In Engineering and the Mind's Eye, Eugene Ferguson argues that the current (since the 1950s) privileging of math and science over the visual and nonverbal in engineering education is both a historical aberration and a dangerous practice. Using a well-illustrated history of engineering design, Ferguson argues that not all engineering problems can be solved by mathematical analysis; without the ability to visualize machines, structures, and the environment, engineers often make poor judgement calls that lead to disastrous failures in bridges, nuclear power plants, refrigerators, and other technologies.
Ferguson's emphasis on the visual is actually linked to a larger concern with engineering's loss of that holistic, experiential real-world experience on which the field was initially based - its retreat into scientific analysis. Thus, his history of engineering emphasizes its subjective nature before the scientific turn. In the Renaissance, engineers used improved drawing techniques to visualize and thus think through Scientific Revolution discoveries like planetary motion and human anatomy, and perspective drawing techniques (devised by Renaissance mathematicians) facilitated design by making representations more realistic. In the 18th and 19th centuries, formalized drawing techniques (especially orthogonal drawing), the use of models, and the development of visual systems for engineering calculation - slide rules, indicator diagrams, nomography, and graphic statistics - kept visual thinking at the forefront of engineering design and practice. After WWII, engineering education shifted away from an open-ended art and toward deductive, exact science: shop courses were replaced with theories of thermodynamics, mechanics, heat transfer; students have little interaction with the real world; graduating engineers have a hard time designing solutions for real-world problems.
Throughout, Ferguson's underlying argument is that the subjective, connected to real-world problems through visual thinking and representation, is incredibly important to engineers' ability to design effective solutions, and that engineering's scientific turn to abstract objectivity has had disastrous effects on the safety and utility of engineering projects. While his emphasis on the visual leads Ferguson to neglect larger systems of power in some of his examples (the Challenger failure), and I suspect that what he's actually getting at is fostering creativity rather than the visual per se, his argument for subjectivity and creative, real-world thinking in engineering certainly makes sense to me.
Showing posts with label representation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label representation. Show all posts
Friday, April 12, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
121: Denis Cosgrove's Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape
From my notes from Spring 2012:
In Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, Denis Cosgrove argues that the idea of “landscape constitutes a discourse through which identifiable social groups historically have framed themselves and their relations with both the land and with other human groups, and that this discourse is closely related epistemically and technically to ways of seeing.” (xiv) In other words, both humanistic and scientific approaches to landscape construct, represent, and interpret landscapes from a single, primarily visual, ideological perspective. If this perspective is more invested in conveying the individual consumption of the landscape than in collective production of it, it also clearly articulates the construction of landscape and landscape discourse with power.
Cosgrove builds this argument through a history of the ‘landscape idea’ as it developed in Europe during the shift from feudalism to capitalism (from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution), where he subjects transitions in both physical construction of landscapes (from feudal manors and land-bound serfs to property and landless, mobile populations) and representation of landscapes (from landscape painting and maps to photography) to an analysis intended to break down the ideological emphasis on the visual and to reveal the collective social construction of landscape.
In Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, Denis Cosgrove argues that the idea of “landscape constitutes a discourse through which identifiable social groups historically have framed themselves and their relations with both the land and with other human groups, and that this discourse is closely related epistemically and technically to ways of seeing.” (xiv) In other words, both humanistic and scientific approaches to landscape construct, represent, and interpret landscapes from a single, primarily visual, ideological perspective. If this perspective is more invested in conveying the individual consumption of the landscape than in collective production of it, it also clearly articulates the construction of landscape and landscape discourse with power.
Cosgrove builds this argument through a history of the ‘landscape idea’ as it developed in Europe during the shift from feudalism to capitalism (from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution), where he subjects transitions in both physical construction of landscapes (from feudal manors and land-bound serfs to property and landless, mobile populations) and representation of landscapes (from landscape painting and maps to photography) to an analysis intended to break down the ideological emphasis on the visual and to reveal the collective social construction of landscape.
