These are some photos I took while volunteering on a coffee finca outside of Matagalpa, Nicaragua back in 1987. I could only find six for the moment but I’ll add more of them when I get back in BC this fall.

Visit this or search for other posts using the interactive map above…

These words describe the experience of arriving in San Cristobal de Las Casas, in Chiapas, Mexico. It is an attempt to express aspects of research in a phenomenological, rather than empirical, way.

Visit this or search for other posts through the interactive map above…

It is generally accepted that language is the traditional domain of communication, whether that be through the use of words or signs. “By means of language we can conceive the intangible, incorporeal things we call our ideas, and the equally inostensible elements of our perceptual world we call fact.” (Langer 21) Communication through a combination of “audible or visible words”, and in such a form that is understood by others, is what Susan Langer describes as discourse. To this pattern of discursive form, I would add the area of Semiosis, and by doing so; acknowledge other image-based signs as elements of language and discourse.

Language as it is described here is clearly indispensable to communication generally. Within social movements, it enables an audience to better understand another’s feeling and personal position regarding a given subject. The poster with the raised fist describes symbolically the emotion of anger or empowerment, the image of the hungry child can convey an idea of sadness or desolation, and the words in a magazine article can explain the emotional state of the author or his subject. While these examples contribute to a greater understanding and sympathy in an audience, they do not create empathy. By this I mean they can feel for the individual but they can’t know what it is that the individual feels.

Language is generally limited in its ability to generate that kind of empathy, but where it does occasionally succeed we call it Art. Leo Tolstoy wrote, “Whereas by words a man transmits his thoughts to another, by art he transmits his feelings.” To better understand what is meant by a work of art we can turn to Susan Langer who said it’s “an expressive form created for our perception through sense or imagination, and what it expresses is human feeling”. Tolstoy took this idea further by suggesting that for something to be truly considered Art an audience must be “infected by these feelings and also experience them.” (63) The existing distinction is that while language is descriptive in nature, Art is expressive. Language and Art are both forms of communication but their nature and impact are different.

If we accept this distinction and seek to utilise artistic expression as a form of communication, we need to understand the effective means for doing so. We need a set of principles for how to make Art express emotion. This immediately presents a problem, and with it the opportunity to reveal our first principle in expressing emotion through Art, what I’m calling expressive communication.

Edward Bullough, in an approach to understanding aesthetics and expression, has looked at the need for a kind of psychological distance in order for something to be considered Art. In terms of intention he presents an interesting problem for Art as directed communication. “Distance” he writes, “is obtained by separating the object and its appeal from one’s own self, by putting it out of gear with practical needs and ends” (371), or as R.G. Collingwood writes, “the means-and-ends, or technique, terminology […] is not applicable” when creating Art, for while “there is certainly here a directed process, […] the end is not something foreseen or preconceived” (111). That being the case, an Artist cannot plan to communicate a particular idea or even feeling with regard to a social movement or anything else, which brings us to our first principle of expressive communication.

Expression must come from within, and reveal itself through the process of creation; it cannot be premeditated. This lack of premeditation is also one of the factors that make artistic expression valuable within a larger communication approach. There is an implied emotional honesty that engenders trust, allowing the audience to expose themselves to the emotion. This is in contrast to rhetorical communication, which, while often very effective as a persuasive tool, is typically viewed with a degree of suspicion.

Another problem exists where art is performed in isolation or with only limited perspective. Though not premeditation, its result is essentially the same; it tends to restrict free expression by placing parameters on it.

“If [the artist] decides to express only the emotions that pass current within the limits of that little society, he is selecting certain of his emotions for expression. The reason why this inevitably produces bad art is that, as we have already seen, it can only be done when the person selecting already knows what his emotions are.” (Collingwood 121)

In other words this isolation or limited perspective, which Collingwood described as “the curse of the Ivory Tower”, runs counter the first principle, which says that expression must reveal itself through the process of creation. Therefore, the second principle of expression is that the artist must avoid the constraints of the Ivory Tower. Instead they must bring all their experiences of perception and emotion to a work of art, not restricting it in space, time or notion.

Artists must take care that the emotion they communicate is actually expressed and not contrived. The earlier example of the poster with the raised fist may help elucidate this. As a rhetorical tool for communication this image may be very effective. It is visually a metaphor for shouting and effectively represents the emotion of anger, but it’s a contrivance and a rant. When an artist rants it cannot be considered Art as, rather than expressing emotion, it is describing emotion. A painting that is a rant may be of value in its descriptive form, or as a tool for persuasion, but in this context it is not Art, it is rhetorical communication.

