onsdag 29 oktober 2008
onsdag 22 oktober 2008
Neutrality is a state of mind
Our investigation in the colorful piece of cloth from IKEA, was meant to get practical with the material, to take it a part into pieces and see what happens. Our idea is that Neutrality, is a state of mind and an ongoing negotiation. A negotiation of who has power to claim something as neutral. In this experiment we have the power, we decide what is neutral, and that is as accurate as anything else. If you don’t give someone else a power over the words, they don’t have that power. We know what is neutral – not them.
An endless experiment:
The cloth was neutral from the beginning; it was not vivid, not calm, but a struggle between the different basic colors. The cloth evened out and balanced the cultural codes, the history, and its own content, making itself as neutral as vacuum. Why? Do we ask ourselves as scientists, is this piece of cloth so perfect in its neutrality. We have to take it apart. We began by separating the cloth by its colors, carefully extracting each one with steady scissor-hands. Within this process we found out that parts the parts in themselves were far from neutral. Some were easy to remove, some complicated and troublesome. Some were big and some were small. Some gave us, the researchers, blisters on our hands, some didn’t. The list could go on. But in this process, made us discover and prove one thing: A neutral object as a whole is not neutral in its parts, but consists of opposites.
In the next step we took the different parts, the colors, and did several measurements and calculations with them. We weighed them, counted the minor parts, calculated the area, and the different 2D-shapes. Then psychological experiments were conducted at a selected group of skilled neutrality experts. The experiments were aimed at naming the feeling the different colors and shapes provoked. Also here there were some interesting discoveries, partly contradicting the earlier ones. An overweight of the associations made by the selected group, leaned towards unease, chaos and wildness. This is interesting, so a neutral object need not to consist of just two opposites, but of a swarm and a larger system of chaotic and seemingly incoherent parts.
After this in-depth research of the different shapes and colors, we began disassembling the pieces even further, cutting them in pieces with an average square area of 11 mm2. This process turned out to be time-consuming, but nonetheless utterly important for the research. The pieces became like molecules or atoms, each the same, but still individual. They were Individual in the sense that each one had a slightly different shape and size, but the same because they all were replaceable by any other of the same color. After this process, we were left with six piles of the necessary components for the original pattern.
The final step was to mix them to be able to create a new entirety, a new whole. All of us were silent when this important moment finally came. Carefully the small components were mixed and spread out to create a smooth surface. And to our pleasure we could see that the surface created still were neutral, as neutral as it has been in the beginning. So we could conclude that: The piece of cloth from IKEA is neutral, and becomes neutral. During the process we found out that neutrality is both a state of mind and a negotiation, a struggle, between the different parts and components of the chosen object.
Our investigation in the colorful piece of cloth from IKEA, was meant to get practical with the material, to take it a part into pieces and see what happens. Our idea is that Neutrality, is a state of mind and an ongoing negotiation. A negotiation of who has power to claim something as neutral. In this experiment we have the power, we decide what is neutral, and that is as accurate as anything else. If you don’t give someone else a power over the words, they don’t have that power. We know what is neutral – not them.
An endless experiment:
The cloth was neutral from the beginning; it was not vivid, not calm, but a struggle between the different basic colors. The cloth evened out and balanced the cultural codes, the history, and its own content, making itself as neutral as vacuum. Why? Do we ask ourselves as scientists, is this piece of cloth so perfect in its neutrality. We have to take it apart. We began by separating the cloth by its colors, carefully extracting each one with steady scissor-hands. Within this process we found out that parts the parts in themselves were far from neutral. Some were easy to remove, some complicated and troublesome. Some were big and some were small. Some gave us, the researchers, blisters on our hands, some didn’t. The list could go on. But in this process, made us discover and prove one thing: A neutral object as a whole is not neutral in its parts, but consists of opposites.
