Cresswell take 1

by stronged

27 pages in and I feel bombarded with a whole new batch of concepts. Huge concepts that would take years of scholarly research to unpack separately. I’m not sure how he’s going to summarise such notions within such a small publication. Seems like he is opening up Pandora’s boxes willy-nilly.

Initial questions have popped up. Firstly, whether Heidegger’s theory of Ready-at-hand would be termed a functionalist approach to understanding what things are (ala Bordwell’s bone of contention). Or whether Ready-at-hand is something completely separate. They seem very similar in my interpretation. Perhaps something to ask Jason about. The little Heidegger I have already read in Cresswell went completely over my head. Instead of reading over it again to try to make sense of it I persevered as Adrian has suggested.

I like the idea of chrology as a spatial understanding of things, juxtaposed with the temporal chronology. Two new terms I have up my sleeve. Makes me wonder whether the study of databases is best approached chrologically as their emphasis is more on the spatial montage of it’s units.

I like the term Topophilia to describe the ‘affective bond between people and place’ (Tuan, 4) as it reminds me of Deleuze’s affect-image. Seems to be a similar principle, the past experience of that particular image/place triggering an affected response.

Advertisements