Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Sinar lanTec

Produced in Switzerland by Swiss Engineers, the Sinar lanTec camera features controls for image management that are integrated into the camera. The camera movements can be used with the entire range of dedicated Sinaron Digital CEF lenses. The shift range is set effortlessly up to 20mm left and right – and this effectively increases the virtual area of your CCD making new image aspect ratios in the process for larger, more detailed files.
 

Klaus Biesenbach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Biesenbach

Biesenbach was born in 1967, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany.

[edit] Kunst-Werke

Biesenbach founded Kunst-Werke (KW) Institute for Contemporary Art[3] in Berlin in 1991, as well as the Berlin Biennale in 1996, and remains Founding Director of both entities. Under his artistic and executive directorship, KW and the Berlin Biennale were started as self-inventive initiatives and are now federally and state funded institutions.[4]

[edit] MoMA career

Biesenbach joined MoMA PS1 as a curator in 1996; the museum's director Alanna Heiss had hired him part-time while allowing him to maintain his directorship in Berlin. In 2004, Biesenbach was appointed as a curator in MoMA Department of Film and Media. He was named Chief Curator of MoMA's newly formed Department of Media, in 2006, which was subsequently broadened to the Department of Media and Performance Art, in 2009, to reflect the Museum's increased focus on collecting, preserving, and exhibiting performance art. As Chief Curator of the department, Biesenbach led a range of pioneering initiatives, including the launch of a new performance art exhibition series; an ongoing series of workshops for artists and curators; acquisitions of media and performance art; and the Museum's presentation in 2010 of a major retrospective of the work of Marina Abramović—with whom he was formerly romantically involved.[5]
In 2012, Biesenbach turned MoMA P.S. 1 into a temporary day shelter for displaced residents after Hurricane Sandy. He drafted an open letter to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and fellow New Yorkers that called for help in the Rockaways, signed by artists including Lady Gaga, Madonna, James Franco, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Patti Smith.[6]

Green Gifts From the NRDC

https://www.nrdcgreengifts.org/whalenursery

Save an acre of a Whale Nursery

Save an acre of a Whale Nursery
A whale of an idea for that friend or family member who cares deeply about ocean wildlife. Your gift will help protect one acre of the last undisturbed gray whale nursery on the planet: Laguna San Ignacio on Mexico’s Baja peninsula.
$50.00
 
The mission of the Natural Resources Defense Council is to safeguard the Earth: its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends.

JoAnn Bayus, Health Coach in Denver

http://www.bayuswellness.com/

Difference and Repetition- Deleuze

III. The Image of Thought
This chapter takes aim at an "image of thought" that permeates both popular and philosophical discourse. According to this image, thinking naturally gravitates towards truth. Thought is divided easily into categories of truth and error. The model for thought comes from the educational institution, in which a master sets a problem and the pupil produces a solution which is either true or false. This image of the subject supposes that there are different faculties, each of which ideally grasps the particular domain of reality to which it is most suited.
In philosophy, this conception results in discourses predicated on the argument that "Everybody knows..." the truth of some basic idea. Descartes, for example, appeals to the idea that everyone can at least think and therefore exists. Deleuze points out that philosophy of this type attempts to eliminate all objective presuppositions while maintaining subjective ones.
Deleuze maintains, with Artaud, that real thinking is one of the most difficult challenges there is. Thinking requires a confrontation with stupidity, the state of being formlessly human without engaging any real problems. One discovers that the real path to truth is through the production of sense: the creation of a texture for thought that relates it to its object. Sense is the membrane that relates thought to its other.
Accordingly, learning is not the memorization of facts but the coordination of thought with a reality. "As a result, 'learning' always takes place in and through the unconscious, thereby establishing the bond of a profound complicity between nature and mind" (165).
Deleuze's alternate image of thought is based on difference, which creates a dynamism that traverses individual faculties and conceptions. This thought is fundamentally energetic and asignifying: if it produces propositions, these are wholly secondary to its development.
At the end of the chapter, Deleuze sums up the image of thought he critiques with eight attributes:
(1) the postulate of the principle, or the Cogitatio natural universalis (good will of the thinker and good nature of thought); (2) the postulate of the ideal, or common sense (common sense as the concordia facultatum and good sense as the distribution which guarantees this concord); (3) the postulate of the model, or of recognition (recognition inviting all the faculties to exercise themselves upon an object supposedly the same, and the consequent possibility of error in the distribution when one faculty confuses one of its objects with a different object of another faculty); (4) the postulate of the element or of representation (when difference is subordinated to the complimentary dimensions of the Same and the Similar, the Analogous and the Opposed; (5) the postulate of the negative, or of error (in which error expresses everything which can go wrong in thought, but only as the product of external mechanisms); (6) the postulate of logical function, or the proposition (designation is taken to be the locus of truth, sense being no more than the neutralized double or the infinite doubling of the proposition); (7) the postulate of modality, or solutions (problems being materially traced from propositions or indeed, formally defined by the possibility of their being solved); (8) the postulate of the end, or result, the postulate of knowledge (the subordination of learning to knowledge, and of culture to method. (167)

