Dear Chuck, Allen and all
Chuck wrote:
> Why non-metaphorical and non-figurative expressions? Lakoff for one would
> argue that most meaning is arrived at metaphorically. Most design as we know
> it is figurative too, isn't it? I don't understand what you mean. Also, what
> is to stifle about a gestalt? It is there or not there it seems to me.
Lakoff and Johnsson give very specific description of basic level:
actions, spatial relations and forced movement such as push, pull, twist,
drive, dimensions, position, start stop, continue etc. These qualities are
"imported" as Susanne Langer says directly to our senses and become part of
our momentary existence. We do not need to interpret through a dictionary
there meaning... you feel when some one is pushing you. a small child and
adult are equally capable of experiencing these non metaphorical
experience. (The child perhaps even better because of the why children use
their bodies to gain embodied knowledge.)
Common expression irregardless of culture and language is for me basic
level. I believe it is in this non linguistic area that design may build
its domain which transparently moves to bring together semiotics, metaphors
function, ergonomics, cultural meaning etc...
> Allen wrote:
>This is the same in punk rock, executive lifestyles, and the high school
>"popular crowd." The difference between meeting the aesthetic criteria of the
>lifestyle and missing the mark can come down to the performative act, such as a
>handshake and smile, or, on the other extreme, the right expressions of
>indifference.
Thanks Allen for the support for these direct expression in a performance
context... And also to the connections to punk rock and the reference Hickey
Dave.
Thanks Chuck, Eduardo, Klaus and Allen. I really appreciate this discussion
because I am putting together a major research document for a 50% seminar
and I need to defend how I have limited my research area. My deadline is
coming close so I may have too take a brake soon in order to consolidate
what we have put together.
Tusen tak (1000 Thanks in Swedish)
Cheryl
If design is
>> not interested in supporting a continued devoted search into what non
>> metaphorical, non figurative expressions involve then we will stifle the
>> development of gestalt at the other end of the loop. The parts making the
>> whole must be in tune with the expressions of our life values today.
>
This insight I found by reading Langer. I had the practical experiences
which I received from Rowena Reed how to go through sensation to analysis.
Den 04-06-05 03.30, skrev "Charles Burnette User"
<[log in to unmask]>:
> On 6/4/04 4:57 PM, "cheryl akner-koler" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> If design is
>> not interested in supporting a continued devoted search into what non
>> metaphorical, non figurative expressions involve then we will stifle the
>> development of gestalt at the other end of the loop. The parts making the
>> whole must be in tune with the expressions of our life values today.
>
> Dear Cheryl:
> Why non-metaphorical and non-figurative expressions? Lakoff for one would
> argue that most meaning is arrived at metaphorically. Most design as we know
> it is figurative too, isn't it? I don't understand what you mean. Also, what
> is to stifle about a gestalt? It is there or not there it seems to me.
> Chuck
|