Frameworks, Artworks, Place Consciousness 11 Liter& ture the Arts General Editor: Daniel Meyer-Dinkgräfe Editorial Board: Anna Bonshek, Per Brask, John Danvers, William S. Haney II, Amy Ione, Michael Mangan, Arthur Versluis, Christopher Webster, Ralph Yarrow Frameworks, Artworks, Place The Space of Perception in the Modern World ediTed by TiM MehigAn Amsterdam - New York, NY 2008 Cover image: James McArdle: Gush (2007). Chromogenic print. Cover Design: Aart Jan Bergshoeff The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 978-90-420-2362-8 ISSN: 1573-2193 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2008 Printed in the Netherlands TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION The Space of Perception Tim Mehigan (University of Otago)..........................................7 PERCEPTION, PERSPECTIVE, REPRESENTATION The Painting of Philosophy: Space, Perspectivalism, Representability and Consciousness Peter Leech (Otago).................................................................27 The Anomalous Space of Pictures: Toward a Critique of Stereographic Virtual Reality Rose Woodcock (Deakin University)......................................43 Shifting Ground in some Australian Photography James McArdle (La Trobe University)....................................67 Schoenberg’s Hat: Objects in Musical Space Barry Empson (Otago).............................................................83 Seeing into Space: the Unconscious and Schematisation Louise Fairfax (University of Melbourne)...............................97 REPRESENTATION, CONSCIOUSNESS, IMAGINATION Bodies and Stairs: Modernist Theatrical Space and Consciousness Paul Monaghan (Melbourne).................................................117 Bridge, Mirror, Labyrinth: Shaping the Intervals of Calvino’s Invisible Cities Kim Roberts (Deakin)............................................................137 Cartographers of Consciousness: Imagined Library Spaces in the Work of Haruki Murakami, Umberto Eco and Elias Canetti Ewen Jarvis (Deakin).............................................................159 Experiencing Kiefer’s “Scorched Earth” Landscapes: Acts of Re-Enactment, Acquaintance or Empathy? R.A. Goodrich (Deakin).........................................................173 CONSTRUCTIONS OF SELF IN SPACE Fractured Urban Memories Dirk de Bruyn (Deakin).........................................................191 Curating Curiosity: Wonder’s Colonial Phenomenology Khadija Z. Carroll (Harvard University)................................203 A Synthetic Theory of Self, Derived from Migration Uli Krahn (University of Sydney)..........................................227 Eternal Recurrence: Art, Pain and Consciousness Ann McCulloch (Deakin)......................................................247 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS....................................................259 The Space of Perception Tim Mehigan The question of space has received attention in recent approaches to consciousness. This has partly arisen as alternatives have been sought to traditional cognitive science, whose material focus on the mind’s processes appears to account for only a small part of what we understand consciousness to be. It is also due to the rise of phen- omenological and psychological approaches to the mind, which as- cribe importance to the data flowing from the subjective standpoint and thus make the way consciousness is shaped by what might be called the ‘aura’ of perception1 a key moment of investigation. These approaches have their source in the ‘Copernican turn’ towards the subject inaugurated by Kant’s philosophy in the late eighteenth century, although little significance was initially found in this emerging idealistic focus on the mind beyond certain stirrings in German art and philosophy, and its potential utility remained largely unnoticed outside Germany for more than a century. It was not until the neo-Kantian revival in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that the subjective dimension of consciousness commanded attention once more and to some extent entered the European mainstream. Edmund Husserl, one of the most prominent thinkers in this revived tradition, made the link with Kantian notions of the mind and the break with empirical psychology quite explicit in his new phenomenology (Husserl I 1913: 214). The question of space in approaches to consciousness has pro- gressively moved to the fore since the pronouncements of early phe- nomenology. Heidegger, a student of Husserl, attached importance to the perspectivalism of perception, where the world is not just observed in pictures made by the mind, but the pictures of the mind, from a 1 Following Benjamin, who spoke of the ‘aura’ of the artwork (Benjamin 1983). 