My portrait of Olimpia

wooloo

www.wooloo.org

Open Calls for artists and a way to get work out there, contact artists for open calls etc.

About Elizabeth Dee

http://now.elizabethdee.com/gallery/

Elizabeth Dee is an American gallery that represents exhibitions and ideas. The gallery creates joint ventures with artists to manifest cultural productions. Elizabeth Dee also produces exhibitions at major museums and significant publications.
Elizabeth Dee was incorporated in 2002 as a home for innovative artists working across media. Over the last decade, our program has resulted in over 100 critically acclaimed exhibitions and pioneering productions by contemporary artists responding to the changing landscape of contemporary art, technology and culture.
Elizabeth Dee has produced numerous groundbreaking, first and internationally recognized exhibitions by such artists as Adrian Piper, Miriam Cahn (debut), Alex Bag, Philippe Decrauzat, Derek Jarman, Eric Baudelaire (debut), Jeff Keen (debut), Ryan McNamara (debut), Josephine Meckseper (debut), Ryan Trecartin (debut), Meredyth Sparks (debut) and Mark Barrow, among others.
The gallery has published definitive artists’ monographs and progressive artists books. Production is underway on the publication, Adrian Piper, with essays by Helmut Draxler, Diarmuid Costello, Jörg Heiser, and Adrian Piper (Gregory R. Miller & Co.). A selection of previous publications include: Josephine Meckseper (Dee &Sternberg Press), Meredyth Sparks (Monografik Éditions) and the monograph Ryan Trecartin (Dee/Rizolli).
Elizabeth Dee has co-produced ten movies by Ryan Trecartin beginning with the making of his first feature length video in 2007 (I-BE AREA) and the Any Ever cycle (2009-2010). The gallery produced the international museum tour of Any Ever at The Power Plant, Toronto; MOCA, Los Angeles; MoMA PS1, New York; MOCA, North Miami; and Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris. In addition, the gallery has produced work for various exhibitions by numerous artists at institutions such as: Tate Modern, London; The Whitney Museum of American Art, New York; The Solomon R. Guggenheim, New York; and MoMA, New York.
In 2011-2012, Elizabeth Dee presents exhibitions at international art fairs such as Independent, New York; Frieze Art Fair, New York & London; and FIAC, Paris.

Emma- Email

http://myemma.com/powered-by-emma?utm_source=PoweredBy&utm_medium=Regular&utm_campaign=PoweredBy-Regular-1715360

A way to send out emails for Nothing Space

Mark Barrow

http://www.markbarrow.net/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/arts/design/mark-barrow-and-sarah-parkes-homespun-abstractions.html?_r=0


Interests Crisscross in Homespun Art

Gabriele Stabile for The New York Times
Mark Barrow with his wife and collaborator, Sarah Parke, at home in Queens. A show of his new work just opened.

