000 06419nam a22005415i 4500
001 978-90-481-3851-7
003 DE-He213
005 20140220084600.0
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 100528s2010 ne | s |||| 0|eng d
020 _a9789048138517
_9978-90-481-3851-7
024 7 _a10.1007/978-90-481-3851-7
_2doi
050 4 _aB67
072 7 _aPDA
_2bicssc
072 7 _aSCI075000
_2bisacsh
082 0 4 _a501
_223
100 1 _aFrigg, Roman.
_eeditor.
245 1 0 _aBeyond Mimesis and Convention
_h[electronic resource] :
_bRepresentation in Art and Science /
_cedited by Roman Frigg, Matthew Hunter.
264 1 _aDordrecht :
_bSpringer Netherlands,
_c2010.
300 _aXXVI, 260p.
_bonline resource.
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
347 _atext file
_bPDF
_2rda
490 1 _aBoston Studies in the Philosophy of Science,
_x0068-0346 ;
_v262
505 0 _aTelling Instances -- Models: Parables v Fables -- Truth and Representation in Science: Two Inspirations from Art -- Learning Through Fictional Narratives in Art and Science -- Models as Make-Believe -- Fiction and Scientific Representation -- Fictional Entities, Theoretical Models and Figurative Truth -- Visual Practices Across the University -- Experiment, Theory, Representation: Robert Hooke’s Material Models -- Lost in Space: Consciousness and Experiment in the Work of Irwin and Turrell -- Art and Neuroscience.
520 _aRepresentation is a concern crucial to the sciences and the arts alike. Scientists devote substantial time to devising and exploring representations of all kinds. From photographs and computer-generated images to diagrams, charts, and graphs; from scale models to abstract theories, representations are ubiquitous in, and central to, science. Likewise, after spending much of the twentieth century in proverbial exile as abstraction and Formalist aesthetics reigned supreme, representation has returned with a vengeance to contemporary visual art. Representational photography, video and ever-evolving forms of new media now figure prominently in the globalized art world, while this "return of the real" has re-energized problems of representation in the traditional media of painting and sculpture. If it ever really left, representation in the arts is certainly back. Central as they are to science and art, these representational concerns have been perceived as different in kind and as objects of separate intellectual traditions. Scientific modeling and theorizing have been topics of heated debate in twentieth century philosophy of science in the analytic tradition, while representation of the real and ideal has never moved far from the core humanist concerns of historians of Western art. Yet, both of these traditions have recently arrived at a similar impasse. Thinking about representation has polarized into oppositions between mimesis and convention. Advocates of mimesis understand some notion of mimicry (or similarity, resemblance or imitation) as the core of representation: something represents something else if, and only if, the former mimics the latter in some relevant way. Such mimetic views stand in stark contrast to conventionalist accounts of representation, which see voluntary and arbitrary stipulation as the core of representation. Occasional exceptions only serve to prove the rule that mimesis and convention govern current thinking about representation in both analytic philosophy of science and studies of visual art. This conjunction can hardly be dismissed as a matter of mere coincidence. In fact, researchers in philosophy of science and the history of art have increasingly found themselves trespassing into the domain of the other community, pilfering ideas and approaches to representation. Cognizant of the limitations of the accounts of representation available within the field, philosophers of science have begun to look outward toward the rich traditions of thinking about representation in the visual and literary arts. Simultaneously, scholars in art history and affiliated fields like visual studies have come to see images generated in scientific contexts as not merely interesting illustrations derived from "high art", but as sophisticated visualization techniques that dynamically challenge our received conceptions of representation and aesthetics. "Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science" is motivated by the conviction that we students of the sciences and arts are best served by confronting our mutual impasse and by recognizing the shared concerns that have necessitated our covert acts of kleptomania. Drawing leading contributors from the philosophy of science, the philosophy of literature, art history and visual studies, our volume takes its brief from our title. That is, these essays aim to put the evidence of science and of art to work in thinking about representation by offering third (or fourth, or fifth) ways beyond mimesis and convention. In so doing, our contributors explore a range of topics-fictionalism, exemplification, neuroaesthetics, approximate truth-that build upon and depart from ongoing conversations in philosophy of science and studies of visual art in ways that will be of interest to both interpretive communities. To put these contributions into context, the remainder of this introduction aims to survey how our communities have discretely arrived at a place wherein the perhaps-surprising collaboration between philosophy of science and art history has become not only salubrious, but a matter of necessity.
650 0 _aPhilosophy (General).
650 0 _aScience
_xHistory.
650 0 _aAesthetics.
650 0 _aGenetic epistemology.
650 0 _aScience
_xPhilosophy.
650 0 _aArts.
650 1 4 _aPhilosophy.
650 2 4 _aPhilosophy of Science.
650 2 4 _aAesthetics.
650 2 4 _aHistory of Science.
650 2 4 _aArts.
650 2 4 _aEpistemology.
700 1 _aHunter, Matthew.
_eeditor.
710 2 _aSpringerLink (Online service)
773 0 _tSpringer eBooks
776 0 8 _iPrinted edition:
_z9789048138500
830 0 _aBoston Studies in the Philosophy of Science,
_x0068-0346 ;
_v262
856 4 0 _uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3851-7
912 _aZDB-2-SHU
999 _c113455
_d113455