Reply to comment

Storytelling As Inquiry
Blog Entry 1

Having been in class during the further discussions of Sharon Burgmayer's painting and dissections of her intent and message, my post is going to be slightly biased. I have always had a very pragmatic mindset and so I tend to find overly simplified visual (or other) representations of such intricate and complex issues as "understanding" to be frustrating to say the least. I have been known to get deeply involved in the philosophical debate or two, as well as having proudly played the Devil's advocate, but in general, I shy away from philosophy. I think learning should come from some methodical approach. I like to start by taking baby steps, proving little bits of information as best as possible and then moving in. I like taking all of the little pieces and putting them out in front of me so I can see patterns and shapes forming. Sometimes people jump too quickly into making conclusions and summaries, leaving a significant amount of information out of the summation just because it doesn't' fit the hypothesized or ideal model--a great risk. I don't think it is possible to have one painting present any accuracy about understanding as a concept. I can certainly understand the desire to do so, and the convenience, but I believe it is verging on "dangerous." I would never say an approach or conclusion is incorrect or correct, as every mind has its own way of sorting through information, but in my opinion, this cube and sphere just don't cut it for me.

Moving away from argument, simply looking at the image present I see two basic forms: a red, blue and green cube, and a multicolored sphere. There is great dichotomy between the cube and the sphere. The cube is hard, solid, rigid, opaque, and certain whereas the sphere is significantly more free-flowing, adaptable, variable. It would appear that the pieces of the cube's puzzle are falling down toward the sphere and not the other way around, just because of my personal cognitive associations. You read from right to left, down the page and thus in general, I follow this path of motion as the "normal" or "expected."

Initially, that is before viewing the video, I thought the message of the painting with the "??????" on the base was saying Understanding is supported by something, some x factor. Seeing the video explanation or, story, behind the painting kind of intrigued me. I don't really understand why rational thought is breaking down and breaking away to fit into the sphere, which is supposedly representing "Life, the experience of life ". If one is using a visual to explain something, then I would expect it to be constructed using terms and associations found most familiar with whatever group it is intended to be shown in. Why aren't the cube and sphere closer in size? I don't want to be nitpicky, but since we are compressing a huge area of study, the basic substance of life, a large part of what we are trying to accomplish by education, then it is a big deal in terms of the intent and message of the painting.

I think it would make more sense if either the cube were significantly smaller than the sphere, or if there were two shapes, one represent rational thought and one representing abstract thought both emitting material to a common third party.

I don't agree with the idea that Understanding is the booby prize. There can be understanding stemming from the exploration of abstract thought as well as from rational thought. Understanding cannot only be achieved from rational thought.