The artist Mark Barrow and his wife and collaborator, Sarah Parke, live and work in a small apartment in Sunnyside, Queens, with no living room. Or to be more precise, the space where their living room should be is dominated by two manual looms the size of upright pianos, leaving no room for furniture.
Elizabeth Dee Gallery
What appears to be a quiltlike slab of color is actually an intricately calculated combination of red, green and blue.
The arrangement serves aptly as a metaphor for their relationship: the loom, one of humanity’s first machines, is the engine that pays the young couple’s bills, unites their interests and propels their creative livelihoods. Ms. Parke works in textile design for the merchandising department of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and when she is not making fabrics there, she is making them in her apartment to serve as the primary material for Mr. Barrow’s meticulous textile-based paintings, which are increasingly sought after. Her husband’s easel and paint table sit only a few feet from her looms, sandwiched between them, giving the apartment the look of a demonstration booth at a state fair.
“Friends of ours joke that we have this little mini-Bauhaus set up in our home,” Mr. Barrow said one recent evening, pushing his large horn-rimmed glasses up on his nose.
“Or a sweatshop,” Ms. Parke added, “depending on how you look at it.”
A show of new work by Mr. Barrow just opened at the Elizabeth Dee Gallery, whose exhibition space on West 20th Street in Manhattan was mostly spared by Hurricane Sandy. Even more than the couple’s previous works together, the new paintings are artifacts of one of the more unusual working relationships in contemporary art.
What appear to be quiltlike slabs of color over a stippled grayish ground are actually intricately calculated combinations of red, green and blue — the color model that gave birth to the television and computer imagery that pervades the contemporary visual landscape.
Mr. Barrow’s fascinations generally run toward mathematical, geometric and psychological models that shape modern life. (When he revisited his high school once and told his teachers he had become a painter, he said, “they were shocked and told me, ‘We thought you’d become a chemist.’ ”) But the technological beginnings of the paintings are medieval, if not older.
To make the fabrics that he transforms, Ms. Parke sits at one of her eight-harness Leclerc looms, pumping the treadles with her feet and pulling rhythmically back on a horizontal beam known as a beater bar to push the weft thread securely into the weave.
For the new paintings Mr. Barrow and Ms. Parke came up with formulas to weave fabric with varying ratios of red, blue and green threads. Mr. Barrow mixed red, blue and green paint in the same ratios as those of the fabrics, yielding shades of gray. Then he applied this paint, not all over but — in a technique that has defined his work — in tiny dots, as if pixelating the fabric, using the intersections of the thread in the weave as a grid.
“Together they’ve come up with something that they couldn’t have independently,” said Matthew Higgs, the director and chief curator of the alternative art space White Columns, which first exhibited Mr. Barrow’s work in a 2007 exhibition organized by Clarissa Dalrymple. “The paintings are genuinely quite peculiar objects that I don’t think could have come about another way.”
Karen Rosenberg, reviewing a 2010 show in The New York Times, described the work as the offspring of “some wonderfully complicated DNA: Americana, modernist geometry, feminism and Neo-Impressionism, to name just a few strands.”
Mr. Barrow, 30, and Ms. Park, 31, met at the Rhode Island School of Design, but signs early on did not seem to point toward a fruitful collaboration. He went on to pursue an M.F.A. at Yale, studying with the conceptualist pioneer Mel Bochner. She took a job to pay the bills at a home furnishing company known for bright, whimsical throw pillows.
“At some point, though, we kind of realized we were doing the same thing,” Mr. Barrow recalled. “I was painting colored dots all day, and she was filling in colored dots on a computer all day for loom patterns.”
The affinity went even deeper than it seemed. The Jacquard loom, an early-19th-century mechanical loom that helped revolutionize the textile industry, used punch cards to direct the weaves, a precursor of computer software. Mr. Barrow, whose father is a professor of biological and environmental history at Virginia Tech, began thinking about technological progress, fabric and the relationship of both to the history of painting.
This led to a kind of epiphany while looking at the minimalist paintings of Agnes Martin at Dia:Beacon in Beacon, N.Y. “Beneath her tiny grids there was another tiny grid — the weave of the canvas,” he said. “It was a really simple idea, but it opened up a lot of other ideas the more I thought about it.”
A visit to the couple’s apartment-studio, in a new building along Queens Boulevard with a CVS pharmacy on the ground floor, suggests how intermingled their obsessions seem to have always been. A baggy-looking early painting made from coarse Belgian linen, hanging on the wall, gives the impression that it was Mr. Barrow, not his wife, who was working in home furnishings. “It’s somewhere between a pillow and a painting,” he said, smiling.
Ms. Parke’s loom, with a bolt of chaotically colored fabric spilling out toward the floor, oddly resembles an industrial printer, the kind that the artist Wade Guyton, now the subject of a career survey at the Whitney Museum of American Art, uses to “paint” on the fine linen he forces through them.
Though neither Ms. Parke nor Mr. Barrow seem to mind being crowded out by their work and their machines, a measure of success is finally promising a little breathing room. They have plans to buy the apartment below theirs to live in, while maintaining the other one as a studio.
“Maybe we can get a couch,” Ms. Parke offered brightly.
Mr. Barrow agreed but, shrugging, added, “We pretty much just work all the time anyway.”

