categories
archives
rss

On not reflecting, but sensing

Potentially, ours is “…a world of no-boundaries in which information emerges not from fixed positions but anywhere and everywhere. It is the world of music, myth, total immersion.” For media theorist, Marshall McLuhan, this is what he calls ‘acoustic space’ – a term he uses to talk about the world before the printed word. The era of print, he argues, has been dominated by the visual - an eye-culture - but the electronic and then digital world that has superseded print can, once again, be a culture of the ear.

From voice recognition to SensAble’s haptic interfaces, virtual technology looks increasingly to activate all the human senses. Back in the analogue, urban world, and practitioners like David Byrne draw attention to our perceptual limitations of the environment around us – often this is done by allowing the audience to experience it anew, through unexpected senses. So, in a recent installation at Färgfabriken in Stockholm, he asked visitors to sit at a keyboard, rigged up to the walls, the pipes and so on – so they literally ‘play’ the building. And then there is the sensory overload of recent work by Paul McCarthy’s - his work includes, amongst other things, orgies of onanism and violence decorated with lashings of tomato and chocolate sauce – providing a nutritious palette for mind and eye alike.

It is increasingly apparent that the realm of the senses has emerged as a central concern of contemporary creative practice. Thus, to vision and sound, we add touch, taste and smell. This is to centre the way we think about experience in the body, which opens up what the philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty calls a ‘human space’ …the world of emotions, dreams, myth, and madness - as well as the world of reflection.

Now, to look for a ‘human space’ is not antithetical to a world where the ‘total immersion’ is digital – it’s complementary. Moreover, it provides a necessary realignment of perception and engagement with the physical world. For now, at the butt-end of the modernist experiment, the individual is trumpeted supreme - but as a figure often characterised as having been disembodied by alienating consumption and virtual connectivity. All of which have contributed to, at best, the obsession with the visual and, at worst, a loss of the real. Creating a focus upon and preoccupation with the image of the self – following a spiral from Warhol through reality/celebrity TV to the branding of cult graffiti artist Banksy’s mystery persona; “in the future everybody will be anonymous for 15 minutes”.

In Michael Forrester’s book Psychology of the Image (Routledge 2000), he tells us we are in the middle of a reinvigorated perceptual experience - which is more than just ‘watching it’. He argues vision renders the world and us passive, static and depersonalised: whereas for him, the world of sound perception is fundamentally dynamic in nature. The difference, perhaps, between looking through someone’s photo album and their record collection. The former documents a(nother) life whilst the latter provides an avenue of shared experience.

A renewed interested in the sensual then, in activating the emotions, re-connects us to the world. But in a different way. It gives us music and myth. It gives us poetics.

Monika and Colin

 

7 comments

“As it stands, Graphic Design is the social and cultural placebo for Boredom.”

- this is fantstic - what a provocative, evocative comment! - it’s also apt that the term ‘graphic’ design evokes both looking and explicitness at once. I’m not one for simply changing labels, but sometimes if we think hard about the labels we use, we can start to see the inherent bias they hide. The move towards ‘visual’ communication as a field of enquiry seems to promise little more - it certainly can’t convey the sense that communication is a full bodily experience or that it is a ‘live’ experience. This opens up so much potential for a new sensibility in the way we approach design - much of which, ironically, it’s hard to quanitfy, here, in words of course because, like images, words can only conjure up an image of the experience being evoked and it is always already in the past - they can’t make you ‘live’ it.

/Lila B 14/01/2006

 

- in response to F Clix - you’re touching on ideas discussed in the first ever blog on Limited Language, i seem to remember. In that, David Crowley said this on Boredom - “So in a world of visual noise, where might we find a quiet invitation to look and to think? Might it be possible for graphic design to operate as a system to slow down perception to create silences in the noisy media world? Or perhaps even stillness - this is simply just another tool, another technique. What is the alternative to the heady stimulation of communication? What happens, asked Kracauer, if we allow ourselves to become truly and deeply bored: ‘if one has the patience, the sort of patience specific to legitimate boredom, then one experiences a kind of bliss that its almost unearthly … in ecstasy you name what you have always lacked.’”

