4.28 |
Related to the lack of consideration for intra-
generational or horizontal relationships is a
presumption that the past is a parent. Medieval
mother confronts the scientific age father. The
neglect of theology leads Bordo to favour epistemic
breaks over continuities. Even a strong adherence
to a narrative of rupture does not preclude some
problems in periodization. For example, the
medieval period itself can be the point at which
separation anxiety arises. This is a feasible
scenario if, forgetting about charitable care of thy
neighbour's body, Christian mortification of the flesh
is compared to a previous pagan era's putative
celebration of the body and of nature.
|
4.38 |
4.29 |
In the familial drama approach to history, any event
can be interpreted as result or as motive. Not
all emplotment is caricature. For example, the
rise of the scientific method can be read within the
context of a reaction to the wars of religion (Toulmin). The entertaining of
counter arguments and alternative narratives is
facilitated if historical periods are not personified
as parents.
|
4.29 |
4.30 |
Despite a tendency to homogenize historical periods, Bordo is not a total zeitgeist enthusiast. An inkling of the concept of hegemony appears in her discourse when her psychocultural account grafts developments in the visual arts onto changes in the conception of space. The evidence may point to another story. Bordo claims it is only after the conventionalization of linear perspective in art and, according to Karsten Harries and others, largely as a result of its influence that the homogeneous, infinite space "implied" in the perspective painting becomes the "official" space of the culture. (Bordo 68) In the note to this section of Flight to Objectivity, the "others" represent only one other source (n5). Furthermore, in the article cited by Bordo, Harries suggests Rhenish mysticism and hermetic tradition as other possible factors (Harries 31 n. 1) and announces a forthcoming treatment of these in a study on Nicolaus Cusanus. In this later article ignored by Bordo his position is clear: It would be misleading to place too much weight on this reflection, which leads from a consideration of perspective to the infinity of the cosmos. (Harries 1975, 7) Harries unlike Bordo discusses the matter in terms of correlation rather than causation: Historically and conceptually central perspective, which was given its theoretical foundation by Brunelleschi and Alberti, and the objective space of the new science are closely related forms of description. (Harries 1975, 7)
"Closely related forms" of description
suggests a complex genealogy. Other possible
influences, such as the Kabbalah, on the development of
the idea of infinite space are traced by Max Jammer (n6) whose
complementary study seems unknown to Harries at the
time of the appearance of these articles.
|
4.30 |
4.31 |
For Harries art is only one locus, one expression, for
"the rising awareness of and interest in the
phenomenon of perspective [...] that goes hand
in hand with the emergence of the objective conception
of space which is presupposed by the new science"
(Harries 1973, 30). The wide
currency gained by speculations on the nature of
perspective is adduced by a circa 1530 Nuremburg
woodcut which indicates that the "sixteenth
century was ready for the discoveries of Tycho Brahe
and Galileo" (31). Harries
describes the figure in the illustration as
"breaking out of the shell of the cosmos" (31). Bordo no doubt was seized
by
his ekphrasis.
|
4.31 |
4.32 |
The evidence offered can alternatively be taken to
illustrate the question of Archytas who asked whether
it would be possible at the end of the world to stretch
out one's hand or not. This ancient philosopher's
challenge to the Aristotelian cosmology is preserved in
a commentary on the Physics by
Simplicius. Reservations about circulation of
early manuscripts and of thirteenth century Latin
translations notwithstanding, the commentary became,
just prior to the period in question, widely
current. In 1526, four years before the date
attributed to the Nuremburg woodcut, is published by
the Aldine press in Venice an edition of
Simplicius. Four years is enough time for story
or book to cover the distance, an engraver to work,
proofs be pulled, yet not too much time to elapse
before discounting any possible direct connection or
influence. However, the common Renaissance
practice of using the same illustration for different
texts mitigates against conclusive
interpretations.
|
4.32 |
4.33 |
Nonetheless, the printing press does play a role in the rise of ideas about infinite space as much as it does in the circulation and production of any intellectual property. It is not however a necessary cause except perhaps in a tale of detachment. And so Bordo claims: the ability to "discover reality" in the perspective painting requires visual skills the ability to adopt a detached point of view and to scan a static frame that are developed, McLuhan argues, only through experience at silent, private reading of the printed page. (Bordo 66)
One would have thought that the experience of trying to
draw would teach one about how to see. Bordo
uncritically adopts McLuhan's assumption of universal
literacy and thus disregards collective viewing
accompanied by oral commentary as a means of passing on
the visual skills necessary for the appreciation of
perspectival painting. McLuhan's eye-ear
dichotomy serves to authorize not only Bordo's spacial
categorization of cognitive activity into private
detached and participatory public but also her
privileging of participation over detachment (n7).
|
4.33 |
4.34 |
Regardless of the validity of the medium/message
collapse, participation in its various guises (n8) does not
curry full favour with all of Bordo's sources.
Enumerating several writers, she enlists their
authority to claim that "The subject/object
distinction has, at the very least,
hardened over time" (Bordo 48). One of her sources
patently says the opposite. Owen Barfield credits
modern physical science and philosophy since Kant for
recognizing participation of the human mind in the
creation or evocation of the phenomena of the familiar
world (Barfield 12).
|
4.34 |
4.35 |
She quotes from Morris Berman who describing a break in
ancient Greek epistemology summarizes Eric Havelock's
work (Bordo 48; Berman
71). She does not apply
herself to Havelock's
work directly. She does not recognize that the
ethics of instrumentality are no purer in cultures
governed by participation. Havelock writes:
"To control the collective memory of society he
[the reciter] had to establish control over the
personal memories of individual human beings" (Havelock 145). To this effect,
Havelock makes note of Marcel Jousse's description of
verbomoteurs, the inhabitants of oral
cultures, as mnemotechnicians. As evidenced by
Havelock's and Jousse's instrumental vocabulary,
technocratic motives are observer-dependent.
Equally so
are observations on contact with a maternal
realm. Approached from the pole of performance,
participatory cultures are far from bonding with the
mother. Participatory cultures have their own
technologies.
|
4.35 |