Week Ten Reflections

mickyatesCoursework, Critical Research Journal, PositionsPractice, PPWeek10, Reflections, TracesLeave a Comment

Well, back at it with a vengeance. This week has mainly been about getting the P&P Proposal started, although more detail on how to do this only appears in week 11. Feedback to the tutors, methinks, about timing and spoon feeding.

In any case, my biggest reflections this week are twofold.

First, how much I appreciate the help, advice and encouragement of the Cromarty cohort. That could become a recurring theme, though it seems especially important when we are all writing proposals and delivering end-of-block results.

Second, traces. We are in the final stages of the improvements on our new home, and I have been keeping a partial, photographic record of the work. Last weekend we headed across to see how things were going, and I had an inspiration. I decided to shot the detail of the work, rather than ‘room by room’ updates.

I have been intrigued by the idea of traces – implications of the narrative rather than a clear visualisation – which is especially useful when dealing with things that have happened. Sophie Ristelhueber’s work is particularly interesting, in creating imagery after major political or natural catastrophies.

I felts that the experiment worked. Some of the images became quite abstracted. The sequence of images created a good impression of how things stood, whilst also raising questions about who was doing what, where. I definitely think I will be pursuing this creative notion in the Cambodia project.

Ristelhueber, Sophie & Mayer, Marc & Ladd, Jeffrey. 2009. Sophie Ristelhueber: Fait (Books on Books). New York: Errata.

mickyatesWeek Ten Reflections

The Beetle in a Box – and Critical Theory

mickyatesContextualResearch, Critical Research Journal, Critical Theory, Ideas, Insight, Philosophy, PositionsPractice, PPWeek10, ReflectionsLeave a Comment

Ludwig Wittgenstein , schoolteacher, c. 1922
Permission, courtesy of the Joan Ripley Private Collection; Michael Nedo and the Wittgenstein Archive, Cambridge; and the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951) might just be the most influential philosopher of the 20th century.  At Cambridge he was under Bertrand Russell‘s tutelage, essentially being taught that the job of philosophy is to put definitions on everything. Russell eventually believed Wittgenstein to be a genius.

In the only full length book published in his lifetime (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922), Wittgenstein wanted to show a strictly logical relationship between ‘theoretical’ propositions and the real world. In effect, he believed that by describing the logic of this relationship, he had solved all philosophical problems.

Yet, later in his life, he reversed his position.

Going back in time, Socrates believed that we know what something is because it has some inherent ‘form’, which we all learn. This then gets represented in the real world. So the general ‘form’ of a ‘pencil’ (which we all agree on) allows us to define a specific item as a ‘pencil’ – because it has that ‘form’. Importantly, when we describe that ‘pencil’ to other people, they will understand what we mean.

There were many variants of this approach over the centuries.

It led to the important disciplines of mathematics, logic, language theory, semiotics and so on. Essentially all of these ideas and methodologies are built on an increasingly thoughtful, often introspective approach to the definition of things and ideas.

However, Wittgenstein turned the philosophy of language on its head.

In ‘Philosophical Investigations‘ (1953), he asked us to consider how we consider ‘pain’, a most personal experience. He writes:

‘Suppose everyone has a box that only they can see into, and no one can see into anyone else’s box: we call it a ‘beetle’. No one can look into anyone else’s box, and everyone says he [or she] knows what a beetle is only by looking at his [or her] beetle.

Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in their box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing.

But suppose the idea ‘beetle’ had a use in these people’s language? If so it would not be used as the name of a thing’.  My emphasis. (pg 100)

So, if we say that we know what ‘pain’ means, (Wittgenstein later calls this ‘object and designation’) it is actually irrelevant to any objective, definitional meaning of ‘pain’.

It is exactly as if the beetle may or may not be in the box. Introspection cannot control our use of language.

At the beginning of Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein discussed the idea of a ‘game’. We all know how to use the word in everyday conversation –  but it is really hard to pin down one, underlying definition for all ‘games’.

Think football games, chess games, political games, mind games, playing games. So, a ‘game’ is difficult to define. And Wittgenstein goes on to say that ‘conversation’ is itself a kind of game.

Thus Wittgenstein shows that language is not about rigid, private/personal definitions, but is about how we practically and publically use words in real world discourse. This is called the Private Language Argument by philosophers.

To me, this has three implications for Photography and Critical Theory.

  1. There cannot be one, right, ‘objective’ Critical Theory. Even the common definition of terms becomes elusive.
  2. Writers will use more and more words to try to explain their (personal) points and critique others – and it will all become more and more confusing to (public) readers.
  3. Instead, we must consider the real world context of an image and how it is publically discussed to be able to understand and describe it. In essence, we are not only allowed to pick and choose which critical method we want to employ, but we must. And we must do so from the viewpoint of conversation with others, not from some inner, critical self.

By the way, Wittgenstein was a keen photographer!

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations (Trans. G.E.M. Anscombe). Oxford: Blackwell.

Header image: Mick Yates, Ink on Paper, 1967.

mickyatesThe Beetle in a Box – and Critical Theory