Wittgenstein's idea of family resemblance seems relevant here. he
writes of games and how any attempt to define a game in terms of
necessary and sufficient conditions as being open to some other example
of a game that lacks some condition deemed necessary in some other
definition. using the analogy of family resemblances he then goes on to
show how we link one person with another on the basis of certain
features that are not shared by a third family member but who does
share certain characteristics in common with one of the first two
members. The result being a kind of chain like reasoning from one thing
to another that gathers a whole range of individual instances together
under a single term but which stops short of the kind of conceptual
completeness that is required by a definition.
This all seems o.k. but then we may draw attention to the possibility
that dog's may resemble their owners but something stops us from
considering them family members in the same sense as siblings etc.
something deeper does seem to define the family - genetic inheritance.
but then again certain mannerisms may run in a family such that an
adopted member could share some family resemblance.
that drawing is a historically self defining process can be seen as its
kind of genetic inheritance but at any one time some discontinuity may
arise in this process whereby it assimilates something from a different
line of descent as part of its practice. so a combination of diachronic
and synchronic analysis is necessary to capture what drawing is at any
one time and while this might hold for the present it will not hold for
all times. Many categories are like this - rich and poor for example.
they may be historically or even culturally or regionally relative but
there is still a constraint on how we use the terms. Likewise
presumably evolution is still going on in the animal kingdom so what
once were referred to as lions are now not quite the same kind of thing
they once were. but without the idea of there being certain kinds of
thing - natural kinds like lions we could never have arrived at the
idea of evolution - i.e., that there are no such thing as lions in
nature - that our term for lion is tracking a moving target that is in
the process of becoming something else.
still resisting the obvious pun - lions/ lines for those who missed it
- I will say that this issue relates even to the practice of drawing
from observation where the line attempts to capture something about the
boundaries of the object without rigidly delineating it. The contour of
a thing is just a possible horizon. It is relative to the point of
view. This doesn't detract from the rigor or objectivity of the drawing
such as it may be.
Instead of using concepts to think about drawing maybe we should use
drawing to think about concepts a bit more,
Martin.
On 31 Aug 2006, at 09:53, Peter Hall wrote:
> you do not need to expand defintion to be creative.
> it is restrictive to think creativity is confined to the arts.
> all research is about pushing back barriers.
> not all of us engage in sloppy thinking.
>
>> It is precisely the approach, act or attitude of only
>> considering the first part of the first definition of
>> definition you are demonstrating:
>>
>> • noun 1 a statement of the exact meaning of a word
>> or the nature or scope of something. 2 the action or
>> process of defining.
>>
>> Scope of something. Process of defining.
>>
>> Dictionaries, and therefore definitions/terms have
>> evolved over the years; language is evolving because
>> there is always scope and process to improve, expand,
>> modify definitions*.
>>
>> This debate has illustrated that there are different
>> types of research and researcher; some which prefer to
>> research the already researched, accepting only old,
>> limited definitions without any desire to do any of
>> the above, and some pushing boundaries or creating
>> room to generate expanded, improved, modified, edited
>> definitions.
>>
>> Here is a fantastic text about the Oxford Dictionary
>> and how definitions of words have evolved:
>>
>> ....These slips were then filed alphabetically by the
>> word they defined. This crude but efficient process is
>> the source of each term's documentation, from its
>> earliest form to its most modern recorded usage.
>>
>> When the Oxford University Press took over the project
>> in 1878, the editors thought that the material amassed
>> by then would adequately cover the scope of the
>> original philological intentions, but Murray was
>> dissatisfied and found the completed work limited in
>> scope.
>>
>> Murray organised another programme in 1879, seeking a
>> selection of quotations from a broader base of
>> publishing history, including modern books as well,
>> thinking popular literature as important for the
>> purpose of detailing the true language as more
>> scholarly texts....
>>
>> So,
>>
>> Philology, education, art research....these are very
>> much concerned with questioning, expanding and always
>> RESEARCHING INTO THE ADEQUACY, APPLICABILITY, SCOPE
>> and PROCESS OF THINGS, including, definitions.
>>
>> Isabella Zuhal Parla
>>
>>
>> --- Peter Hall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, but this is taking a philosophical approach
>>> or
>>>> semanticity to the extreme....definitions are
>>> often
>>>> quite very useful in conducting any type of
>>> research
>>>> as starting, progression or end points (they are
>>> never
>>>> just one rigid definition which was started
>>>> off with), any researcher would agree that they
>>> are
>>>> 'flexible' concepts or tools to work with and
>>>> to expand!
>>>
>>> I do research, have done for about 20 years.
>>> I emphatically do not agree defintions should be
>>> flexible.
>>>
>>> Philisophy since the time of the Greeks has sought
>>> to distinguish
>>> valid from invalid reasoning. Any text on logic is
>>> based on Greek
>>> thought. One form of invalid reasoning is a to
>>> arrive at a conclusion
>>> having stipulated that the conclusion is true. This
>>> is called the
>>> fallacy of stipulation. Flexible defintions allow
>>> one to indulge
>>> in such a fallacy or "it is true, because I say it
>>> is!".
>>>
>>> So, my defintion of "defintion" is not one I have
>>> stipulated.
>>>
>>> Foolish things stipulation allows:
>>> Example: an aeroplane is a drawing because [reason
>>> deleted]
>>> Example: a non-drawing is a drawing, because [reason
>>> deleted]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The definition of definition once again!
>>>>
>>>> --- Garry Barker <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>> RE: In Response
>>>> The fact that any definition of drawing can be
>>>> challenged, isn't as interesting as the potential
>>> for
>>>> any definition to be a point of departure for
>>>> practice. The use of the threads of argument are
>>> in
>>>> helping define parameters within which certain
>>> types
>>>> of drawing based activities can actually be
>>> practiced.
>>>> Invention often occurring when trying to operate
>>>> within narrow constraints.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>>> Of
>>>> Peter Hall
>>>> Sent: 30 August 2006 15:13
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: In Response to Barker, Appleby et all
>>>>
>>>> Suppose a defintion of drawing were available,
>>>> what purpose would it serve?
>>>>
>>>> (I am used to defintions that allow theories to be
>>>> constructed).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * * This email and any files transmitted with it
>>> are
>>>> confidential and intended solely for the use of
>>> the
>>>> individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
>>> This
>>>> email represents the personal views of the
>>>> author/sender. The author/sender has no authority
>>> or
>>>> delegation to bind Leeds College of Art and Design
>>> by
>>>> this e-mail and Leeds College of Art and Design
>>>> accepts no responsibility whatsoever for its
>>> contents.
>>>> Please note that any reply to this email may be
>>>> screened. **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> ___________________________________________________________
>>>> Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is
>>> radically easier to use"
>>>> – The Wall Street Journal
>>>> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with
>> All
>> New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>>
>>
>>
>
|