Friday, December 14, 2012

Poll Public Flash Art

POLL: TOP 100 ARTISTS



A FLASH ART TRADITION GETS A FRESH FACE

Flash Art brings back one of its historic surveys. For this Top 100 we wanted to grasp the public’s opinion of art — that is, of our readers and, for the first time, the users of the new Flash Art iPad application, which is receiving much attention and success. It is a large public, actively following art by attending exhibitions and keeping up-to-date by reading specialized art magazines. It is a public that creates movement in the art scene through the judgments made in a few passing comments that, when grouped together and elaborated upon, become the leading opinion of today’s art. Because in the end, the public is the true judge and critic of the art and culture of our time.

Thank you to everyone for your collaboration.
Helena Kontova, Giancarlo Politi
 
From top, left to right: 1)ALI BANISADR. 2) ALLORA & CALZADILLA, courtesy Gladstone, New York / Brussels. 3) CYPRIEN GAILLARD, © Cyprien Gaillard. 4) CORY ARCANGEL, photo: Bennett Williamson. 5) THOMAS HOUSEAGO, courtesy the artist. 6) ROSA BARBA. 7) STERLING RUBY, photo: Hedi Slimane. 8) HUMA BHABHA, photo: C. Lucas. 9) R.H. QUAYTMAN, courtesy the artist and Miguel Abreu, New York. 10) ADEL ABDESSEMED, photo: Grant Delin. Courtesy David Zwirner, New York.
 
