Mapping Sentence and Partial Order Mereology for Perceiving Abstract Art

  • Paul M. W. Hackett
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

In this chapter I concentrate on mapping sentence descriptions of abstract art. In offering potentially valid and useful explanations for understanding the experiential process of viewing abstract art, I do not propose a single model of the entire abstract art experience; rather I offer multiple context-specific mapping sentences. Finally, I suggest a mapping sentence of Crowther’s componential ontology for art abstraction. From this mapping sentence I extend my enquiries to consider the partial ordering of elements of my modelling of Crowther’s ontology. The chapter closes by claiming that mapping sentences and partial ordered diagrams of art experience provide an approach capable of producing greater understanding of abstract fine art as experienced phenomena.

Keywords

Mapping sentence Abstract art Perception of art Partial ordering Partial Order Scalogram Analysis (POSA) 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aeschlimann, A., & Schmid, J. (1992). Drawing orders using less ink. Order, 9, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amar, R., & Toledano, S. (2005). HUDAP—Hebrew University Data Analysis Package. Jerusalem: Computation Center of the Hebrew University and the Louis Guttman Israel Institute of Applied Social Research.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, S., & Wilcock, J. D. (1976). Archaeological context sorting by computer: The Strata program. Science and Archaeology, 17, 3–12.Google Scholar
  4. Borg, I., & Lingoes, J. (1987). Multidimensional similarity structure analysis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruggemann, R., & Patil, G. P. (2011). Ranking and prioritization for multi-indicator systems: Introduction to partial order applications (Environmental and ecological statistics). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crowther, P. (2007). Defining art, creating the canon: Artistic value in an era of doubt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Day, G. A. N. (1987). GAMP—An archaeological matrix program. Produced for Southampton York archaeological simulation systems. Southampton: Southampton University Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  8. Guttman, L. A. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stouffer, L. A. Guttman, & E. A. Schuman (Eds.), Measurement and prediction (Studies in social psychology in world war II, Vol. 4). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Guttman, L. (1991). Louis Guttman in memoriam: Chapters from an unfinished textbook on facet theory. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  10. Hackett, P. M. W. (2013). Fine art and perceptual neuroscience: Field of vision and the painted grid. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, E. C. (1979). Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Herzog, I. (1993). Computer aided Harris Matrix generation. In E. C. Harris, M. R. Brown, & G. J. Brown (Eds.), Practices of archaeological stratification (pp. 201–217). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lingoes, J. (1973). The Guttman-Lingoes non-parametric program series. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Mathesis Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lingoes, J. C., Roskam, E. E., & Borg, I. (Eds.). (1979). Geometric representations of relational data: Readings in multidimensional scaling (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: Mathesis Press.Google Scholar
  15. Patil, G. P., & Taillie, C. (2004). Multiple indicators, partially ordered sets, and linear extensions: Multi-criterion ranking and prioritization. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 11, 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ryan, N. S. (1988). Browsing through the stratigraphic record. In S. P. Q. Rahz (Ed.), Computer and quantitative methods in archaeology (pp. 327–334). Oxford: BAR International Series.Google Scholar
  17. Schwarzenbach, J. B., & Hackett, P. M. W. (2015). Transatlantic reflections on the practice-based Ph.D. in fine art. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Sharon, I. (1995). Partial order scalogram analysis of relations: A mathematical approach to the analysis of stratigraphy. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22(6), 751–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shye, S. (1985). Multiple scaling. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  20. Shye, S., & Amar, R. (1985). Partial-order scalogram analysis by base coordinates and lattice mapping of the items by their scalogram roles. In D. Canter (Ed.), Facet theory: Approaches to social research (pp. 277–298). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul M. W. Hackett
    • 1
  1. 1.Emerson CollegeBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations