the pragmatics of aesthetic assessment in conversation
Post on 01-Jul-2015
1.052 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The Pragmatics of Aesthetic Assessment in
Conversation
Saul Albert & Patrick G.T. Healey
Queen Mary University of London
saul.albert@eecs.qmul.ac.uk
pat.healey@eecs.qmul.ac.uk
19/09/2012
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: D'yuh li:ke it?
(...)
D:.hhh Well I don't � I'm not a great fan of this
type of a:rt.
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: D'yuh li:ke it?
(...)
D:.hhh Well I don't � I'm not a great fan of this
type of a:rt.
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: D'yuh li:ke it?
D:.hhh Yes I do like it=
D: =although I rreally::=
(...)
D:.hhh Well I don't � I'm not a great fan of this
type of a:rt.
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: D'yuh li:ke it?
D:.hhh Yes I do like it=
D: =although I rreally::=
(...)
D:.hhh Well I don't � I'm not a great fan of this
type of a:rt.
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: D'yuh li:ke it?
D:.hhh Yes I do like it=
D: =although I rreally::=
(...)
D:.hhh Well I don't � I'm not a great fan of this
type of a:rt.
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: D'yuh li:ke it?
D:.hhh Yes I do like it=
D: =although I rreally::=
(...)
D:.hhh Well I don't � I'm not a great fan of this
type of a:rt.
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: D'yuh li:ke it?
D:.hhh Yes I do like it=
D: =although I rreally::=
(...)
D:.hhh Well I don't � I'm not a great fan of this
type of a:rt.
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: D'yuh li:ke it?
D:.hhh Yes I do like it=
D: =although I rreally::=
C: =Dju make it?
(...)
D:.hhh Well I don't � I'm not a great fan of this
type of a:rt.
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
C: =Dju make it?
A: No We bought it, It's a.hh a Mary Kerrida print.
D: 0:h (I k-)=
A: =Dz that make any sense to you?
C: Mn mh. I don' even know who she is.
A: She's that's, the Sister Kerrida, who,
D:[.
hhh
D: Oh that's the one you to:ld me you bou:ght.=
C:[
Oh�d
A:bYe:h
D: Ya:h.
A:[Right.
(1.0)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
C: =Dju make it?
A: No We bought it, It's a.hh a Mary Kerrida print.
D: 0:h (I k-)=
A: =Dz that make any sense to you?
C: Mn mh. I don' even know who she is.
A: She's that's, the Sister Kerrida, who,
D:[.
hhh
D: Oh that's the one you to:ld me you bou:ght.=
C:[
Oh�d
A:bYe:h
D: Ya:h.
A:[Right.
(1.0)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
C: =Dju make it?
A: No We bought it, It's a.hh a Mary Kerrida print.
D: 0:h (I k-)=
A: =Dz that make any sense to you?
C: Mn mh. I don' even know who she is.
A: She's that's, the Sister Kerrida, who,
D:[.
hhh
D: Oh that's the one you to:ld me you bou:ght.=
C:[
Oh�d
A:bYe:h
D: Ya:h.
A:[Right.
(1.0)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
C: =Dju make it?
A: No We bought it, It's a.hh a Mary Kerrida print.
D: 0:h (I k-)=
A: =Dz that make any sense to you?
C: Mn mh. I don' even know who she is.
A: She's that's, the Sister Kerrida, who,
D:[.
hhh
D: Oh that's the one you to:ld me you bou:ght.=
C:[
Oh�d
A:bYe:h
D: Ya:h.
A:[Right.
(1.0)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
C: =Dju make it?
A: No We bought it, It's a.hh a Mary Kerrida print.
D: 0:h (I k-)=
A: =Dz that make any sense to you?
C: Mn mh. I don' even know who she is.
A: She's that's, the Sister Kerrida, who,
D:[.
hhh
D: Oh that's the one you to:ld me you bou:ght.=
C:[
Oh�d
A:bYe:h
D: Ya:h.
A:[Right.
(1.0)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
C: =Dju make it?
A: No We bought it, It's a.hh a Mary Kerrida print.
D: 0:h (I k-)=
A: =Dz that make any sense to you?
C: Mn mh. I don' even know who she is.
A: She's that's, the Sister Kerrida, who,
D:[.
hhh
D: Oh that's the one you to:ld me you bou:ght.=
C:[
Oh�d
A:bYe:h
D: Ya:h.
A:[Right.
(1.0)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
C: =Dju make it?
A: No We bought it, It's a.hh a Mary Kerrida print.
D: 0:h (I k-)=
A: =Dz that make any sense to you?
C: Mn mh. I don' even know who she is.
A: She's that's, the Sister Kerrida, who,
D:[.
hhh
D: Oh that's the one you to:ld me you bou:ght.=
C:[
Oh�d
A:bYe:h
D: Ya:h.
A:[Right.
(1.0)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
C: =Dju make it?
A: No We bought it, It's a.hh a Mary Kerrida print.
D: 0:h (I k-)=
A: =Dz that make any sense to you?
C: Mn mh. I don' even know who she is.
A: She's that's, the Sister Kerrida, who,
D:[.
hhh
D: Oh that's the one you to:ld me you bou:ght.=
C:[
Oh�d
A:bYe:h
D: Ya:h.
A:[Right.
(1.0)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
C: =Dju make it?
A: No We bought it, It's a.hh a Mary Kerrida print.
D: 0:h (I k-)=
A: =Dz that make any sense to you?
C: Mn mh. I don' even know who she is.