 
TOP 100 ARTISTS
 
1. Ali Banisadr
2. Allora & Calzadilla
3. Cyprien Gaillard
4. Cory Arcangel
5. Thomas Houseago
6. Rosa Barba
7. Sterling Ruby
8. Huma Bhabha
9. R.H. Quaytman
10. Adel Abdessemed
11. Omer Fast
12. Keren Cytter
13. Apichatpong Weerasethakul
14. Carol Bove
15. Becky Beasley
16. Elad Lassry
17. Julieta Aranda
18. Mario Garcia Torres
19. Richard Aldrich
20. Ryan Trecartin
21. Simon Fujiwara
22. Tauba Auerbach
23. Alejandro Vidal
24. Elizabeth Neel
25. Klara Liden
26. Terence Koh
27. Ahmed Alsoudani
28. Guy Ben-Ner
29. Christoph Büchel
30. Danh Vo
31. Fikret Atay
32. Markus Schinwald
33. Uri Aran
34. Walead Beshty
35. Latifa Echakhch
36. Ryan Gander
37. Monika Sosnowska
38. Gabriel Kuri
39 Kerstin Brätsch
40. Andro Wekua
42. The Otolith Group
43. Pablo Bronstein
44. Ziad Antar
45. Haegue Yang
46. Joe Bradley
47. John Newsom
48. Jules de Balincourt
49. Karla Black
50. Matt Connors
51. Matthew Day Jackson
52. Zak Prekop
53. Ahmet Öğüt
54. Athanasios Argianas
55. Christodoulos Panayiotou
56. Haris Epaminonda
57. Héctor Zamora
58. Josh Smith
59. Mark Barrow
60. Ciprian Mureşan
61. Oscar Tuazon
62. Ragnar Kjartansson
63. Simon Denny
64. Victor Man
65. Beatriz Albuquerque
66. The Bruce High Quality Foundation
67. Emily Wardill
68. Florian Maier-Aichen
69. Ida Ekblad
70. Katerina Šedá
71. Matthew Brannon
72. Micol Assaël
73. Navid Nuur
74. Nina Beier
75. Sara Rahbar
76. Tris Vonna-Michell
77. Aaron Curry
78. Agnieszka Brzezanska
79. Aki Sasamoto
80. André Butzer
81. Ariel Schlesinger
82. Gil Heitor Cortesão
83. Guido van der Werve
84. Jonas Wood
85. Kate Gilmore
86. Katherine Bernhardt
87. Cathy Wilkes
88. Kristin Baker
89. Loris Gréaud
90. Mai-Thu Perret
91. Rashid Johnson
92. Sara VanDerBeek
93. Shahryar Nashat
94. Alex Hubbard
95. Alex Olson
96. Amalia Pica
97. Clemens von Wedemeyer
98. David Noonan
99. Eva Rothschild
100. David Adamo
Fia Backström
Olaf Breuning
Etienne Chambaud
Michael Dean
Thea Djordjadze
Wojciech Gilewicz
David Hominal
Emre Hüner
Jacob Kassay
Eva Kotátková
Haroon Mirza
Amir Mogharabi
Wilfredo Prieto
Pamela Rosenkranz
      Garth Weiser
 
 
 
Subscription for 6 issues of Flash Art International
Order a yearly subscription to Flash Art International as a gift.
You may write a short message sending your best wishes to a friend or relative who will receive six issues of the most up-to-date and extensive coverage of global contemporary art.

Mark Barrow, Elizabeth Dee

 
 
 
RGB
November 8 – December 15, 2012
 
Elizabeth Dee is pleased to announce RGB, Mark Barrow's second solo exhibition with the gallery.  The show will open November 8th with a reception for the artist from 6-8pm.
 
Barrow presents a new series that takes the RGB color model as its starting point.  RGB color space is an abstract, mathematical model in which each color is given a distinct position in space that can be plotted on a graph with three axes—one for each of the primary colors. Barrow replaces this Cartesian system with a loom's own mathematic logic and a more intuitive color theory.
 
For the works, Sarah Parke has designed unique fabrics based on the pixels of a screen—each with varying amounts of red, green, and blue threads. Barrow matches the fabric's threads in paint, mixing together the same percentage of red to green to blue.  As a result each fabric's colors yield a different grey with which he begins each painting.  By covering only portions of the fabric's pattern, Barrow uses the underlying colored fibers to shift the paint's hue, often using only two or three grey tones to create entire compositions.  Focusing on the individual units of color (pixels, threads, dots of paint) Barrow creates both a point of equivalence and inflection. In layering these different logical, mathematical, and perceptual systems, he dissolves their boundaries and offers a more nebulous, abstract system.  Ultimately each piece is titled according to the prominence of the three colors (red, green, blue) from greatest to least.
 
Also on view is a series of drawings operating under similar logic. Taking a weaving draft as a template, Barrow grids sheets of paper and colors dots to create patterns.  Using only a red, green and blue pencil, he adjusts the ratio of the three colors and amount of pressure on the pencil to create his compositions.
 
