Body movement: Coping with the environment : Irmgard Bartenieff with Dori Lewis (New York: Gordon & Breach 1980, 304 pp, $42.50)

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/24534/1/0000813.pd

The arts and psychotherapy : Shaun McNiff (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1981, 232 pages, $19.75)

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/24109/1/0000366.pd

Late 1920s film theory and criticism as a test-case for Benjamin’s generalizations on the experiential effects of editing

This article investigates Walter Benjamin’s influential generalization that the effects of cinema are akin to the hyper-stimulating experience of modernity. More specifically, I focus on his oft-cited 1935/36 claim that all editing elicits shock-like disruption. First, I propose a more detailed articulation of the experience of modernity understood as hyper-stimulation and call for distinguishing between at least two of its subsets: the experience of speed and dynamism, on the one hand, and the experience of shock/disruption, on the other. Then I turn to classical film theory of the late 1920s to demonstrate the existence of contemporary views on editing alternative to Benjamin’s. For instance, whereas classical Soviet and Weimar theorists relate the experience of speed and dynamism to both Soviet and classical Hollywood style editing, they reserve the experience of shock/disruption for Soviet montage. In order to resolve the conceptual disagreement between these theorists, on the one hand, and Benjamin, on the other, I turn to late 1920s Weimar film criticism. I demonstrate that, contrary to Benjamin’s generalizations about the disruptive and shock-like nature of all editing, and in line with other theorists’ accounts, different editing practices were regularly distinguished by comparison to at least two distinct hyper-stimulation subsets: speed and dynamism, and shock-like disruption. In other words, contemporaries regularly distinguished between Soviet montage and classical Hollywood editing patterns on the basis of experiential effects alone. On the basis of contemporary reviews of city symphonies, I conclude with a proposal for distinguishing a third subset – confusion. This is an original manuscript / preprint of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Early Popular Visual Culture on 02 Aug 2016 available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17460654.2016.1199322

The affective Bauhaus 1919: 2019

Bauhaus artists László Moholy-Nagy and Oskar Schlemmer dominate the opening exhibition of the year-long celebration of ‘100 Years The Bauhaus’: ‘Licht. Schatten. Spuren’ (Light. Shadow. Traces) (Kunsthalle, Berlin, January 2019). The curators cite these artists as driving forces behind the contemporary visual art and performance pieces, many specially commissioned. This suggests that both artists demand a more nuanced appraisal 100 years on than they have hitherto enjoyed. Part 1 of this article re-evaluates the history of the Bauhaus ‘gestalt’ thinking in relation to creativity; part 2 asserts the absolute modernity of Bauhaus thinking within contemporary performance. The two artists’ work and ideas in every medium were so far ahead of their time that only now are their ideas able to be (if only partially) realised, exploited and developed to create a strong and affective art for the twenty-first century

Simplicity in Visual Representation: A Semiotic Approach

Simplicity, as an ideal in the design of visual representations, has not received systematic attention. High-level guidelines are too general, and low-level guidelines too ad hoc, too numerous, and too often incompatible, to serve in a particular design situation. This paper reviews notions of visual simplicity in the literature within the analytical framework provided by Charles Morris' communication model, specifically, his trichotomy of communication levels—the syntactic, the semantic, and the pragmatic. Simplicity is ultimate ly shown to entail the adjudication of incompatibilities both within, and between, levels.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68281/2/10.1177_105065198700100103.pd