No Time to Move: Motion, Painting and Temporal Experience

AbstractThis paper is concerned with the senses in which paintings do and do not depict various temporal phenomena, such as motion, stasis and duration. I begin by explaining the popular – though not uncontroversial – assumption that depiction, as a pictorial form of representation, is a matter of an experiential resemblance between the pictorial representation and that which it is a depiction of. Given this assumption, I illustrate a tension between two plausible claims: that paintings do not depict motion in the sense that video recordings do, and that paintings do not merely depict objects but may depict those objects as engaged in various activities, such as moving. To resolve the tension, I demonstrate that we need to recognise an ambiguity in talk of the appearance of motion, and distinguish between the depiction of motion and the depiction of an object as an object that is moving. Armed with this distinction, I argue that there is an important sense in which paintings depict neither motion, duration, nor – perhaps more controversially – stasis.

Download Full-text

Seeing as accountable action: The interactional accomplishment of sensorial work

Current Sociology ◽

10.1177/0011392119857460 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 68 (1) ◽

pp. 77-96 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Will Gibson ◽

Dirk Vom Lehn

Keyword(s):

Social Context ◽

Conversation Analysis ◽

Recent Work ◽

Near Vision ◽

Video Recordings ◽

Innovative Methods ◽

Creative Methods ◽

The Senses

In this article it is argued that the growing field of the sociology of the senses has had a strong methodological focus on people’s accounts of their sensorial experiences at the expense of studying the practical achievement of sense work as an interactional phenomenon. Recent work has called for more innovative methods in sensorial scholarship and the use of creative approaches to explore the senses. While applauding this move, in this article the authors show the importance of a focus on micro-behavioural actions in studying the senses. Drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, they analyse video recordings of near vision tests in optometry consultations illustrating the highly routinised, but also the embodied and improvised character of the actions through which the vision is made available for scrutiny. They argue that sensorial scholarship has sidelined the study of social context as a lived-order and demonstrate the importance of treating sensorial actions as routinised, embodied and improvisatory. The authors agree that using more creative methods would be valuable but caution against relying exclusively on methods that do not sufficiently contextualise the senses as a lived and practical social accomplishment.

Download Full-text

Reliability of the Conversational Interaction Coding Form When Applied to Natural Conversation of Individuals With Aphasia

Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders ◽

10.1044/nnsld20.4.125 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 20 (4) ◽

pp. 125-135 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ashley Pozzolo Coote ◽

Jane Pimentel

Keyword(s):

Best Practice ◽

Interobserver Reliability ◽

Training Session ◽

Clinical Tool ◽

Group Setting ◽

Conversational Interaction ◽

Video Recordings ◽

Aphasia Therapy ◽

Natural Conversation ◽

Point To Point

Purpose: Development of valid and reliable outcome tools to document social approaches to aphasia therapy and to determine best practice is imperative. The aim of this study is to determine whether the Conversational Interaction Coding Form (CICF; Pimentel & Algeo, 2009) can be applied reliably to the natural conversation of individuals with aphasia in a group setting. Method: Eleven graduate students participated in this study. During a 90-minute training session, participants reviewed and practiced coding with the CICF. Then participants independently completed the CICF using video recordings of individuals with non-fluent and fluent aphasia participating in an aphasia group. Interobserver reliability was computed using matrices representative of the point-to-point agreement or disagreement between each participant's coding and the authors' coding for each measure. Interobserver reliability was defined as 80% or better agreement for each measure. Results: On the whole, the CICF was not applied reliably to the natural conversation of individuals with aphasia in a group setting. Conclusion: In an extensive review of the turns that had high disagreement across participants, the poor reliability was attributed to inadequate rules and definitions and inexperienced coders. Further research is needed to improve the reliability of this potentially useful clinical tool.

Download Full-text