RGB marks Barrow's ongoing interest in the intersection of phenomenology and the science of perception.  His collaborative and idiosyncratic process functions on a seemingly molecular level, tweaking the DNA of a broad range of sources.  He approaches his influences as empirical sets of data;  his process designed to test their finiteness and find the point at which they begin to deteriorate.
 
Mark Barrow has exhibited in various solo and group contexts internationally, such as ZERO, Milan, White Columns, New York, Yale Museum of Art, among others. The artist will be the subject of a forthcoming publication by Mousse in 2013.
 
For more information, please contact the gallery at +1.212.924.7545

Sunday, December 9, 2012

When Language Can Hold the Answer

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/science/22lang.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1355015108-Xyk1WQ84vtrRU/x5MKtKwg


When Language Can Hold the Answer

Published: April 22, 2008
Faced with pictures of odd clay creatures sporting prominent heads and pointy limbs, students at Carnegie Mellon were asked to identify which “aliens” were friendly and which were not.
The students were not told that the aliens fell naturally into two groups, although the differences were subtle and not easy to describe.
Some had somewhat lumpy, misshapen heads. Others had smoother domes. After students assigned each alien to a category, they were told whether they had guessed right or wrong, learning as they went that smooth heads were friendly and lumpy heads were not.
The experimenter, Dr. Gary Lupyan, who is now doing postdoctoral research at Cornell, added a little item of information to one test group. He told the group that previous subjects had found it helpful to label the aliens, calling the friendly ones “leebish” and the unfriendly ones “grecious,” or vice versa.
When the participants found out whether their choice was right or wrong, they were also shown the appropriate label. All the participants eventually learned the difference between the aliens, but the group using labels learned much faster. Naming, Dr. Lupyan concluded, helps to create mental categories.
The finding may not seem surprising, but it is fodder for one side in a traditional debate about language and perception, including the thinking that creates and names groups.
In stark form, the debate was: Does language shape what we perceive, a position associated with the late Benjamin Lee Whorf, or are our perceptions pure sensory impressions, immune to the arbitrary ways that language carves up the world?
The latest research changes the framework, perhaps the language of the debate, suggesting that language clearly affects some thinking as a special device added to an ancient mental skill set. Just as adding features to a cellphone or camera can backfire, language is not always helpful. For the most part, it enhances thinking. But it can trip us up, too.
The traditional subject of the tug of war over language and perception is color. Because languages divide the spectrum differently, researchers have asked whether language affected how people see color. English, for example, distinguishes blue from green. Most other languages do not make that distinction. Is it possible that only English speakers really see those colors as different?
Past investigations have had mixed results. Some experiments suggested that color terms influenced people in the moment of perception. Others suggested that the language effect kicked in only after some basic perception occurred.
The consensus was that different ways to label color probably did not affect the perception of color in any systematic way.
Last year, Lera Boroditsky and colleagues published a study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showing that language could significantly affect how quickly perceptions of color are categorized. Russian and English speakers were asked look at three blocks of color and say which two were the same.
Russian speakers must distinguish between lighter blues, or goluboy, and darker blues, siniy, while English speakers do not have to, using only “blue” for any shade. If the Russians were shown three blue squares with two goluboy and one siniy, or the other way around, they picked the two matching colors faster than if all three squares were shades from one blue group. English makes no fundamental distinction between shades of blue, and English speakers fared the same no matter the mix of shades.
In two different tests, subjects were asked to perform a nonverbal task at the same time as the color-matching task. When the Russians simultaneously carried out a nonverbal task, they kept their color-matching advantage. But when they had to perform a verbal task at the same time as color-matching, their advantage began to disappear. The slowdown suggested that the speed of their reactions did not result just from a learned difference but that language was actively involved in identifying colors as the test was happening. Two other recent studies also demonstrated an effect of language on color perception and provided a clue as to why previous experimental results have been inconclusive. In The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Paul Kay of the International Computer Science Institute at Berkeley and colleagues hypothesized that if language is dominant on the left side of the brain, it should affect color perception in the right visual field. (The right visual field is connected to the left side of the brain, and vice versa.)
English-speaking subjects were shown a ring of 12 small squares that were all the same color except an odd one on the left or the right. If the odd square was shown to the right visual field and it was from a completely different color category in English, like a green square compared to the ring of blue squares, then subjects were quick to identify it as different. If the odd square shown to the right visual field was the same basic color as the ring of squares, perhaps just being a different shade of blue, subjects were not as fast to recognize the difference. If the odd square was shown to the left visual field, it didn’t matter if it was a different color or only a different shade.
The extent to which language affected color perception depended on the side of the brain being used.
