Hi Klaus,
I don't think metaphor is undesirable in trying to develop an idea or even
to begin to get the global view across. I agree that we would have a hard
time communicating without it. In fact I love to use metaphor in a variety
of situations and ways.
But I still think that it is worrisome as an end tool (emphasis on the idea
of an end tool) for research because it is ultimately problematic. Words do
not convey spatial relationships in any clear way (Jackendoff and Landau,
1995). When we use metaphor as an end tool, we can end up with a variety of
translations. Take textual voice. Textual voice is from one moment to
another seen as "the genius of the author," "an imitation of speech," "what
is oft said but ne'er so well," and "the sound of the author." The metaphor
of voice, the use of the metaphor as an end tool to understand the concept,
has led to so many perspectives that no one has a clear idea of how to
define it or identify it.
But I do agree with you that we would be hard pressed to live without it.
Lakoff and Johnson, Turner, and others have made the case for that idea.
And for what it's worth, it feel it intuitively.
Best,
Susan
Jackendoff, R., & Landau, B. (1995). Spatial language and spatial
cognition. In R. Jackendoff (Ed.), Languages of the mind: Essays on mental
representation (pp. 99-124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.??
--On Monday, February 7, 2005 3:03 AM -0500 Klaus Krippendorff
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> hi susan,
>
> only briefly, i think metaphors are not as undesirable as you seem to
> suggest they could be. framework is a metaphor from carpentry. theory
> was once a metaphor (in ancient greece what the spectator sees),
> approach is a metaphor, having to do with moving towards something,
> entailing a process, etc. we can't speak without metaphor. the point is
> to use what is most appropriate -- glad you mention lakoff and johnson
> among others.
>
> as you said, frameworks of thinking or conceptualizing are not to be
> avoided, but they have their dangers that one needs to be aware of. when
> i think of design i think of a process of going where others have not
> dared and enrolling others into that direction as well
>
> klaus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
> Of Susan M. Hagan
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Design & Theory
>
>
> Hello Klaus,
>
> I apologize for the longish post, but you bring up some interesting
> stumbling blocks that seem reasonable to me. My response would be that
> these potential pitfalls do need to be considered carefully. And so...
>>
>> to go back, framework conjures images of putting things on shelves or
>> filling the cells of a grid. maybe this isn't quite what we want.
>
> On further reflection, I think that you make a good point. It is enticing
> to make everything very neat, and in that way, ignore some of the
> interesting complexity. For example, a framework that aids designers in
> making, can become too pat when considering how an audience might react to
> the thing made. I'll go back to Arnheim again. The ways contrast can be
> introduced, (providing heuristics without pigeonholing the designer) led
> to conclusions that an audience can be perceptually locked into looking
> at a painting or design using something of a shared visual order. Eye
> tracking studies (Buswell, 1935; Norton and Stark, 1971) confounded the
> notion of shared visual order pretty quickly (even though I think that
> the idea lives on in some circles to this day). Solso (1994) argues that
> looking involves our own histories and interests (aided I think by the
> conflict reduction provided by contrast and groupings). So your point is
> well taken. The heuristics that opened up creative thought and inquiry,
> closed down thinking concerning interpretation. I don't think that
> eliminates the usefulness of frameworks, but it does point to a danger.
>>
>> conceptual analysis is mental on the one hand and analytical on the
>> other. yes, analysis of the context into which a design is to fit is
>> important, but this precedes design. the point of design is to propose
>> something realizable, producible, and usable.
>
> As someone who finds making concrete solutions as interesting as teasing
> apart that concrete thing in order to see what makes it tick, I would
> argue that a frameworks can be helpful in both processes.
>>
>> there is another idea that is worth exploring, and this is the approach
>> taken. the metaphor of approach acknowledges that you always come from
>> somewhere, that you chose among approaches that you could have taken, and
>> that you bring with you certain concepts, tools, ways of handling things.
>> to study the approach that one is taking is to explore the vocabulary and
>> the practices someone is committed to apply. it is more dynamic than
>> either framework or conceptual analysis, and, unlike theory, it involves
>> bodily participation, personal engagement, or commitment to a way to
>> solve problems and change the world.
>
> But I worry about metaphor as the end tool even to explain process (and I
> would also push back here and say that design has more to account for than
> the process of the designer). Metaphor can be a slippery communicator.
> While I agree with Lakoff and Johnson (1980), as well as Turner (1996)
> that metaphor and analogy are both invaluable and necessary communication
> tools, metaphor requires that we build shared visualizations. I would say
> that those visualizations (especially in new areas of exploration) are not
> always as shared as we might wish. Both A. L. Becker (1991) and Jean
> Aitchison (1994) have noted that words come with slippery meanings. Paul
> Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (2003) point out that human language
> does not result in one form leading to one meaning. When we try to
> construct a visual image that is crucial to understanding, and used to
> take the field to new ground, the metaphor can seem to make our task more
> dynamic, but it can also make it more difficult??. Multiple, and
> unintended variations can begin to muddy the waters. Still, I can agree
> that it can be a useful place to begin the dialogue. And in that, I would
> point to Petrie and Oshlag (1993), who see metaphor as crucial to
> learning new concepts that go against established thinking.
>
> Best,
>
> Susan
>
> Aitchison, J. (1994). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental
> lexicon (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.??
> Buswell, G. T. (1935). How people look at pictures: A study of the
> psychology of perception in art. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
> Press.??
> Hopper, P. J., & Closs Traugott, E. (2003). Grammaticalization. UK:
> Cambridge University Press.??
> Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago:
> University of Chicago Press.??
> Norton, D., & Stark, L. (1971). Eye movements and visual perception.
> Scientific American, 224, 34 - 43.??
> Petrie, H. G., & Oshlag, R. S. (1993). Metaphor and learning. In A. Ortony
> (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 579-609). New York: Cambridge University
> Press.??
> Solso, R. L. (1994). Cognition and the visual arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT
> Press.
> ??
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Carnegie Mellon University
> Pittsburgh PA 15213
>
> v. 412.268.2072
> f. 412.268.7989
>
>
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
Postdoctoral Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213
v. 412.268.2072
f. 412.268.7989
|