Can inanimate objects carry expressive meaning?

[coberst]

Can inanimate objects carry expressive meaning?

“Expression resides in perceptual qualities of the stimulus pattern”—Rudolf Arnheim

In achieving great quantifying skills we have seriously damaged our ability to focus upon the qualities of our surroundings and the effects of those qualities upon our worldview. With a little thought we can readily recognize that “we do not do justice to what we see by describing it only with measurements of size, shape, wavelength, or speed. The dynamic qualities of shapes and events have proved to be an inseparable aspect of all visual experience.”

When we consciously open our eyes to the dynamic qualities conveyed by any object we will inevitably see these objects as carrying expressive meaning. “All perceptual qualities have generality. We see redness, smallness, remoteness, swiftness, embodied in individual examples, but conveying a kind of experience, rather than a uniquely particular one…The dynamic differences between Romanesque and Gothic architecture translate themselves automatically into states of mind characterizing the corresponding cultural periods.”

Arnheim defines “expression as modes of organic or inorganic behavior displayed in the dynamic appearance of perceptual objects or events.

In a narrow sense expression is said to exist only in confluence with mind wherein facial muscles give rise to structures that relate to what is going on in mind. In this narrow view non animate materials have expression only in a figurative sense.

Theodore Lipps’ “theory of empathy” was developed to explain how we find expression emanating from our vision of inanimate objects. When I see the columns of a temple I feel the physical forces sustained by that column because of my past experience. I project my stress feeling onto the columns. I have the capacity to project such things as “my pride, my courage, my stubbornness, my lightness, my playful assuredness, my tranquil compliance. Only thus my empathy with regard to nature becomes truly aesthetic empathy…expression resides in perceptual qualities of the stimulus pattern

“One aspect of the wisdom that belongs to a genuine culture is the constant awareness of the symbolic meaning expressed in a concrete happening, the sensing of the universal in the particular…There are people who cannot swallow because there is something in their lives they “cannot swallow” or whom an unconscious sense of guilt compels to spend hours every day on washing and cleaning.”

All perceptual, as well as expression, qualities have generality. This is why it is correct to say such things as Picasso’s picture can symbolizes gentleness or that Michelangelo’s Creation of Man, on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, is generally understood to be a symbol of Genesis.

Quotes from Art and Visual Perception: Psychology of the Creative Eye by Rudolf Arnheim

[alexar]

- not to avoid addressing your points, but by the time we get to the end of this poem by Yeats, the 'thin white bone of a hare' is carrying more expressive meaning than I can put words to.


Would I could cast a sail on the water
Where many a king has gone
And many a king’s daughter,
And alight at the comely trees and the lawn,
The playing upon pipes and the dancing,
And learn that the best thing is
To change my loves while dancing
And pay but a kiss for a kiss.

I would find by the edge of that water
The collar-bone of a hare
Worn thin by the lapping of water,
And pierce it through with a gimlet and stare
At the old bitter world where they marry in churches,
And laugh over the untroubled water
At all who marry in churches,
Through the white thin bone of a hare.

[coberst]

alexar

Beautiful poem!

[alexar]

:) I've always loved it. Life sounds good over that untroubled water. If I found that collar-bone I'd string it around my neck for ever.

[billl]

the way i see it, the collar-bone is on the shore over where they don't get married, right? maybe worn-down from too much "care-free" activity? and he's looking through the lens of "consumption," scorning deeper commitments. the church can be a juicy target, of course, but it's not the only imaginable opposite for a pampered royalty of one-night stands. ;)

his language is great, of course, but it wasn't as beautiful for me, image-wise. but i'm a vegetarian, so... :)

[NikolaiI]

Starry Night? :D

[coberst]

:) I've always loved it. Life sounds good over that untroubled water. If I found that collar-bone I'd string it around my neck for ever.

I agree. Your example allows us to recognize that a massive number of individual experiences come togther in our creation of meaning, which is triggered from what is a simple day to-day situation.

I think that we do not often enough consciously dwell upon our creative powers that happen unconsciously. If we were to recognize this fact we might create better habits thereby creating a better set of experiences to bring forward in all aspects of our life.

[hungryzombie]

To me it seems that Yeats is going into what it means to look back from the dreamworld which has become reality. Gazing through the rabbit hole into the world you've left behind. It is this object that holds the power to see the old world. It existed there in the past and now in the future; a connection between the two. But time has changed this object, and with it our view.

As we pass through time, tumbling down the rabbit hole, our perception of the world changes as we gain experiences throughout life. And now this monument no longer holds ideas of the future, but of the past. The waters of change are slowly working the idea/object into another form.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Thank you for asking a question that is a bit less enigmatic than the “Did God create God” question on another thread, though no less intriguing. Forgive me for not continuing the Yeats line of thought, but I wanted to return to your original question and take it at face value. The answer is quite simple; yes- many forms of inanimate objects are unquestionably expressive.