Dr. Lupyan has also investigated how quickly the effects of language might come into play. In one experiment, he asked students to look at a computer screen that had “2” once and “5” many times in a circle. Over hundreds of trials where the positions of the numbers changed, the students were asked to “find the target” or “find the ‘two.’ ”
Whenever subjects heard the word “two,” they always found the numeral faster. They found the “2” even faster when instructed to “ignore the 5s,” as opposed to “ignore the distracters.” In these cases, Dr. Lupyan suggested, language is “greasing the wheels of perception.”
Language also has a significant role in seeing and remembering where objects are in space. Dr. Dedre Gentner at Northwestern and her colleagues conducted experiments on the spatial reasoning of hearing children and children who “home-sign.”
Home-signers have hearing parents, but they are congenitally deaf and have never been taught a sign language, according to Susan Goldin-Meadow, an expert in homesign. The gestural language they develop is invented solely by themselves. In the past, Dr. Gentner and her colleagues had observed that children who home-sign did not appear to invent gestures for locations spontaneously.
The children were shown two side-by-side boxes. Internally, each box was divided in three. In each space was a card.
During each trial, the experimenter took a card from the first box and showed the child that it had a special star on the back. Replacing it in the first box in the same space, the experimenter asked the child to find where the special card would be in the second box. Essentially, the children were asked to map the position of the target card in the first box to the same position in the second.
The researchers found that children without words for spatial relationships, whether young or home-signers, had much more trouble finding the special card in the second box than older hearing children who had learned the relevant words.
For young hearing children, exposure to spatial language in the experiment strongly influenced the success rate. If the experimenter used spatial terms when speaking to a child, saying, “I’m putting the card in the top” (or “middle” or “bottom”), as opposed to, “I’m putting the card here,” the children were much likelier to find the correct spot in the second box.
The effect lasted not just through the experiment, but until at least two days later, when the children were retested.
“By giving us a framework for marshaling our thoughts, language does a lot for us,” Professor Gentner said. “Because spatial language gives us symbols for spatial patterns, it helps us carve up the world in specific ways.”
There is other evidence that a lack of spatial language is not a handicap in solving spatial problems. In 2006, scientists published an experiment that investigated the ability of the Amazonian Munduruku tribe to understand and manipulate geometric relationships for which their language has no words. The Munduruku performed about the same as Americans whose language is rich with spatial terms.
This separation of language and thought is emphasized in a recent book by Steven Pinker, at Harvard University, a skeptic of “neo-whorfianism.” In “The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature,” Pinker explores the complicated ways that language and thought relate to each other. He cautions against confusing the “many ways in which language connects to thought.” “Language surely affects thought,” he writes, but he argues that there is little evidence for the claims that language can force people to have particular thoughts or make it impossible for them to think in certain ways. With numbers, the importance of language evidence is much clearer. It appears that the ability to count is necessary to deal with large, specific numbers. And the only way to count past a certain point is with language.
Elizabet Spaepen, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago, examined the ability of home-signing adults in Nicaragua to use numbers. Ms. Spaepen emphasized that although the subjects had never been taught a formal sign language, including counting, they were fully integrated in society. They have jobs and they are paid as much as hearing or signing adults.
Ms. Spaepen asked the home-signers to match an array of objects laid out before them. For example, she placed plastic discs on a table and encouraged the subjects to lay out the same number of discs. If the number was small, as in one, two or three, the home-signers got it right all the time.
If the number was larger, the home-signers got it right just approximately. If Ms. Spaepen laid out four discs, the subjects might lay out five or six. Although they were never quite right, they were never completely wrong. The home-signers would not lay out one or 15 discs in response to four.
Scientists have shown that the understanding of small, specific numbers is a trait with long evolutionary history. Monkeys and other animals can compute the exact number of a small set of objects at a glance without explicitly counting. The ability is called subitization.
Ms. Spaepen suggests that when home-signers correctly use small numbers, they are relying on this innate trait. The count list we learn with most languages (some languages do not have a count list or words for specific numbers greater than three) has enabled humans to build on this heritage, taking the specific and uniform gap between “one” and “two” and “two” and “three,” and extending it out through four and higher, theoretically to infinity.
In another experiment, Dr. Lupyan showed subjects a series of chairs and tables using pictures from the Ikea catalog. Some subjects were asked to press a button indicating that the picture was of a table or a chair. Other subjects pressed a button to make a nonverbal judgment about the pictures, for example, to indicate whether they liked them or not. Dr. Lupyan found that the subjects who used words to label the objects had more trouble remembering whether they’d seen a specific chair before than subjects who had only pressed a button in a nonverbal task.
Language helps us learn novel categories, and it licenses our unusual ability to operate on an abstract plane, Dr. Lupyan said. The problem is that after a category has been learned, it can distort the memory of specific objects, getting between us and the rest of the nonabstract world.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

