barebones communication

… a blog on communication

on text, context and context layers

Let me pick up on the last post right away and give you an example, and an indication, of how I will use some of the terms just introduced. 

A text is what I (or you) decide what should be the object of communication. Could be verbal, could be visual, could be anything. The text is relative to what you want to focus on.

When you have picked your text, then what you have not picked is the text’s contexts.

Within the context your can work with layers of context. Being it intentional layers or extensional layers. The intentional context and layers are derivations of what you mentally bring with you to the act of communication. The extensional context and layers are based on the physical extensions of the communication text in question.

What concerns us in this blog post, is the extensional layers. Only. Let me show you what I mean.

 Italian Viola

 Example 1:

This photograph is of a simple picture on a wall. And some of the wall.

If I pick the picture as my text, then the wall will be its visible context.

There is however also an invisible context related to the picture. This invisible context will be a) the whole wall, b) the room in which the picture hangs, c) the house that contains the room, d) the area of town, e) the part of the city.

All this is pretty easy to comprehend, and the spheres mentioned constitutes the context layers of the text, which in this case is the picture on the wall. 

Example 2:

Now, in this same photograph I can chose another text for my focus of investigation.

The picture on the wall consists of (among other things) 10 dried flowers. I presume these are Italian flowers since the picture was bought in San Gimignano, Italy, some years back. There ara 10 dried flowers attached to a yellowish paper. The text is embedded in a passepartou frame, which again is fixed to a wooden frame.

If I pick the upper right hand viola as my communications text, then a) the yellowish paper, b) the other dried flowers, c) the passapartou frame, and d) the wooden frame will the viola’s immediate context. That is: in addition to the contexts layers mentioned in the first example. 

Is this little exercise in context layers important? And the ones like it? I think it is, and for several reasons:

1) It explicates a set of tools that you can work with in analyzing, and even constructing, meaning in communication.

2) It can drill your talent, enhance you vision, and make is easier for you to recognize such layers in the future.

3) It gives you the opportunity to work with one theory of communication, and one (barebones) toolbox when doing communication :-)

4) It will eventually provide you with a set of communications tools that comprises semiology, gestalt psychology, hermeneutics … and the lot, in one coherent universe. 

And these are good enough reasons for me :-) 

Example 3 & 4: 

Now, before I end this post, let me give you two more visual texts that show you how changing elements in context layers, will change message content in a photograph.

Imagine that you are a journalist, or a photographer, and you are on an assignment for your paper. You are going to interview a guy, and you want the pictures to tell the story, as well.

The story tracks the person from early childhood to the present, and you need to take some pictures that “follows that track”. You want to do that by using context layers :-) If you get a chance.

As your text you pick the picture frame standing in the bookshelf in his home. That makes the books in the shelf part of the context, right?  And the books will constitute a context layer.

You take two pictures. One to illustrate an article about a rather “boring guy”, who has spent his life reading a certain kind of books (if that is boring) :-) 

 Bookshelf 02

For the other picture you rearrange the context a bit and substitute some of the books in this shelf with some others from another part of the shelf. Making the guy potentially little less “boring”. Definitely more versatile and colourful :-) 

Bookshelf 01 

What picture was used for the article?

Well, there was no article produced, but normally the picture editor at the paper decide such things. So, we will never know about the article and the picture, will we :-)

What we, however, will know, is that changing a part of a context layer of a text, will most certainly change the message of that item of communication.  In this case an image.

Thanks for reading.

February 10, 2008 Posted by knut skjærven | barebones communication, toolbox | , , , , , | No Comments

on terms and definitions

I have already used the notions “denotation” and “connotation”.  These are special terms used particularly within the semiological research field.
 
Before going any further, I will briefly indicate some other terms that I will use.  
 
Here is what I will not do: I have no intention giving, or even trying to give, you an idea of how terms have been used by others in others context. That would be a task of a lifetime. And I have, sorry to say, not time enough for that. Nor do I have the urge, inclination or ambition for that kind of work.
 
An there is another good reason as well: Barebones operate in a mixed landscape using a number of resources like semiology, hermeneutics, gestalt psychology among other things. Terms and definitions can vary extensively from area to area. Sometimes using the same words but with different content ascribes to it. Wanting to work that out, it will not only take a lifetime, but you will have to bring in most of your family to work with you, as well. And that was absolutely not my idea :-)  
 
I will do something quite different: I will initially stipulate the meaning of the most important terms used within barebones communication.  By that I state what the individual terms will mean on this blog, and in the barebones context.
 
By the way, this is called normative definitions. It’s quite common :-)
 
Here are some. 
 
Text
When you do analysis. When you try to work out, form of built up a piece of communication, I will call this piece of communication for a communication text.
 
This text can be verbal, in can be visual, it can be auditory. It can even be tactile. It is still a text in this context.
 
A photograph is a text, a novel is a text, a film is a text, a poem is a text, and advertisement is a text, a piece of music is a text. 
 
Does this then mean that I am going to drop the other descriptions of the text objext? Of course not, but for reasons of clarity I will in certain contexts name them all as pieces of text. I will make that clear to you when it happens. 
 
Context
Another term I will use is the term context.
 
In Merriam-Webster we read that: “ the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs“. And that’s about it, for the time being, on context.
 
Just forget all the other definitions you might have on context. If you want to have a look at the “descriptive nightmare” you are in for if you go for a descriptive definition of context, then be my guest :-)  
 
Context Layer
Dependent on the proximity of the context elements, I will use the terms context layers for these.
 
Something like this: the first context layer for a car could be the asphalt that is stands on, the second the street that it is in, the third the area of town, the forth the city.
 
This would be layers within the extended horizon (see below). Intentional layers will be of a different sort, ad I will come back to those in a future post.
 
Horizon 
The over all context breaks down to two primary horizons: the extended horizon and the intended horizon.
 
I will also use the words extensionality and intentionality for these areas.
 
Each of these horizons could, and sometimes ought to, be broken down into context layers or horizon layers. 
 
Why this? 
Yes, you are perfectly right to ask this question. Why this? Is this not to complicate things even more? Having a barebones language as well? 
 
Well, in the beginning this may just be the case: more complication.  However, even in a short run, using normative definitions will make the communication more efficient.  
 
Is this it then? The terms mentioned above are those the words and terms that you will use specifically in the barebones context? And only those words. 
 
The answer is “no” to both questions. But is quite enough for this blog post. I will make things clearer as I go along. I will continue to add to the barebones dictionary. 
 
So, once again stay tuned :-).   

February 10, 2008 Posted by knut skjærven | toolbox | , , , , , , , , | No Comments