Indeed,
I've been trying to pinpoint gesture (with)in context for several years but I
found it somewhat escaping definition.
From the point of view of architecture, it can be reviewed historically as a
narrative (e.g. "le geste archtiectural"), it can be viewed as a metaphor
(therefore extending, e.g. to theories like Lakoff & Johnston), it can be
subject to field analysis (e.g. of architecture group sessions, see Keith Murphy
for an example, although I do not ascribe to his line of thinking) and therefore
cognitive research - for which McNeill's research on narrative gesture and
thought might offer better insight than Bryan Lawson's designerly ways of
thinking, and finally it can return to architectural narrative through the notion
of sketchign - ranging from the genious sketch to the generative doodle an
architect might produce.
However, even in each specific area, gesture seems to escape definition: the
whole thing reminds me of the distinction between Lyotard and Bourdieu on
the work of art whether the work of art is transcending its network or whether
it is all social. Albertsen & Bulent have produced a very interesting paper in
Theory, Culture & Society 21(3) titled "Artworks' Networks", where an
extended commentary is made including Hennion & Latour (1993) "Objet d'art,
objet de science: note sur les limites de l'anti-fetichisme", Sociologie de l'Art
6: 7-24.
For me the idea of gesture being a marker, transgressing from being a simple
object and benefiting from being a partial subject, could offer something to my
slippery problem. But then i have to ask once more:
is it an issue of semantics? And do you think Serres is too? (I'd love a french
reader's opinion!)
Best regards,
Angelos.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:43:35 +0100, Jean Schneider
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hello,
> Comment...
>Regarding the notion of the quasi-object (Serres, who also in the
>definition mentions : quasi sujet..quasi subject), you might be
>interested in knowing that the wording ("quasi-subject" objects) was
>brought in the field of design by E. MAnzini in his book Artefatti,
>chapter 9. I see it more a metaphor than a philosophical concept or
>category (refers to objets that have some interface, not to the
>essence of what could be an interactivity).
>
>Gesture as quasi-object... Serre's quasi-objet is, in my
>understanding, designating the status of the signifier, when the
>signifier is embedded in an artifact, and changes the meaning of that
>that is connected to it. I see it more as an addition to semiotics,
>rather than sociology (at least, as a french reader...). So I find it
>conceptually far from ANT.
>
>We had some time a debate on the list about the applicability of ANT
>to design, 1. Toward an Actor-Network Theory of Design thread, that
>was last April, but I haven't saved all mails... and maybe you
>checked that already.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jean
>
>Le 24 févr. 10 à 11:22, angpsi a écrit :
>
>Would you please suggest an article of key reference value f
>Dear all,
>
>Would you please suggest an article of key reference value for Actor
>- network Theory in Design Thinking and Strategies?
>
>I am currently studying "gesture" as a quasi - object* for my PhD
>thesis and although I've found a number of approaches scattered
>around, so far my key reference appears to be Bruno Latour's
>Reassembling the Social; An Introduction to Actor - Network - Theory,
>Oxford University Press, NY, 2005.
>
>*The key reference for the notion of the quasi object would be Michel
>Serres' The Parasite, Lawrence R. Schehr transl., University of
>Minessota Press, MN, 2007 (translated from the original french, Le
>Parasite, Grasset & Fasquelle, Paris, 1980).
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Angelos Psilopoulos,
>Lecturer at TEI Ath, Department of Interior Design,
>PhD Researcher, NTUA, School of Architecture, Greece
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Doris Kosminsky <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Tue, February 23, 2010 11:57:05 PM
>Subject: Re: Design theories
>
>Dear all,
>
>I want to thank you for all the great and generous answers. I feel
>privileged for being part of this list.
>
>Thank you for the suggested texts and books. Specially Ken, who send
>me his
>articles. Just a quickly look at them, and I found systematic ideas that
>will be very useful in my course. Although many answers were
>important to
>me, I'll just outline some of them that make me think.
>
>Buerdek remembered me of Papaneck's wide comprehension of the field. For
>better or worst, things has changed in the last decades. Changing
>from "all
>is design" to "which design area", as Terry remarked. Nowadays, we
>have to
>be more specific when talking about design. I agree with Terry point
>when he
>calls the use of theory in design field over-simplistic and
>superficial. I
>tend to think this can be the partially fault of the relativism that
>put all
>themes in the same level.
>
>Best wishes from Rio de Janeiro,
>
>Doris Kosminsky
>Professor - Escola de Belas Artes
>Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ
|