In Hans Ulrich Obrist's interview with artist Thomas Hirschhorn, Hirschhorn talks about archaeology in relation to how we might consider history and the mass of information (concepts!) we are surrounded by. He suggests archaeology is a useful model as excavation sites are 'never finished, because there are always deeper strata which are not unearthed', too be understood as wholes, they are without hierarchy*, and without answers (394-395).Probably it's because of my current essay writing, but this reminded me of contemporary philosopher Christine Korsgaard's essay "The Activity of Reason", where she proposes a theory of reason as an activity, part of which involves the use of specific sets of principles (that is, those we regard as rational). She suggests that these principles are what hopefully unify our experience of the world and allow us to reconstruct the mass of perceptions, ideas, desires etc., into our identities (22-28). She likens the usefulness of these ways of conceptualising the world to that of maps, rather than simply true or false - because they don't only answer to the physical world but the person using them and their situation (26-27).
Hirschhorn's affection that archaeology is (ultimately) 'without answers', but (fundamentally) useful, methodology wise, seems similar to this map idea - and indeed archaeology could be this model/set of principles that helps to deal with all the stuff around us (the stuff Hirschhorn likes to remind us of!).
* I'm quite puzzled by this - I don't know anything about archaeology, but it seems like excavation sites could easily be hierarchial (simply because the way we view history could easily be?).
--
Works cited:
Hirschhorn, Thomas. Interview with Hans Ulrich Orbist. Hans Ulrich Obrist: Interviews volume 1. Boutoux, Thomas, ed. Milan: Charta, 2003. pp 393-400.
Korsgaard, Christine. "The Activity of Reason". Presidential Address of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, 2008. Accessed from her personal webpage of unpublished essays. 21 September 2009. www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/CMK.Activity.of.Reason.pdf
I like where you're coming from Melanie, about reason and I'd like to understand Korsgaard's theory further. The only issue might be is its idealism. I think we humans struggle to stay reasonable (all the time) which is how we dig ourselves into holes.
ReplyDeleteOh that reminds me, archaeological digs only become historic AFTER the dig. Prior to that there is no heirarchy.
David, I kind of understand what you mean about idealism. But I think she (they? People who write about reason in this way) just means it in a more general way - the way she thinks human minds work, or something (even when they appear to have un-reasonable results), rather than how reason is used colloquially? Not really sure though.
ReplyDeleteI still don't know about excavation sites, because people dig them with their existing ideas, you know?
Hey Melanie,
ReplyDelete"The Activity of reason" reminds me of Tony Whincup's description of the mnemonic object in "Imaging the Intangible". Look it up - its great!
"...mnemonic objects generally encapsulate the best of people's reflections about themselves... a complex business intertwined with edited past experiences, current constructions and orientations towards future aspirations."
Hi Melanie,
ReplyDeleteIf i could have a go, i would say that Hirschhorne sees hierarchy as dependent on the prioritization of age as an indicator of authenticity. that is, like the soccer tag he refers to, without the hinge of age, artifacts are leveled completely or have an imposed equality that makes obsolete in regards to history. to this end they become more open and potentially there is a lot more to find.