Quickly, I can add an interesting semantic point about translating the word Darstellung. The substantive version of the concept in German is usually translated in English as Representation. However, as German usage of the verb "darstellen" suggests, "presentation" might be better in an art or design context when referring to the activity rather than the product. That said, representation is probably still the better term for most art history and philosophy. It involves the embodied relationship between the actions and the object, as well as the concepts. If the difference between presentation and representation is significant for the English author/translator, then the semantics can be substantial. Translations of Klee's Pedagogical Sketchbook are interesting in this regard.
A similar problem exists in translations of the word "Geistige" to "spiritual" (as in the title of one of Kandinsky’s books), because, when contextualised, you could arguably also translate it as "mental"; however, that word has too many meanings in both German and English, which are dissonant with Kandinsky’s intentions. More awkward, but better fitting, is probably mindfulness. That would lead to quite a different title for the book, then: “About mindfulness in art, especially painting”. I think that’s more in line with what he was actually teaching at Bauhaus first in Weimar, than in Dessau, just a few years after the book's publication.
Great article, as always. I wonder whether Auerbach's ‘semiotic’ remarks are not the result of the proto-Gestalt researches by his doctoral supervisor, Hermann von Helmholtz.
Auerbach writes a lot about the ‘language of signs’ and the clarity (monosemicity) of graphic representations of data. I have not done any in-depth research on this topic, so it is just a hunch on my part.
What a fantastic article about Felix Auerbach - I hadn't heard of this pioneering scientist's explanation of graphic representation. I wonder if some re-print of the book is available?
Quickly, I can add an interesting semantic point about translating the word Darstellung. The substantive version of the concept in German is usually translated in English as Representation. However, as German usage of the verb "darstellen" suggests, "presentation" might be better in an art or design context when referring to the activity rather than the product. That said, representation is probably still the better term for most art history and philosophy. It involves the embodied relationship between the actions and the object, as well as the concepts. If the difference between presentation and representation is significant for the English author/translator, then the semantics can be substantial. Translations of Klee's Pedagogical Sketchbook are interesting in this regard.
A similar problem exists in translations of the word "Geistige" to "spiritual" (as in the title of one of Kandinsky’s books), because, when contextualised, you could arguably also translate it as "mental"; however, that word has too many meanings in both German and English, which are dissonant with Kandinsky’s intentions. More awkward, but better fitting, is probably mindfulness. That would lead to quite a different title for the book, then: “About mindfulness in art, especially painting”. I think that’s more in line with what he was actually teaching at Bauhaus first in Weimar, than in Dessau, just a few years after the book's publication.
Great article, as always. I wonder whether Auerbach's ‘semiotic’ remarks are not the result of the proto-Gestalt researches by his doctoral supervisor, Hermann von Helmholtz.
Tell me more about this!
Here is the English translation of Helmholtz's treatise on physiological optics and visual percepcion https://web.archive.org/web/20180320133752/http://poseidon.sunyopt.edu/BackusLab/Helmholtz/
Auerbach writes a lot about the ‘language of signs’ and the clarity (monosemicity) of graphic representations of data. I have not done any in-depth research on this topic, so it is just a hunch on my part.
What a fantastic article about Felix Auerbach - I hadn't heard of this pioneering scientist's explanation of graphic representation. I wonder if some re-print of the book is available?