To Peter, David & rest of those interested in this discussion.
Another Lakoff & Johnson book that I've found really insightful (which prbably
contains similar material but with more memorable title) is "Metaphors we Live
by." Their idea is that everything we think is built on metaphorically from
what we know already. Their starting point is spatiality - and that most of
our basic "dead" metaphors (i.e. those that are so common in speech we don't
think of them as metaphors at all) are based on spatial perception (e.g. at
work you go "up the ladder" in order to "get on").
The real "aha" moment that I had with this revolved around the joint metaphors
of Container and Journey. Lakoff & Johnson are discussing this in relation to
how you see an argument (does it contain your ideas or does it carry them
forward). My aha bit was to realise that this is true of every product noun
that can be paired with a process verb - a drawing/ painting/ design is a
container for your ideas and that drawing / painting / designing are journeys.
Lakoff & Johnson then say that at the point of intersection of metaphors (what
they call "entailments") you get new metaphors. In relation to using drawing,
the creative process happens as conversation between head & hand as you draw.
You see the drawing you have done as containing ideas yet your mind is still
travelling on the journey, so that you go back & forth between drawing as
container & drawing as journey.
Hope that doesn't sound too obscure - I have a web site www.designdrawing.net
- it's all on there & much better explained.
Gill
>===== Original Message From The UK drawing research network mailing list
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>David
>What kind of integrated projects would you imagine would be worth funding?
>Peter
>
>
>> Dear Peter
>>
>> Where to begin...? In an ancient South Bank Show David Hockney said:
>> 'The way we depict space determines what we do with it'. That
>> 'depiction' is a language, as much as any created by culture - it
>> includes our experiences and excludes them, according to the dominant
>> power of our society. God forbid that artists should have to
>> illustrate another science-made problem. One day the AHRB and ESPRC,
>> et al will invite artists to join them in integrated, not
>> interpretative projects, maybe, even get a scientist to consider
>> facilitating an artist's problem... the way we depict people determines
>> what we do with them? Our cultural values are embodied in the
>> metaphors and myths of the the belief systems our languages create and
>> protect. The way we model our world determines what we do with it.
>> The problem with clocks and computers is that they do not THINK, so why
>> let them determine what we do with our world (note to the
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)?
>>
>> Regarding how we 'see' things, try Lakoff & Johnson, Philosophy in the
>> Flesh.
>>
>> Happy depicting
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 15 Nov 2004, at 18:19, Peter Hall wrote:
>>
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > I've been emailed by the Arts Council and AHRB to tell me of grants to
>> > support collaboration between artists and scientists. In the past I
>> > have
>> > reviewed proposals for this initiative, and sat on the panel for a
>> > corresponding initiative from Engineering and Physical Science Research
>> > Council (EPSRC) - their "culture and creativity" call.
>> >
>> > The EPSRC panel was notable in that only ONE propoal related to the
>> > visual
>> > arts - the remainging 40 or so came from other place - mostly music or
>> > sound related. The panel was keen that a greater balance is reached in
>> > future.
>> >
>> > I am a scientist / engineer /mathematician with an interest in getting
>> > computer to draw for themselves. It would be an absurd ambition to try
>> > to
>> > replace humans with machines - and that is not my intention. But just
>> > as
>> > knowning a little more about how humans see somethimes (but not always)
>> > helps us understand how to do make machines see a little better, so
>> > undertstanding how artists work can inform my work. In fact,
>> > understanding
>> > drawings may help us understand a little more about how we see as
>> > humans -
>> > but that is not my aim either.
>> >
>> > My web pages at www.bath.ac.uk/~maspmh gives an idea - but these are
>> > PAST
>> > projects, not current ones!
>> >
>> > All this is awfuly vauge, but I do have specific research projects that
>> > would benefit from artistic input for sure. One of these involves using
>> > drawings to get machines to learn what humans think of is important:
>> > our
>> > early work in this is very promising indeed, and work like this is a
>> > very
>> > hot topic right now with similar work going on all over the world.
>> > Other
>> > work is based on the book "Art and Representation" by John Willats.
>> >
>> > I see the AHRB-et-al call as an opportunity to collaborate. If anyone
>> > is
>> > interested - maybe I can help you with your projects rather than you
>> > help
>> > me - then contact me on my email
>> > [log in to unmask]
>> >
>> > best
>> > Peter Hall
>> > Department of Computer Science
>> > University of Bath
>> > Bath
>>
>>
>>
Dr. Gill Hope
Senior Lecturer Design & Technology
Canterbury Christ Church University College
Canterbury
Kent
|