Here is one simple question bothers me: Why not just use “interpreting” instead of “understanding”? I have to say when I read these two chapters, I could not stop thinking, “This is an interpretation”, and “This is an interpretation again”. The word “Interpret” makes more sense for me. I feel most “understanding” of arts (especially visual arts) is essentially interpretation.
Also about our discussion in class, here are some follow-up ideas from information science perspective: Data is different from information, meaning, knowledge, wisdom, etc. Data are facts, but information may or may not be. Most natural sciences deal with data/fact. Culture provides information but is not merely data.
Concerning the methodology, it is highly complicated to establish a perfect experimental and falsiable environment to test human behaviors and group dynamics, since it is both difficult to simulate social systems as complex systems characterized by various and long-range interactions, and to collect unbiased and representative data as from “repeatable” experiments on (non-complex) physical systems.
For example, in social science experiments, subjects usually are fully aware of being observed, which might strongly influence their behavior, and most of such experiments are not “repeatable”: Society and human beings are always in a dynamic and changeable process. In addition, interviews and questionnaires can only handle sample sizes of only several dozens, and need require a lot of time and resources to deliver statistically meaningful assertions. If we consider one way to define a discipline is subject and methodology, then we know why culture/social studies cannot be approached by the same way as natural sciences.
I agree with Jeff’s comments that there is a preference to “data” in academia (also in business). My background is philosophy but now I’m in information “science”. I think we are social scientists but we do try to do research like natural scientists (e.g. I deal with “big data”, experiments, network analysis, statistics, etc.). I have to say sometimes it is very confusing. Culture is also one of my focuses in my research, but I’m thinking: Can culture be analyzed quantitatively and statistically?
To the question why there is no single way to define understanding of visual culture, one answer may be: It is non-textual representation interpreted by textual representation. The activity of representation serves to capture or “re-present” an object, activity or attribute in the target domain through the medium of the modeling domain. Language is the most normal way to “represent” the target domain (meaning, ideas, concepts, etc.). Although there are a lot of discussions such as Wittgenstein’s language game, conduit metaphor and toolmaker’s paradigms of language, etc., it is still easier for language and textual material to be understood than visual culture which is non-textual representation, because people are tend to use “language/text” to understand (interpret) them, as what the author did in the book, what we did in the class and what we are doing here now.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 11, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Katie O'Donnell
I think there are disciplines that try to study and understand culture through quantitative methods. For example, a lot of the course work I’ve taken over the last few years has been in sociology. Although qualitative methods are used, there is a heavy emphasis on larger data sets and quantitative analysis. The data sets can be large surveys or political cartoons that are coded for certain themes.
Of course, there are limitations to any epistemological approach. Large sociological, quantitative studies might do a better job of saying “Hey! Here is this pattern we’ve seen about how women are portrayed in the media over time. Look at these changes” Where as a more critical approach, or even qualitative approach, can answer questions more focused on “Why” based inquiries.
As for interpreting vs understanding…I’m not sure. However, even in experimental science, the individuals who are designing the study and analyzing results influence the outcome. Every single decision in the research design was a judgement call made by an individual. And those judgements are influenced by their own experiences even if the study is rooted in a scientific traditions.
January 11, 2013 at 11:34 pm
jeffreybardzell
I don’t recall Barnard ever stating exactly why he prefers “understanding” over “interpretation.”
However, I can guess. There are forms of “understanding” that do not include “interpretation.” Interpretation usually refers to an understanding focused around semantic meaning, such as an interpretation of Hamlet’s behavior towards Ophelia. However, there are times we understand something, but not because it is meaningful. For example, if we see a pleasing checkerboard pattern on a quilt, the pattern is not semantic in the sense that it denotes or connotes something; it is just visually pleasing and we understand that that, and not some “message,” is why it is there (this, by the way, is an example from Noel Carroll’s On Criticism).
So again, my guess is that Barnard uses the term “understanding” rather than “interpretation” because the former is a broader and more inclusive category than the latter.
January 12, 2013 at 1:59 am
guozhang
Meaning and semantic make sense. Before this, the word “understanding” reminded me of reason, rational, intelligence, enlightenment, etc., some Kant, Plato stuff about range of human understanding. That’s why I was wondering. Hm, need to start reading Carroll.