“The artist never rants. A person who writes or paints or the like in order to blow off steam, using the traditional materials of art as a means for exhibiting the symtoms_ of emotion, may deserve praise as an exhibitionist, but loses for the moment all claim to the title of artist.” (Collingwood 122-123)

As Susan Langer writes, “a work of art expresses a conception of life, emotion, inward reality. But it is neither a confessional nor a frozen tantrum” (26). The rant can be seen as a contrivance of emotion rather than the true expression of emotion itself and as such, should be avoided by the artist. This is the third principle of expressive communication.

The concept of Art as anti-realistic is another area that deserves attention when considering expressive communication. For Bullough, “to say that Art is anti-realistic simply insists upon the fact that Art is not nature, never pretends to be nature and strongly resists any confusion with nature.” Art is not about imitation as Aristotle had theorised, and it is not the idealisation of nature. (377)

“To imitate nature so as to trick the spectator into the deception that it is nature which he beholds, is to forsake Art, its anti-realism, its distanced spirituality, and to fall below the limit into sham, sensationalism or platitude.” (378)

This is what Bullough calls under-distancing. It is the failure to create Art as a result of getting too close to the ordinary, the usual, or the banal. In the context of artistic expression as communication we can see how this under-distancing might impede the audience’s experience of emotion and hence the creation of empathy. It is for this reason that social movements should avoid encouraging literal representation and why the use of anti-realism is the fourth principle of expressive communication.

For the fifth and final principle of expression as communication we can look back to the early writings of George Santayana and his notion of the sublime. In the context of communicating for social movements this is perhaps the most difficult of our five principles to accept, and yet it is specifically about accepting the uncomfortable. Santayana described “the liberation of self by the consciousness of evil in the world, the Stoic sublime.” This notion alone is approachable but the difficulty lies in accepting that, as individuals, we may find liberation in the consciousness of evil as it is experienced or suffered by others.

“Terror makes us withdraw into ourselves: there with the supervening consciousness of safety […] comes the rebound, and we have that emotion of detachment and liberation in which the sublime really consists. […] We try to understand how the expression of pain could sometimes please. It can please, not in itself, but because it is balanced and annulled by positive pleasures, especially by this final and victorious one of detachment. If the expression of evil seems necessary to the sublime, it is only as a condition of this moral reaction.”

The idea that we might detach ourselves from the fear of a tempest storm and thus experience the sublimity of its expression is reasonable, but to experience “positive pleasures” in a detachment from the suffering of others is clearly disturbing. Yet if we overlook Santayana’s use of the term pleasure, it may be possible to imagine the sublimity of our own respective security and maybe even consider the existence of a subconscious exaltation through secure detachment. Still, it may seem difficult to imagine our last principle as the acceptance of the sublime. In fact it is more than this, the fifth principle of expressive communication is that Art should, where appropriate, embrace the Stoic sublime. While Santayana wrote of the consciousness of the audience he did not address the very important contribution of the conscience, and it is this, which gives the Stoic sublime its power to communicate emotion so effectively. It is the ability of the audience to reflect upon their own stoicism in the face of suffering that elevates the sublime expression to one of empathy, it is the realisation that when one of us suffers we all suffer.

Leo Tolstoy wrote, “If men lacked this other capacity of being infected by [A]rt, people might be almost more savage still, and above all more separated from, and more hostile to, one another.” (63) In presenting these five principles of expressing communication, I have sought to create a space where Art not only plays a role in the communication of social movements, it actually contributes uniquely in its ability to express emotion and generate empathy. When considered and used effectively, these guiding principles should help to ensure that the power of artistic expression uniquely contributes to communicating the emotions associated with social justice.
 Bibliography
Bullough, Edward. “Psychical Distance,” A modern Book of Esthetics. An Anthology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1973
Collingwood, R.G. “Expressing Emotion and Arousing Emotion,” The Principles of Art. London: Oxford University Press, 1978
Langer, Susan K. Problems of Art. New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1957
Santayana, George. “The nature of Beauty,” A modern Book of Esthetics. An Anthology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1973
Tolstoy, Leo. “The Communication of Emotion,” A modern Book of Esthetics. An Anthology. Holt, Rinehart and

……..

As far as readings go

On your Birthday, you know

The Quality of Feeling in ArtSounds as charming as a fart

Osbourne is really 

Quite a just name

On such an occasion 

Just the same

Such an bright author 

You will need to read

If your will indeed 

Wishes to succeed

Happy Birthday to you

Chris Number Two

May your not have to work

The whole day through

Chris and Nat

Process vs. Product: Understanding Designing and Design
There is a definite distinction made between the theory of designing and design. In the context of this writing, it essentially comes down to process. Designing is the process involved in developing the final product or result, which is the Design. This involves the merging of mechanical, psychological, and intellectual aspects of the various stages and actions involved with the process of designing, all with a direction toward the final goal, again, that being the product or the design.