8 Tim Mehigan certain point of view, in fact make up the world. Key statements in Wittgenstein’s early philosophy affirmed this interest in the pictorial aspects of perception and the role of mental space in enlivening them. The interest in perspectivally generated consciousness, which was obliged to assume a dynamic subject in whom acts of consciousness issued, was paralleled during the same period by new developments in science. The insight of experimental science that scientific attention is by no means neutral in its access to the external world, but delivers data specific to the type of examination undertaken,2 notably at the quantum level of atomic physics, has penetrated ever more deeply into the natural sciences. As the understanding of what constitutes scientific objectivity was updated in an age of quantum mechanics, so the question of subjectivity has bulked ever larger for all parts of the scientific enterprise. The once sharply drawn distinction between the sciences and the arts has also been open to reassessment. It is now possible to estimate more clearly the reciprocal exchanges that flow between the ‘two cultures’ (C.P. Snow), and to see – as the essays in this volume do – a ‘preobjective’ patterning in the insights delivered by science. The contributions to this volume, which betray perhaps familiar connections with the Aby Warburg-Erwin Panofsky tradition of art history as well as to phenomenology, for this reason also follow more innovative directions in fields as diverse as cognitive neuro- biology (Maturana, Ramachandran) and linguistic philosophy (Lakoff / Johnson), where the question of situated, embodied consciousness has been given new importance. A significant leap forward in our understanding of the nature of perception occurred somewhere between the sixteenth and the eight- eenth centuries. A distinction was introduced – let us say it began with Descartes – between the process of ordering experience through the activity of the mind, on the one hand, and the existence of one’s physical body in ‘outside’ space, on the other. The ordering activity of the mind, where ‘units’ of perception were created from what could be taken in of the world through consciousness, separated the mind’s processes from what could be assumed about the make-up of the world outside the boundaries of the self. That the mind required an idea of space to enable its processes to function in consciousness, and 2 As noted, for example, by Max Planck in 1933: ‘Every measurement first acquires its meaning for physical science through the significance which a theory gives it’ (Planck 1933: 92). The Space of Perception 9 that this idea of space is apparently different from the space of the world ‘out there’, did not properly emerge until Immanuel Kant separated ‘transcendental’ awareness from the ‘thing in itself’. Kant was only in a position to draw this distinction between outside space and the mental space of consciousness because of Hume’s work on empirical causality immediately before, which had identified a discrepancy between the impressions human beings received of the physical world and the constitution of that world. This moment of separation of mind from the space of the outside world was of enormous utility for the emergence of the new sciences. For the first time, human awareness was able to probe the physical environment in which human life was cast, at least notionally free from the encumbrance of superstition and mind-created fancies. Francis Bacon, writing shortly before Descartes, spoke of the ad- vantages that would accrue to human beings if they were able to release themselves from certain ‘idols’ – certain prejudices affecting understanding – that stood in the way of direct perception of the physical world. Galileo Galilei, training his telescope on the heavens in order to test Copernicus’s hypothesis about the heliocentric nature of the then known universe – Copernicus had reached his conclusions on the basis of unaided observation and mathematical calculation alone – offered a vivid example of this new science in action: its insights, derived from the technical means of human invention, appeared self-evident to the human eye, its truth therefore irrefutable. To be sure, the new science had not yet unfolded its methodology in more than rudimentary ways. Descartes sprang into the breach with his Discourse on Method of 1637, setting out a series of simple steps by which scientific truth could assert itself. The method he advanced, which was closely aligned with Bacon’s treatise on scientific pro- cedure in the Novum organum (1620), involved a type of eliminative induction that, as Fred Wilson has shown, confirmed the innate preferences of the medieval mind, that is, it confirmed the drift towards Aristotelian logic and the drift away from Platonic models of understanding, even as it progressed beyond both in a certain sense. Thus was inaugurated the now familiar feel of modern science: it is Aristotelian in its outward focus on physical ‘extension’ and in its incrementally gathered inductive truths, while human awareness still roams Platonic terrain in its speculations about the spiritual condition of human beings that appears inseparable from the circumstances of
Description: