Re: From abstract to concrete visual representations

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas Lémery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of Lémery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle Émilie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Châtelet (aka Marquise
du Châtelet, and Émilie du Châtelet). Châtelet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
[email protected]

___________________________________________________________________

Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers: 
 [email protected]

To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
 http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe

For all Information Design matters:
 http://InformationDesign.org

Problems? Write to:
 [email protected]
___________________________________________________________________