The Anatomy of the Theory of Designing
The Theory of Designing can be expressed as a whole with four sequential parts and a link that brings one back to the beginning. The four primary processes can be seen as ordered steps in a design process which concludes with a cyclical return (however it is possible to find aspects of each in another).

The four primary stages can be seen as intuitive, thinking, feeling, and sensate, or at least from a psychological point of view. However, these stages can also be seen from other perspectives and in other contexts as well. Intellectual aspects of the same can be interpreted as intention, analysis, synthesis, and production while the mechanics of the process can be seen to inform, conclude, decide, and execute. Clearly, in any of the aspects discussed, there is potential to interject and interpret, but as for clarity of concept, the Theory of Designing does distill a myriad of potentialities to a concise and cohesive form (see diagram). This return, or the final stage of the process, has been described as the validation process.

The Antithetic of the Design Process
One interesting aspect of the Theory of Designing, and I’m sure one to which many designers can relate, is the antithetic nature of the design process. Based, in part, on the Myers-Briggs Type theory, the suggestion is that the design process can also be broken into two halves: the introvert and the extrovert. The intuitive and thinking processes are considered introvert characteristics while the feeling and sensate processes are extrovert. While every individual will have some characteristics of each, finding the ideal balance is the goal (though possibly unconscious) of every designer. This psychologically dualist nature of the design process lends credence to the opinion of some that designing is underrated, as it could be argued that unique interactions are involved that might illicit unique solutions.

Myers-Briggs Typology and the Psychology of the Design Process
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was developed in the 1940’s when Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs expanded on Carl Jung’s earlier model of vocational planning. At the time they developed their indicator as a tool for effectively and appropriately finding work for women during the war effort. In Designer Types, an article for Critique Magazine, Gary Hartzler applied the MBTI to designers. To summarise, every individual is either introvert or extrovert, intuitive or sensate, thinking or feeling, and judging or perceiving.

Here the difficulties of the design process become glaringly apparent. One can only be an introvert or an extrovert, so how does one resolve the introvert and extrovert halves of the process? One can only be thinking or feeling, not both, but stage two in the design process is thinking while stage three is feeling! Finally, according to the MBTI, everyone is broken down into separate and different types, one sensing and the other intuitive. But according to the Theory of Designing the very first task is intuitive while the final task is sensate! Clearly this presents a conundrum for every designer because none of us can ever truly be, at least psychologically speaking, the most appropriate individual for a design project; thankfully we can rest assured that the same applies to everyone so we are not soon to be ousted from our positions by the layman.

The Strength of the Designer
While the designer does typically have certain distinct differences from the rest of society (statistically, designers were found to be far more intuitive and feeling than society as a whole, and far less sensate and judging), with respect to the Theory of Designing, the designer must be the more than anything else, able to adapt. The ability to adapt and to learn effective techniques for overcoming areas where they might fall short will be the key to a successful designer. The strength of the designer lies in his or her ability to overcome their shortcomings and emphasize their assets, and with a greater awareness of the Theory of Designing and of ones self, this is more easily attainable.

Conclusion
The Theory of Designing may not be discursive, but within its scope it very effectively expresses analytical concepts within the application of designing that is often not considered, let alone examined. In a field of study that typically focuses on the creative and the mechanical, it is highly beneficial to develop a context from which to explore the structural ideas of designing, and the Theory of Designing definitely does that.
[This Theory of Designing is based on a lecture by Tom Becher of the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design in Vancouver, Canada]

Think of this in relationship to the Lacandon and other indigenous groups in Chiapas. What does this knowledge mean to the process of communicating concern to those less precise?

…

This might be a consideration when looking at indigenous approaches to conflicts and resolutions. Specifically the idea of escaping another group as escaping oppression and how they might resolve through “a conjugation of extremes”. Is that like coming to an amicable agreement, merging ideas, or finding a middle ground?

There is Public language-enormous, rich, varied and more or less powerless. Then there is Corporatist language, attached to power and action. Corporatist language itself breaks down into three types. Rhetoric, Propaganda, and Dialect. [...] Not the old-fashioned regional dialects, but the specialized, inward looking verbal mechanisms (I’m avoiding the word language because they are not language; they do not communicate) of tens of thousands of monopolies of fractured knowledge. These are what I call the dialects of individual corporations. The social science dialects, the linguist dialects, the artist dialects. Thousands and thousands of them,purposely impenetrable to the non-expert, with thick defensive walls that protect each corporation’s sense of importance.
Obscurity suggests complexity, which suggests importance. The dialects are thus more or less conscious weapons of self-protection and unconscious tools of self-deception.(Saul, p.47-48)