119: Yi-Fu Tuan's Space & Place
From my notes from Spring 2012:
In Space and Place, Yi-Fu Tuan develops
three themes: the relationship between space and the human body; the
relationship between place and space; and the range of human experience or
knowledge of space and place. He argues
that human experience of the world (in all its fullness) both shapes and is
shaped by space and place. Tuan develops
this humanist argument against more abstract geographical conceptions of space;
this book is generally considered to be the first “human geography” book. For Tuan, experience is both feeling and
thought. Experience consists of all the
myriad ways in which humans interact with their environment: via the body (the
five senses, along with “sensorimotor,” moving through a space, and “skin”),
via the imagination (including myths, fantasy, narration, memory), and
conceptually or rationally (a big-picture, god’s-eye view). Space is more abstract, something that you
move through and dominate; think openness, spaciousness. Places “stay put;” they acquire value when
humans pause in their movements through space and stop to experience them, to
create memories there, or to otherwise create links between themselves and a
physical location. While a single human
experience cannot possibly encompass the complexity of the real world, full
experience of space and place, is integral to the development of human
consciousness and culture and to the reintegration of body and mind
(discourse).
Labels:
body,
Cultural Geography,
experience,
human geography,
movement,
myth,
place,
place and region,
representation,
space,
subjectivity,
time,
universal
Sunday, April 7, 2013
102: Henri Lefebvre's The Production of Space
Henri
Lefebvre’s vast, multifaceted The
Production of Space could probably be said to advance any number of
arguments, but I think his most compelling argument is the one that brings
space and knowledge into a classical Marxist framework: capitalist Western
society is moving from the production of things in space to the production of
space itself, which means that capitalist powers are increasing their hold and
surveillance on ordinary people (aka space is now shaping the working
class). However, all is not lost: no
matter how much they try, the people who build and shape “dominant” space and
employ the working class can’t squeeze the working class out of existence or
keep them from “appropriating” and shaping space to suit their own needs, nor
can they make the world a completely visual, timeless, ideological
construct. Regular people have bodies,
and we live in specific places at specific historical moments, and we shape
those places (yeah, I said places, not spaces) into unique, historical “works
of art” that contrast with the partially commodified built environment
constructed by the ruling class. To say
that capitalism has moved beyond the product to space itself is to argue for
both an increasing attempt at totalizing control of society through space AND
increased resistance from the people who live in, experience, and shape that
space – with the potential for a socialist revolution where appropriated spaces
based on the human body/lived experience and use-value take precedence over
dominant, visual spaces and exchange-value.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
96: Bill Stott's Documentary Expression
In Documentary Expression and Thirties America, Bill Stott looks at 1930s America through the lens of the documentary genre. Documentary is a form of expression that purports to represent reality but in which it is difficult for viewers to separate the false from the true. Stott argues that at its base, the 1930s documentary had a left politics, a desire to look not just at the world as it is but at the world of the poor, the downtrodden, and the ordinary, with the intention not just of rendering it vivid and lifelike but also of constructing an audience response or instigating some progressive reform. The different ways people created and used documentaries in the 1930s indicate, to paraphrase Agee, that the world can be improved and yet must be celebrated.
Stott considers a wide range of documentary forms and uses, and shows how documentary conventions were both developed and subverted. Radio, examined through Edward R. Murrow, soap operas, and War of the Worlds, was the "paradigmatic medium of documentary" in the 1930s because it combined the two methods of documentary, "the direct and the vicarious, the unmediated experience and the interpretative commentary" in constant juxtaposition with one another. Photography and documentary films, as Stott shows, were also forms in which apparent reality was actually heavily mediated, particularly when they were made by the government. By contrast, Agee and Evans' Let Us Now Praise Famous Men explodes social documentary by both critiquing the world of the tenant farmers and celebrating it in all its beauty, all well being self-conscious about the role of the narrator in the creation of a work of art that reveals the most intimate details and suffering in people's lives in order to, perhaps, instigate social reform.
While Stott's analysis is somewhat limited by his choice of documentaries - he works primarily with cultural products created by people who worked for the federal government or for private corporations - and while he could do a bit more with the conditions of production, his visual and textual analysis are strong, and his discussion of documentary as a particularly valid entry into American culture in the 1930s makes sense. What better way to see what people might have thought about what their world was like?
