The city as a construction site — a visual record of a multisensory experience

• Authors: Michałowska Marianna
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In this article, I consider the reception of images that are present in a city space. I focus on the juxtaposition of computer-generated images covering fences surrounding construction sites and the real spaces which they screen from view. I postulate that a visual experience is dependent on input from the other human senses. While looking at objects, we are not only standing in front of them but are being influenced by them. Seeing does not leave a physical trace on the object; instead the interference is more subtle — it influences the way in which we perceive space. Following in the footsteps of Sarah Pink, Michael Taussig and William J. T. Mitchell, I show that seeing (to paraphrase the title of an article by the last of the above mentioned scholars) is a cultural practice. The last part of the article presents a visual essay as a method that can contribute to cultural urban studies. I give as an example of such a method a photo-essay about chosen construction sites in Poznań, which I photographed between December 2014 and June 2015

Keywords

EN

visual essay; vision; visuality; architectural photography; computer ‑generated images

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN w Krakowie, Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii
• Journal: ARGUMENT: Biannual Philosophical Journal
• Year: 2015
• Volume: Tom: 5
• Issue: Numer: 2
• Pages: 415-438

Dates

published

2015

Contributors

author

Michałowska Marianna

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Institute of Cultural Studies, Poznań

References

• Arnheim, R. (1997). Visual thinking. Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press.
• Batchen, G. (1997). Photography’s object. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Art Museum.
• Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter. New York: Routledge.
• Cartier‑Bresson, H. (1952). The decisive moment. New York–Paris: Simon and Schuster & Verve.
• Chaplin, E. (2011). The photo diary as an autoethnographic method. In: E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.). The sage handbook of visual research methods (pp. 241–262). Los Angeles–London–New Delhi: Sage.
• Clarke, G. (1997). The photograph. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Classen, C. (1993). Worlds of sense: Exploring the senses in history and across cultures. London New York: Routledge.
• Cubitt, S. (2014). The practice of light: A genealogy of visual technologies from prints to pixels. Cambridge–London: The MIT Press.
• Edensor, T. (2005). Industrial ruins: Space, aesthetics and materiality. Oxford: Berg.
• Edwards E. & Hart, J. (2011). Fotografie jako przedmioty. (M. Frąckowiak, Trans.). In: M. Frąckowiak & K. Olechnicki (Eds.). Badania wizualne w działaniu (pp. 253–284). Warszawa: Bęc Zmiana.
• Foster, H. (1988). Preface. In: H. Foster (Ed.). Vision and visuality: Discussions in contemporary culture no 2 (pp. IX–XIV). Seattle: Bay Press / Dia Art Foundation.
• Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). London– New York: Routledge.
• Frizot, M. (1998). The daguerreotype, total impression of reality. In: M. Frizot (Ed.). A new history of photography (pp. 20–35). Köln: Könemann.
• Harper, D. (2009). Co nowego widać?. (Ł. Rogowski, Trans.). In: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Metody badań jakościowych (pp. 153–174; vol. 2). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
• Irigaray, L. & Burke, C. (1980). When our lips speak together. Signs, 6(1), 69–79.
• Jay, M. (1988). Scopic regimes of modernity. In: H. Foster (Ed.). Vision and visuality: Discussions in contemporary culture no 2 (pp. 3–23). Seattle: Bay Press / Dia Art Foundation.
• Jay, M. (2011). In the realm of the senses: An introduction. American Historical Review, 116(2), 307–31
• Klett, M. (2011). Repeat photography in landscape research. In: E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.). The sage handbook of visual research methods (pp. 114–131). Los Angeles–London– New Delhi: Sage.
• Kuhn, A. (2002). Family secrets: Acts of memory and imagination. London–New York: Verso.
• Michałowska, M. (2004). Niepewność przedstawienia. Od kamery obskury do współczesnej fotografii. Kraków: Rabid.
• Mitchell, W. J. T. (2005). There are no visual media. Journal of Visual Culture, 4(2), 257–266.
• Nieszczerzewska, M. (2013). Wyobrażenia opuszczonych miejsc. In: M. Roszczynialska & K. Wądolny‑Tatar (Eds.). Kamień w literaturze, języku i kulturze (vol. 2). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego.
• Pauwels, L. (2009). Street discourse: A visual essay on urban signification. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 1, 263–272. Retrieved from: http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v1/a17/cu09v1a17.pdf (30.11.2015).
• Pauwels, L. (2012). Conceptualising the ‘visual essay’ as a way of generating and imparting sociological insight: issues, formats and realisation. Sociological Research Online, 17(1), 1, 2–11. Retrieved from: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/1/1.html (30.11.2015).
• Perego, E. (1998). The urban machine: Architecture and industry. In: M. Frizot (Ed.). A new history of photography (pp. 197–223). Köln: Könemann.
• Pink, S. (2011). A multisensory approach to visual methods. In: E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.). The sage handbook of visual research methods (pp. 601–614). Los Angeles–London–New Delhi: Sage.
• Rose, G. (2010). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual methods. Los Angeles–London–New Delhi: Sage.
• Rouillé, A. (2007). Fotografia. Między dokumentem a sztuką współczesną. (O. Hedemann, Trans.). Kraków: Universitas.
• Scruton, R. (1997), Fotografia i reprezentacja. (L. Sosnowski, Trans.). In: M. Gołaszewska (Ed.). Estetyka w świecie (vol. 5), Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
• Simmel, G. (2006). Socjologia zmysłów. In: G. Simmel. Most i drzwi (pp. 184–203). (M. Łukasiewicz, Trans.). Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.
• Sontag, S. (1973). On photography. New York: Picador.
• Soulages, F. (2005). Estetyka fotografii. Strata i zysk. (B. Mytych‑Forajter & W. Forajter, Trans.). Kraków: Universitas.
• Suchar, Ch. (2004). Amsterdam and Chicago: Seeing the macro‑characteristics of gentrification. In: C. Knowles & J. Sweetman (Eds.). Picturing the social landscape: Visual methods and the sociological imagination (pp. 147–165). London: Routledge.
• Taussig, M. (1991). Tactility and distraction. Cultural Anthropology, 6(2), 147–153. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656411 (30.11.2015).