A: She's that's, the Sister Kerrida, who,
D:[.
hhh
D: Oh that's the one you to:ld me you bou:ght.=
C:[
Oh�d
A:bYe:h
D: Ya:h.
A:[Right.
(1.0)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: Right.
(1.0)
A: It's worth something,
(1.0)
A: There's only a hundred of'm
(0.5)
D: Hmm
(...)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: Right.
(1.0)
A: It's worth something,
(1.0)
A: There's only a hundred of'm
(0.5)
D: Hmm
(...)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: Right.
(1.0)
A: It's worth something,
(1.0)
A: There's only a hundred of'm
(0.5)
D: Hmm
(...)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: Right.
(1.0)
A: It's worth something,
(1.0)
A: There's only a hundred of'm
(0.5)
D: Hmm
(...)
Evaluation of A's new artwork (JS:I. -1) (Pomerantz, 1984)
A: D'yuh li:ke it?
(...)
D: Yih d-know why I don't go fer this type of uh:
art, Becuz it� it strikes me ez being the
magazine adverti:sement ty:pe. Which some
uh-uh some a' them are really great. But tuhm
I-my, taste in art is for the more uhit-t-treh-
it tends tuh be realistic.
Parameter shifts in this evaluation:
I the authorship of the print,
I the fame of the author (to co-participants),
I the monetary value of the print,
I the scarcity of the print,
I prior knowledge of the purchase and its authorship
I the correct spelling of the word �Life� in the print
I the degree to which the print is �realistic�, and
I the degree to which the print resembles a magazine advert.
Conventional approaches to aesthetics
I Physical qualities of objects (Greenberg, 1939),
I historical context (Kristeller, 1951),
I institutional context (Dickie, 1984),
I social/interpersonal relations (Bourriaud, 2002).
(Corris, 2006)
�Such social e�ects are generally demonstrated rhetorically�.
Conventional approaches to aesthetics
I Physical qualities of objects (Greenberg, 1939),
I historical context (Kristeller, 1951),
I institutional context (Dickie, 1984),
I social/interpersonal relations (Bourriaud, 2002).
(Corris, 2006)
�Such social e�ects are generally demonstrated rhetorically�.
Conventional approaches to aesthetics
I Physical qualities of objects (Greenberg, 1939),
I historical context (Kristeller, 1951),
I institutional context (Dickie, 1984),
I social/interpersonal relations (Bourriaud, 2002).
(Corris, 2006)
�Such social e�ects are generally demonstrated rhetorically�.
Conventional approaches to aesthetics
I Physical qualities of objects (Greenberg, 1939),
I historical context (Kristeller, 1951),
I institutional context (Dickie, 1984),
I social/interpersonal relations (Bourriaud, 2002).
(Corris, 2006)
�Such social e�ects are generally demonstrated rhetorically�.
Conventional approaches to aesthetics
I Physical qualities of objects (Greenberg, 1939),
I historical context (Kristeller, 1951),
I institutional context (Dickie, 1984),
I social/interpersonal relations (Bourriaud, 2002).
(Corris, 2006)
�Such social e�ects are generally demonstrated rhetorically�.
Conventional approaches to aesthetics
I Physical qualities of objects (Greenberg, 1939),
I historical context (Kristeller, 1951),
I institutional context (Dickie, 1984),
I social/interpersonal relations (Bourriaud, 2002).
(Corris, 2006)
�Such social e�ects are generally demonstrated rhetorically�.
Sister Corita Kent's �Life�
A conversation about Jackson Pollock
Mark Last time I went to the <unclear> was the school one <pause>
Unknown Went to the Royal Academy when I was doing my 'O' Levels,
<unclear> <pause> it was a Jackson follow up it was about,
ambulance was about twelve foot by twelve foot, it was literally
splodges of paint all over the fucking place, it was horrible,
<unclear> you can actually buy them at the Royal Academy, you
can't buy them at <unclear>, but he was asking a hundred thousand
pounds for it, I couldn't believe it, a trained monkey could of
fucking painted that <pause> <unclear>
Mark Well that, it probably is.
Stuart Jackson <unclear> is a monkey at London Zoo.
Mark All you have to do is get one mug buy it, too buy it, he's made
ain't he, ah? <pause dur=5>
Mark I mean <pause> see why they call people like Constable, Rembrandt
a great artist <unclear>
Unknown I never see how they can call anybody like <unclear>
Mark About Picasso a great artist
Stuart Na, I don't know <unclear>
Mark Its just <pause> crap
References I
N Bourriaud. Relational aesthetics. Les presses du reel, Paris, 2002.
Michael Corris. The Dialogical Imagination : The Conversational Aesthetic of Conceptual Art. In DavidHopkins, editor, Avant Garde Critical Studies, pages 301�310. Rodopi, Amsterdam, 2006.
G Dickie. The art circle: a theory of art. Haven, Cambridge, 1984.
Clement Greenberg. Avant-garde and kitsch. Partisan Review, pages 1�13, 1939.
Paul Oskar Kristeller. The modern system of the arts: A study in the history of aesthetics part I.Journal of the History of Ideas, 12(4):496�527, 1951.
DW Maynard. Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. Social PsychologyQuarterly, 47(4):301�316, 1984.
A Pomerantz. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turnshapes. In J Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, editors, Structures of social action: Studies inConversation Analysis, chapter 4, pages 57�102. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984.
H Sacks and EA Scheglo�. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.Language, 50(4):696�735, 1974.
Stephen C. Levinson. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
top related