Stott considers a wide range of documentary forms and uses, and shows how documentary conventions were both developed and subverted. Radio, examined through Edward R. Murrow, soap operas, and War of the Worlds, was the "paradigmatic medium of documentary" in the 1930s because it combined the two methods of documentary, "the direct and the vicarious, the unmediated experience and the interpretative commentary" in constant juxtaposition with one another. Photography and documentary films, as Stott shows, were also forms in which apparent reality was actually heavily mediated, particularly when they were made by the government. By contrast, Agee and Evans' Let Us Now Praise Famous Men explodes social documentary by both critiquing the world of the tenant farmers and celebrating it in all its beauty, all well being self-conscious about the role of the narrator in the creation of a work of art that reveals the most intimate details and suffering in people's lives in order to, perhaps, instigate social reform.
While Stott's analysis is somewhat limited by his choice of documentaries - he works primarily with cultural products created by people who worked for the federal government or for private corporations - and while he could do a bit more with the conditions of production, his visual and textual analysis are strong, and his discussion of documentary as a particularly valid entry into American culture in the 1930s makes sense. What better way to see what people might have thought about what their world was like?
87: Steve Hoelscher's Picturing Indians
Steve Hoelscher's Picturing Indians: Photographic Encounters and Tourist Fantasies in H.H. Bennett's Wisconsin Dells argues that Bennett's photography turned the Ho-Chunk people of the Wisconsin Dells into objects of the "camera's colonizing gaze," but that the Ho-Chunk also subverted Bennett's exploitation of them. Bennett's photographs can thus be read as negotiations of power, where visual images both represent and shape the material world.
Photographs of Native Americans exploded at the turn of the last century due to the rise of commercial photography, mass tourism, and the final conquest and colonization of Native Americans. While the most famous photographer of Native Americans was Edward Curtis, who wanted to record a vanishing way of life, H.H. Bennett had the far less noble goal of profiting by selling images of Ho-Chunk people to white tourists visiting the Wisconsin Dells. Yet while Bennett worked to stage photos that communicated white nostalgia for a vanishing way of life, his Ho-Chunk models actively worked to resist becoming tourist objects: they wore certain items, posed in certain ways, and used the money Bennett gave them for their own economic and cultural survival. And in real life, the Ho-Chunk have managed not just to survive but to retain and buy back their homelands in a very real repudiation of American cultural and political imperialism.
Throughout, Hoelscher works from a wide range of primary sources, including five years of interactions with Ho-Chunk people and close connections with Tom Jones, a contemporary Ho-Chunk photographer. He is careful to contextualize Bennett's photography in the cultural, political, and economic milieu in which it was created, and to balance Ho-Chunk and white perspectives. The result is a profoundly interconnected relationship between Native and white cultures that uses Bennett's tourist photos as a nodal point.
Photographs of Native Americans exploded at the turn of the last century due to the rise of commercial photography, mass tourism, and the final conquest and colonization of Native Americans. While the most famous photographer of Native Americans was Edward Curtis, who wanted to record a vanishing way of life, H.H. Bennett had the far less noble goal of profiting by selling images of Ho-Chunk people to white tourists visiting the Wisconsin Dells. Yet while Bennett worked to stage photos that communicated white nostalgia for a vanishing way of life, his Ho-Chunk models actively worked to resist becoming tourist objects: they wore certain items, posed in certain ways, and used the money Bennett gave them for their own economic and cultural survival. And in real life, the Ho-Chunk have managed not just to survive but to retain and buy back their homelands in a very real repudiation of American cultural and political imperialism.
Throughout, Hoelscher works from a wide range of primary sources, including five years of interactions with Ho-Chunk people and close connections with Tom Jones, a contemporary Ho-Chunk photographer. He is careful to contextualize Bennett's photography in the cultural, political, and economic milieu in which it was created, and to balance Ho-Chunk and white perspectives. The result is a profoundly interconnected relationship between Native and white cultures that uses Bennett's tourist photos as a nodal point.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)





