We understand new concepts by drawing on what we already know, so this new knowledge is constructed by bringing together the similar and dissimilar. This visual process allows us to draw connections through many different, subjective views. Therefore, we constantly create perception, which is invaluable to thought. These multiple thoughts and perceptions provide us with multidimensional sight; thus, a good seer is a good thinker (Sousanis 81-82). [HD]
“And third, there are those who insist that the most important site at which the meaning of an image is made is not its author, or indeed its production itself, but its audiences, who bring their own ways of seeing and other knowledges to bear on an image and in the process make their own meanings from it” (Rose 23).
In this section, Rose discusses the ways of seeing and the sites, “at which the meanings of an image are made” (16). Although she does not directly discuss ethos in this section by calling it such, she does address the credibility of the author/creator of a particular image. With her perspective of meaning making in mind, how does this theory of knowledge production translate to quantitative images (graphs and charts)? For example, if different individuals released two graphs and each image represented the same set of quantifiable information differently, what would be the author’s role in the image reception? What if one author was Neil deGrasse Tyson and the other was a graduate student in physics? In this case, would the authors still not contribute as much meaning to the image as the audiences themselves? [LW]
Anderson, J. (2015). Understanding cultural geography: places and traces. New York, NY: Routledge.
While searching Google Scholar for citations of Dillard’s Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, I found Anderson’s book, Understanding Cultural Geography: Places and Traces. Anderson’s work discusses the intersections of place, identity, culture, and power. The book examines how individuals experience and understand space through their cultural identities. [LW]
Casebeer, D. (2016). Border Crossings and (Re) crossings: The Post-representational Turn in Social Cartography (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).
I found this dissertation while searching Google Scholar for those books and articles that cite Drucker. In his dissertation, Casebeer discusses the implications of mapping places and space. He examines the culture of cartography and discusses new methods of cartography pedagogy that teach the ways in which societies create knowledge in relation to space. [LW]
Eisner, E. (2008). Art and knowledge. Handbook of the arts in qualitative research, 3-12. Retrieved from http://us.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/18068_Chapter_1.pdf
I found Eisner’s chapter while searching Google Scholar for citations of Dillard’s book. In this chapter, Eisner examines individual and cultural perceptions and the ways in which such perceptions influence knowledge. Eisner also explores ideas of familiarity and strangeness, and how these ideas influence knowledge construction. [LW]
Jackson, P. W. (2000). John Dewey and the lessons of art. Yale University Press.
I found Jackson’s book, John Dewey and the Lessons of Art, when searching for citations of Dillard’s book in Google Scholar. Jackson examines human experience, particularly, the ways in which humans experience art. In his book, Jackson examines an influential work from the 1930s, and studies the contemporary examination of culture, experience, art, and nature. [LW]
Murphy, P. D. (2009). Ecocritical Explorations in Literary and Cultural Studies: Fences, Boundaries, and Fields. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books.
I also found this book while searching Google Scholar for those books and articles that cite Dillard. Murphy’s collection discusses the ethical implications of cultural definitions of place. Murphy examines the ways in which place and space is represented in literature, and troubles these usages in his discussion. [LW]