 |
 |
I would say they belong to the rhetoric of communication. It is the same case as the theatre: in order to communicate something one does not necessarily do it as it is really done (theatrical gestures, exaggeration, etc.). "Grammar" suggests that communication occurs because the sender and receiver share a set of rules, whereas Keith's examples are about COMMUNICATING THAT objects move, explode, etc.even in cases that we have not experienced. Do we really "expect" noisy spacecraft, or is that noisy spacecraft are "expressive" (rhetoric) of moving spacecraft? Michael At 13:17 17/05/2002 +1000, Keith Russell wrote: > > Klaus makes a good point here - there are many jokes, for example, > about the "ontologies" of science fiction works - space craft that > make noise in a vacuum, rockets that have their engines going all the time > yet they are travelling at the same speed. When we are experts we notice the > silly things in movies - like everything that explodes is always carrying > 100,000 litres > of petrol. Cartoon always have things going backwards before they go fowards, > things settling > when they stop. These artefacts help develop a grammar of expectation in the > audience so they really belong to the ontologies of aesthetic objects? > > In this sense metaphysics can be seen as ontology. > > hope this confuses even more > > keith russell > Newcastle OZ > > > > > > >>> klaus krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> 05/16/02 02:52pm >>> > to me, it is not a question of whether something exists when we don't > observe it -- i know what i have in my pocket without looking -- but whether > we examine our observation and knowledge as such or deny our involvement and > project what we know onto something we cannot know. the latter gets us into > all kinds of trouble, for example, by inviting authorities on ontology to > construct their reality for others to be evaluated by. > > i think the a more practical use of the word "ontology" in design is its use > in artificial intelligence, for example and already mentioned, as the > principles or logic by which an engineer constructs an physical artifact, a > logic s/he knows but others may not, a logic that may govern a machine > beyond its use by others. this is not philosophical ontology with the claim > of objectivity, but someone's ontology, which io don't mind acknowledging. > *********************************************************** Dr Michael A R Biggs Reader in Visual Communication Faculty of Art and Design University of Hertfordshire College Lane, Hatfield, Herts. AL10 9AB United Kingdom Telephone UK+ (0)1707 285341 Fax UK+ (0)1707 285350 E-mail [log in to unmask] Internet http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/practice/creac/html/intrombiggs.html The full postgraduate prospectus is available online at http://www.herts.ac.uk/ For information about art and design research degrees go to http://www.artdes.herts.ac.uk/res2prac/ Research into Practice conference http://www.artdes.herts.ac.uk/res2prac/ The journal Working Papers in Art and Design http://www.artdes.herts.ac.uk/papers/wpades/ The Centre for Research in Electronic Art and Communication is at http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/practice/creac/