The other thing that occurs to me is that a binary like entertainment (surface/vacuous/trivial) vs. ‘thought and meaning’ (deep/meaningful) - is too simplistic. The whole point, ofr me, about ’sensing’ is that perception isn’t redicible to ‘thought’ (about the mind). Pleasure (located more fully in the whole body) may not involve thought/meaning - it may be a deliberate bodily adbication from that - but it is far from vacuous or trivial.

I wonder if the difference between entertainment and pleasure is that the first is something that comes to you - arrives through your tv screen etc. and you can be passive as it demands no action and hence, in the end, will always have the capacity to be boring. Pleasure is someting you ‘make’ and so you are active - it can never be boring/vacuous - not if you put yourself into it - ‘live’ it.

/Leslie Beecham-Ray, Newcastle 14/01/2006

 

“like images, words can only conjure up an image of the experience being evoked”.
are you implying that words only bring to mind (the reader’s) an image, not a sensation?

/adriana 24/01/2006

 

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough - it’s not that words can’t conjure up sensations/smells - maybe they can to some. But sensory perception is not reducible to language. What I was thinking is nicely explained in ‘the Empire of the Senses’ edited by David Howes, who suggests in the introduction that although language can be creative, critical and sensitive it organises and interprets…and gives us therefore ‘a certain sense of alienation from lived experience’. Steven Connor is quopted as talking more emphatically of the ‘emptiness, abstraction and rigor mortis of language’.

/Lila B 24/01/2006

 

As alway, advertising, usurps the moment - the new 5D branding experience - fully sensorial - is looked at in the current issue of Viewpoint 18 (the trends, brands, futures and ideas magazine) ‘Burlesque’ issue: on sense branding in an age of excess.

Here, this engagement with all the senses is ‘baroque’ - and this alludes to the decadent - an orgy of sensations - with an emphasis on the literal sense of the word orgy. It makes you think, in contrast, of how sanitised - even ‘wipe-clean’ - purely visual stimulation (simulation) - of sex (porn) - is.

/Anonymous 24/01/2006

 

I think, generally, any experience is only possible if the person encountering it is looking for it, is open towards it and/or lets himself being taken over by it. If you’re not receptive to it anything can go unnoticed/unappreciated. So in that sense it doesn’t really matter what causes an experience, or what senses are appealed. There is no way of disconnecting senses anyway, and this is perhaps the beauty of human perception, that perception may primarily be taken in by say, the eyes, but the reaction will spread over the entire phyiscal landscape.
So perhaps if somebody is open towards an experience even language or imagery can possess the power to create real sensations; perhaps an example is the film work of david lynch, in which he conjures up uncanny scenarios that evoke not only mental but, and this is the joy of them, memories or instincts that are buried in our bodies. exiting the cinema we are left in a strange state that is neither quite real nor unreal. isn’t that what we enjoy about sensual experience? to allow it to unfold in us?

/adriana 25/01/2006

 

The senses, contrary to what Adriana mentioned above, can actually provoke “assaults”. I mean, if passing by a smelly place I cannot avoid its presence, I cannot control my olfactory apparatus (apart from using my fingers to close my nostrils— which is not a voluntary olfactory device ). Being able to recognise its presence does not mean I was “looking” for it. The interesting thing about the “lower senses” is exactly that they assault us indiscriminately. They do not perform selection. Selection of smells (good, foul, etc.) is rational, therefore not determined by my nose. The experience of them have informed my behaviour but still haven’t allow me to be able to ignore them. Our noses (unless one suffers from anosmia) picks any and every chemical molecule one encounters, in all kinds of urban or rural or organic landscapes. This is one of the reasons why these senses have been disregarded as inadequate systems of perception. Philosophy could not accept a foundation of knowledge based on olfactory data since this data is not rationally sustainable. However, what seemed like a defect is actually what makes these senses to still posses such a powerful connection to/with the world.

We all know that smell evokes memories, but are you saying that a word such as: “flower” or a picture of a flower can conjecture the same emotions as when one experience “flower” through the intake of chemicals? If so why don’t we wear the word perfume on our clothing, rather than spraying you with it? What about the visually impaired, could we affirm it is the same experience?

/Joao C. 26/01/2006

 

write a comment

we encourage people to recycle your comments in their own research as we may collage them into our own writing with the aim to publish the resulting articles (any post eventually used will be credited). We encourage comments to be 200 words or more.

line and paragraph breaks automatic. e-mail address will never be displayed. html allowed: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>