[Crm-sig] Issue: questionable Sunrise

Øyvind Eide oyvind.eide at iln.uio.no
Fri Dec 11 11:16:09 EET 2009


A fascinating discussion. But instead of going into the question if  
one should trust the painter to explain what a painting depicts, I  
will choose the solution of the coward:

In order to make it easier to understand the example for a reader/user  
of CRM, I would suggest an example is chosen where there is a simple,  
main referent of the image, and where that referent is a typical  
event. A battle or a beheading or a marriage or something. Something  
like Jacques-Louis David's "The Coronation of Napoleon".


Regards,

Øyvind

Den 11. des.. 2009 kl. 09.40 skrev Christian-Emil Ore:

> Hi
> A sunrise is an event. In the Monet case it may or may not be. In  
> the case the painting describes a generalised conceptual  
> understanding of a sunrise it is in my opinion not.
>
> The Norwegian painter Edvard Munch connects  in his writings his  
> painting "Scream" to a  concrete event when he and some friends  
> walked in a park just outside  the centre of Oslo (Kristiania)  in  
> the early 1880s apparently in the late afternoon (early spring or  
> late autumn) when the sun was setting and Munch got the sensation of  
> the existential scream of nature. Thus the painting depicts this  
> feeling (concept) as well as in some sense the  stroll-event.
> (http://www.munch.museum.no/ekko/gr/skrik.htm)
>
> I think d) is the best solution but the Munch example may be too  
> complicated from a pedagogical point of view although it is a pretty  
> well known painting.
>
> Regards,
> Christian-Emil
>
> On 10.12.2009 21:35, martin wrote:
>> Are you sure? Did Monet not paint in the nature? I remember some  
>> French
>> term of plein-airists...
>> We have four choices:
>> a) accept the sunrise as event
>> b) find a better class for the sunrise
>> c) regard the depiction as conceptual, but for an IMPRESSIONIST,  
>> that causes me headaches
>> d) find a less ambiguous example and postpone our understanding of  
>> the true nature of the sunrise
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>> Christian-Emil Ore wrote:
>>> I have another comment. Monet painting does not depict any  
>>> particular sunrise, just the concept of the sun rising (over Le  
>>> Havre). So the example should perhaps be replaced or changed from  
>>> event to type or conceptual object.
>>>
>>> Chr-Emil
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10.12.2009 16:03, martin wrote:
>>>> Dear Oeyvind,
>>>>
>>>> Sure, we know what a sunrise is. I meant, what is the superclass  
>>>> of "sunrise" in the CRM.
>>>> I could regard it, as you say, as just a time-span (with time- 
>>>> zone). An E5 Event should bring about
>>>> a change of state. That it will be daylight after the sunrise  
>>>> could be regarded as a change of state, even
>>>> though the daylight line just sweeps over the earth. There is
>>>> however no interaction associated with it, as with any other  
>>>> occurrence patterns between
>>>> independtly moving things. There is no objective notion of  
>>>> "participants". There is no notion
>>>> of things "meeting", except may be for the photons. In this  
>>>> sense, driving a car from A to B could
>>>> be seen as consisting of thousands of events of passing stones  
>>>> next to the road.
>>>>
>>>> We could regard is as E4 Period, since in the scope note we say,  
>>>> there is no need for change of state,
>>>> and assign a place and time to it.
>>>>
>>>> From a point of physics, there is no energy-mediated interaction  
>>>> between the participants, as with activities,
>>>> building crashes etc.
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, where the borders of an event are. Is "passing  
>>>> by" at a distance without interaction an event
>>>> in the sense we need for the CRM? Do I pass by Auckland in a  
>>>> sense on my way from home to my bureau in Heraklion?
>>>>
>>>> I suspect we are touching the notion of "situation" we have  
>>>> avoided to model so far.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting problem, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> Øyvind Eide wrote:
>>>>> Den 10. des.. 2009 kl. 14.38 skrev martin:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "“Impression Sunrise” by Monet (E84) depicts sun rising over Le  
>>>>>> Havre (E5) mode of depiction Impressionistic (E55)" :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One may argue, that "Sunrise over Le Havre" depicts a place and  
>>>>>> a certain timespan, but the sunrise itself might
>>>>>> not be seen as a process in the sense of the CRM, since it is  
>>>>>> just a question of a view on a constellation of deeply
>>>>>> independent things (rather a "situation"). May be, we should  
>>>>>> avoid the example, until we better know what a sunrise is?
>>>>> Dear Martin, and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> If we do not know now what a sunrise is, will we know better in  
>>>>> the future?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the problem is not the word "sunrise". It is a normal  
>>>>> word with several related meanings: e.g. " a time of day", or  
>>>>> "any (major) awakening", as a dictionary will tell us.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is rather than when such a word is used in the title  
>>>>> of a painting, the meaning is not fixed, so that it can mean the  
>>>>> time of day, or it can mean the start of a new, totally  
>>>>> different part of person's life, just to take two examples. In  
>>>>> order to model such a text in a formalism such as CRM, one of  
>>>>> the meaning must be chosen (or maybe several, but always fewer  
>>>>> than the potential total number of possible meaning).
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, is this not a case similar to underspecification?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Øyvind Eide
>>>>> Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
>>>>> Unit for Digital Documentation, University of Oslo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>




More information about the Crm-sig mailing list