Below are my summaries of the preparatory readings, based on Dr. Bowdidge and Dr. Geremia's theses, for Saturday's session of the weekend intensive. My understanding will become fuller during the session, and I will update these notes accordingly. 24/04/2022
My brief summary of Dr. Bowdidge thesis' discussion on Wittsgenstein is as follows:
The rules of grammar create certain expectations when we are communicating (my example for this is how native speakers of a language can always fill in the words they missed in a conversation to grasp the meaning perfectly, whereas non-speakers have a much harder time filling in the gaps of sentences they did not hear in entirety.) So, according to this discussion, Wittsgenstein proposes that disruption of normal grammatical patterns can lead one to pay much closer attention to what is being said and therefore observe more. The analogy seems to be that the same process can be applied to art making. In other words, a viewer or artist may be expecting an artwork to be developed along certain lines in harmony with what is normally considered aesthetically pleasing, or at least in line with conventional wisdom of how such art works should be developed. The argument seems to be saying that by disrupting the norms and conventions of what are expected in the "language" of art, the viewer is then forced to look more closely and engage more fully with the art work. Further, the thesis also seems to imply that art can be worked/disrupted in the same way grammar is used in poetry to produce a "sensation" and emphasize a work's inherent artfulness.
At least that is my understanding of the discussion.
I based my summary on extracts such as the following:
"The best way to proceed is to use an active, descriptive grammatical framework (after
Wittgenstein and Halliday) and its disruption as a lens through which to view
specific artworks, and gain insight into the ways in which they function. Doing
so provides way of understanding assemblages which uses an accessible
‘ordinary language’ terminology." Page 77
"It strikes me that the object and its displacement are both essential to the ‘bringing-to-visibility’ that art entails." Page 76
"The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are
perceived and not as they are known. The technique of art is to
make objects 'unfamiliar,' to make forms difficult, to increase the
difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception
is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of
experiencing the artfulness of an object: the object is not important
(1965, p.18)." Page 76
"A grammar is a theory of human existence... or rather it includes a
theory of human existence, because it is also something else besides.
Like any other theory, grammar is something to think with. It is through
grammar that we make sense out of our experience, both in the world
that we live in and the world that lives in us (2002, p.370)" Page 75
Please see summary of Dr. Geremia below.
In her thesis, Dr. Geremia's application of Wittgenstein's theory of grammar seems to focus on, in layman's terms, the connotative and denotative meanings of words and their encoding, whereas Dr. Bowdidge focused on how the theory's discussion of parsing grammar can be applied to art making. Dr. Geremia seems to be saying that jewellery objects such as brooches, which typically carry an aristocratic connotation with them, have acquired coded language and meanings that, if disrupted, might provide an avenue for greater inventiveness and new possibilities in the art and craft of jewellery making. I am inferring that the usual understanding and interpretation of the language used in the world of high-fashion jewellery are meant to safeguard certain (normative) structures and perceptions, to maintain the status quo based on class. The suggestion seems to be that if an effort is made to introduce different meanings to the language used, thereby disrupting what is considered the norm, it might be possible to breathe innovation into the traditional world and methods of jewellery design. I am basing that assumption on these paragraphs in her thesis, among others:
"By playing a game with language, patterns, resemblances, liminalities, limitations,
and ambiguities of meaning can be noticed and capitalised upon to invent
multitudes of meanings. The way that this is used throughout the thesis and my
practice is in relation to the consideration of de-familiarizing a concept by changing
the grammatical expectation of the thing. This pertains to both the language that is
active in relation to my practice as well as the normative structure that I indicate
throughout as scaffolding for the discussion." Page 16
She also seems confident that her position is a solid one, judging from the following statement:
"I look to disrupt the notion of ‘this is how things are’ within the
jewellery field in order to reveal that the nature of the thing is not
necessarily concurrent with conventional language." Page 23