For this Discussion Board assignment, please respond to the following questions:
What in the lessons and readings did you find most intriguing?
What in them did you find most challenging?
What did you learn the most about?
.
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-allure-of-the-map
https://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/881694/cb6119367bf63e879815ce2299d09995.pdf
What is Representation?
definition: a depiction or portrayal of a person or thing, typically one produced in an artistic medium; an image, a model, a picture. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Another word for representation is mimesis.
definition: imitation; spec. the representation or imitation of the real world in (a work of) art, literature, etc.
Reality and Appearance
The first account of representation or imitation (mimesis) comes to us by way of the Ancient Greek philosopher, Plato (429?–347 BCE) in Book X of his dialogue, Republic.
The basic philosophical question is: What is…? That is, what is something, like justice, for instance. The ambition of such a question is to invite and arrive at a response that is universally and absolutely valid. The question, What is justice? is to ask What is it really? What is it for all time, in all places, for all people, not what is relative to a particular time, a particular place, or a particular person or particular persons.
In Book X of the Republic, the principal interlocutor (speaker in a dialogue), Socrates asks the question, What is imitation? In response to this question, he sets forth the example of couches and tables to illustrate the status of imitation (representation) in relation to reality, to what a couch and table really is. Given what we discussed above, and in relation to the question concerning imitation, reality is not relative to any particular couch or table; the reality of a couch or table is what applies to all couches and table. This is what is referred to as the concept or form of couches or tables. The concept “couch” applies to all couches, likewise for all things. To each particular thing, there is a corresponding concept. A thing’s concept is the reality of the thing. The thing is merely a singular copy or appearance of a thing. Here’s where imitation comes in. An artistic imitation or representation (a painting, for instance) of a couch is an appearance of an appearance; it is a copy of the actual couch, which itself is a copy of the concept. An imitation is three removes from reality, the concept.
Reality (the concept or form of a thing is made by a god)
Appearance (individual things are made by craft persons)
Appearance of an Appearance (paintings or other artistic representations are made by imitators)
The contemporary artist, Joseph Kosuth (1945- ) explores this in his work, One and Three Chairs. (click on the link and read the short article on this work)
Also exploring this is artist, René Magritte (1898-1967) in his The Treachery of Images (This Is Not a Pipe). (click on the link and read the short article on this work)
The Representational Animal
Ancient Greek philosopher and student of Plato, Aristotle (384-327 BCE) also questions the nature of imitation, but provides a different account than that given in the Republic. In the Poetics, Aristotle finds that imitation is a natural and necessary aspect of our being. This is proven by the manner in which we learn.
“It is clear that the general origin of poetry was due to two causes, each of them part of human nature. Imitation is natural to man from childhood, one of his advantages over the lower animals being this, that he is the most imitative creature in the world, and learns at first by imitation. And it is also natural for all to delight in works of imitation. The truth of this second point is shown by experience: though the objects themselves may be painful to see, we delight to view the most realistic representations of them in art, the forms for example of the lowest animals and of dead bodies. The explanation is to be found in a further fact: to be learning something is the greatest of pleasures not only to the philosopher but also to the rest of mankind, however small their capacity for it; the reason of the delight in seeing the picture is that one is at the same time learning–gathering the meaning of things, e.g. that the man there is so-and-so; for if one has not seen the thing before, one’s pleasure will not be in the picture as an imitation of it, but will be due to the execution or colouring or some similar cause. Imitation, then, being natural to us–as also the sense of harmony and rhythm, the metres being obviously species of rhythms–it was through their original aptitude, and by a series of improvements for the most part gradual on their first efforts, that they created poetry out of their improvisations.” (Poetics, section 4)
Similarly, art historian, WJT Mitchell (1942- ) proposes that human beings, by nature are representational:
“From childhood men have an instinct for representation, and in this respect man differs from the other animals that he is far more imitative and learns his first lessons by representing things. Man, for many philosophers both ancient and modern, is the “representational animal,” homo symbolicum, the creature whose distinctive character is the creation and manipulation of signs—things that “stand for” or “take the place of” something else.” WJT Mitchell, “Representation” in Critical Terms for Literary Study.
The Impossibility of Representation
What is the desire we have to represent what is otherwise real? What is the desire to re-present things in the world that are already adequately present? What is this doubling all about? Is representation even possible? These questions are put to task in a work by Umberto Eco (1932-2016) called “On The Impossibility of Drawing a Map of the Empire on a Scale of 1 to 1.” Before looking at Eco’s essay (linked below), please read: Casey Cep, “The Allure of the Map” (links to both essay’s are also provided above in the Readings and Resources section).
Please also read the following passage from Lewis Carroll’s novel Sylvie and Bruno:
“That’s another thing we’ve learned from your Nation,” said Mein Herr, “map-making. But we’ve carried it much further than you. What do you consider the largest map that would be really useful?” “About six inches to the mile.” ““Only six inches!” exclaimed Mein Herr. “We very soon got to six yards to the mile. Then we tried a hundred yards to the mile. And then came the grandest idea of all! We actually made a map of the country, on the scale of a mile to the mile!” “Have you used it much?” I enquired. “It has never been spread out, yet,” said Mein Herr: “the farmers objected: they said it would cover the whole country, and shut out the sunlight! So, we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well.”
Now, please read Umberto Eco’s “On the Impossibility of Drawing a Map of the Empire on a Scale of 1:1” before moving on in this Lesson. As already indicated, a link to this essay is provided above in the Readings and Resources section. Instead of reading the essay, you may view the video link here that contains a reading of it along with an interpretive performance: 1:1 (After Umberto) (YouTube)
This text of Eco’s is playful in nature, but nonetheless poses serious questions about representation. Of re-presenting what is present before us in a medium different than the material and place that comprises what is present. How does one draw a map? How does one project from a territory a representation in the form of a map of that territory? One of the playful things that Eco undertakes is the matter of scale, specifically a 1 to 1 scale, where one foot on a map is equivalent to one foot in a territory. We can already sense the absurdity of this, especially when we consider the unit of measure we generally use when reckoning the extent of a territory, namely, the mile. There could be no 1:1 map that that uses the mile as a unit of measure. If there could be such a map, it would effectively cover the entire territory it is designed to represent through cartographic projection. The representation and that which is represented would be the same. Representation and presence would collapse in an annihilating absurdity and meaninglessness. It is just this sort of conundrum that Eco entertains.
