is loads to talk about, and one question that comes to mind
>> is
>>> in
>>>>>>> relation to the museum installation as a design experiment. In what
>>> sense
>>>>>>> is it a design experiment? What does it make visible? How is
>> learning
>>>>>>> shaped by access to this experience in a museum?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> More questions?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best - jen
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>