An inanimate painting, such as da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Johannes Vermeer’s Girl with the Pearl Earring, Hans Holbein’s Body of Christ in the Tomb (referenced in The Idiot).

An inanimate building, such as the Pyramids of Giza, the Parthenon, Hugo’s’ Notre Dame, Wright’s Falling Water or Corbusier’s Notre Dame du Haut, Ronchamp.

An inanimate sheet of music composed by the hand of Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner. Perhaps the Stradivarius upon which that music is played.

An inanimate rock transformed into Tsé Bit'a'í (“rock with wings” ) that delivered the Navajo’s ancestors to their present lands. A chunk of marble that became David or the Pieta at the hands of Michelangelo.

But of all the inanimate objects either created by human hands or by nature, the most expressive inanimate object is the book you hold in your hands or the less desirable monitor that stands before expressing itself through pixilated words.

[coberst]

Gilliatt

Excellent examples. I suspect that not many of us are as conscious of these matters as you appear to be. I suspect that we all need to "see" such things better. We have become burdened with our desire to measure things rather than to empathesize with them.

[NikolaiI]

Did I spell Starry Night wrong?

[Tsuyoiko]

Did I spell Starry Night wrong?

Starry night is a good example. I would add rainbow, sunset, mountains, seashore and the cuddly toys I had as a kid.

[NikolaiI]

Starry night is a good example. I would add rainbow, sunset, mountains, seashore and the cuddly toys I had as a kid.

I meant the painting, but you make valid points.

[mono]

George Berkeley wrote enough essays to convince me of the inevitable subjectivity in perception, whether of people, things, or even a mirror. Undoubtedly everyone recalls the last time they heard that song that reminds them of their teenage years, they think of their family when observing an object passed down by the generations, they feel reminded of a special someone in the past every New Year's Eve, the taste of certain foods will remind them of so-and-so's cooking, etc. The objects themselves do not carry expressive meaning, otherwise an object would have the precise same effect on at least more than one person, but the junction between the object and one's perception creates expression, remembrance, emotions, and could even even provoke behavior. There exists a stimulus (the object) and a stimulated (one or more of the five senses); as judgmental and ever-interpreting as humans seem, both qualities must intervene somewhere to create some sort of subjective meaning of a stimulus to identify with it, distinguish it, and remember it.
Ivan Pavlov conducted famous experiments to create his theory on classical conditioning, differentiated between unconditioned stimulus and conditioned stimulus. His subjects, dogs, would salivate in the presence of food, much as humans do when smelling good food; this should come as no surprise, and Pavlov called this unconditioned stimulus - an appropriate stimulus brought out a predictable effect, based upon the judgment and interpretation of the stimulated, dogs. Every time he fed the dogs, Pavlov began using a metronome, and, with time, when the dogs would hear the auditory sound of a metronome, they would begin to salivate, even before food came into their presence - he called this conditioned stimulus, hence a sound, unrelated to the object it announced (food) that carried an expressive meaning according to the stimulated, dogs, also proving the inevitable subjectivity of perception (Berkeley), as simple as "cause and effect," since not every dog nor living thing salivates at the sound of a metronome.

[billl]

Well-summarized, mono. I've recently been thinking a lot about how conditioned responses can be formed and then used (or, perhaps, unintentionally applied) to manipulate others. I don't mean that I plan to do that, of course! I just think that everyone needs to be made aware of that sort of thing, as much as possible. Coberst has been doing some posts about CT (Critical Thinking) recently, and I think it can tie into that. It is also an important factor in a McLuhan-esque analysis of technology's affect on people, I think.

[mono]

Well-summarized, mono. I've recently been thinking a lot about how conditioned responses can be formed and then used (or, perhaps, unintentionally applied) to manipulate others. I don't mean that I plan to do that, of course! I just think that everyone needs to be made aware of that sort of thing, as much as possible. Coberst has been doing some posts about CT (Critical Thinking) recently, and I think it can tie into that.
Thanks, billl. I certainly think many classically conditioned responses exist without our knowing, and we practically accept them as "second-nature" or "just the way things are." Schoolbells, for example, ring when a class gets into or finishes its sessions, and we have all, for sure, encountered that unprioritizing student who, upon hearing the bell ring, sprints to the direction of his/her classroom; the bell and the class beginning its session have no direct relation, but, according to tradition, the bell just happens to ring at the precise time a class begins or ends, and that student has grown classically conditioned to know that, since an instructor's voice, announcing that a class has begun, cannot stretch across the average-sized school campus to practice unconditioned stimuli (an actual announcement that a class has begun).
Indeed, I agree, billl, people ought to remain aware of these things, no matter how common or for-granted they seem. If one has any control over his/her senses, then we should not allow inanimate objects or perceptions entirely direct them.

[haraf_ish]

Everything around us is text. ..we can read and interpret everything around us. However, the meaning is not innate in those inanimate objects. We are the ones who give meaning to them. And that meaning is a correlation of our experiences, thoughts, and emotions.