lang and time

http://www.yourlanguageplace.com/how-language-can-shape-the-perception-of-time/


How Language Can Shape The Perception Of Time

Not all cultures think of time in the same way, and many times language is tied into this perception.  It has often been a question amongst scholars whether or not language actually influences the way a person thinks, or if all people think the same way and just talk about it differently.  Several studies have been done that conclude that native language does have  an impact on how a person thinks and perceives the world.
One example is that of the perception of time.  Native English speakers tend to think of time in a linear fashion, and as extending before them (the future) and behind them (the past).  Interestingly, speakers of Mandarin Chinese think of time as above them and below them.  Speakers of Greek tend to think of lengths of time as “big” or “small” whereas English speakers think of time in measurements of distance (short, long, etc).
In a study by Lara Boroditsky English speakers were taught new ways of talking about time – such as using size or vertical metaphors to describe length of time.  After this their cognitive performance started to mimic that of native Greek and Mandarin speakers.
In a study done in the 1970′s, it was shown that English speakers think of time as left to right.  Arab speakers think of time as right to left.  Arab children learning English thought of time in both directions.
How might we perceive time if we did not have the language to describe it?  In an interesting experiment done, children who were born congenitally deaf and were “home-signers” (aka, did not learn structured American sign language and invented their own language and did not spontaneously invent signs for new locations) were shown a special marked card in a box with three cards in three spaces.  The children then had to locate the position of the card in a second, identical box where the card was placed in the same location.  It turns out that children who did not have proper language vocabulary (top, left, right, etc) and who only had their own language fared much more poorly in the experiment than hearing children who were exposed to the relevant spatial vocabulary.
Counting is another area where “home-signers” have difficulty, and this has shown that language is integral in counting larger numbers and doing math. (NY Times)
So if we had no language to count, and no language to describe time, how might we perceive it?  Perhaps quite differently than we do now.
This is extremely interesting to me, and in a way underlines the importance of cross-cultural cooperation in terms of science and the arts.  Perhaps a different perspective on time would help scientists solve certain theorems.  What if the puzzle of time travel were solved by someone who speaks a language that enunciates time in a different way?  Perhaps this is too simplistic of an idea, but I find the difference in perspective quite fascinating.
When thinking about it, it would seem to make sense that language has a strong pull on our perceptions.  After all, language is the only tool we seem to describe things to ourselves, and words become intertwined with the objects they describe.  Think about it: when you think of an object, you tend to think of it in terms of descriptive words, not feelings.