In the next step we took the different parts, the colors, and did several measurements and calculations with them. We weighed them, counted the minor parts, calculated the area, and the different 2D-shapes. Then psychological experiments were conducted at a selected group of skilled neutrality experts. The experiments were aimed at naming the feeling the different colors and shapes provoked. Also here there were some interesting discoveries, partly contradicting the earlier ones. An overweight of the associations made by the selected group, leaned towards unease, chaos and wildness. This is interesting, so a neutral object need not to consist of just two opposites, but of a swarm and a larger system of chaotic and seemingly incoherent parts.
After this in-depth research of the different shapes and colors, we began disassembling the pieces even further, cutting them in pieces with an average square area of 11 mm2. This process turned out to be time-consuming, but nonetheless utterly important for the research. The pieces became like molecules or atoms, each the same, but still individual. They were Individual in the sense that each one had a slightly different shape and size, but the same because they all were replaceable by any other of the same color. After this process, we were left with six piles of the necessary components for the original pattern.
The final step was to mix them to be able to create a new entirety, a new whole. All of us were silent when this important moment finally came. Carefully the small components were mixed and spread out to create a smooth surface. And to our pleasure we could see that the surface created still were neutral, as neutral as it has been in the beginning. So we could conclude that: The piece of cloth from IKEA is neutral, and becomes neutral. During the process we found out that neutrality is both a state of mind and a negotiation, a struggle, between the different parts and components of the chosen object.
måndag 20 oktober 2008
måndag 13 oktober 2008
10 Commandments of Neutrality
1. Death is neutral - not life.
2. Neutrality is impartial, doesn't favour anyone or anything.
3. Neutrality is genderless.
4. Neutrality is balance, not avarage or commodity
5. The less you know the more neutral you are.
6. Neutrality is always changing, can't be calculated.
7. Neutrality is what's left when everything else is eliminated.
8. Neutrality is always in relation to something else.
9. The prejudice of neutrality is not neutral.
10. Neutrality is a state of mind.
2. Neutrality is impartial, doesn't favour anyone or anything.
3. Neutrality is genderless.
4. Neutrality is balance, not avarage or commodity
5. The less you know the more neutral you are.
6. Neutrality is always changing, can't be calculated.
7. Neutrality is what's left when everything else is eliminated.
8. Neutrality is always in relation to something else.
9. The prejudice of neutrality is not neutral.
10. Neutrality is a state of mind.
neutrality requires no choice.
could neutrality be close to the concept of “objectivity”?
Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created. While such formulations capture the basic intuitive idea of objectivity, neither is without controversy.
General applications
The term “objectivity” designates both a feature of scientific investigators and a feature of scientific inquiry itself. To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth-conducive methods in one’s thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking. The forms of observation and experimentation, and the canons of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning employed by scientists practicing the verification guide scientists to be objective.
As stated earlier, the term “objective” can be applied to methods used in this process or results produced by it. For example, if a study to determine the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical drug is double-blind, randomized, and placebo controlled, the study can be called “objective” because it adheres to methods that are known to improve the reliability of its results.
Law, medicine, and almost every academic field have developed rules of evidence and guidelines for objectivity particular to their subject matter. In history, for example, objectivity is achieved through the use of the historical method and peer review of journal articles in which authors’ proposed explanations and analyses of historical events are evaluated by other experts, prior to publication.
It is a matter of dispute among experts to what degree aesthetic and ethical judgements, as well as judgements involving the interpretation of the law, can be objective. Some hold that the beauty or merit of artworks and literary works cannot be objectively decided. Others deny this. Some claim that ethical judgements are relative to an individual’s values or to the norms, mores, and folk-ways of society. Others deny this. There are impressive arguments on both sides.
Objectivity and subjectivity
Painting by Jackson Pollock
In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that ‘2 plus 2 equals 4’. A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times, places or people. For instance, ‘That painting is beautiful’ may be true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone.
The above examples are non-controversial. There are, however, other issues considered objective by some, not all. The role of Evolution vs. Intelligent design in the formation of living organisms is a typical example. Here, there are more objective arguments to support evolution than creation. Hence, an objective person will conclude that evolution is the most objective explanation. This illustrates that the objectivity of a theory does not depend on the approval of all. Sometimes, the objective opinion is held by a minority as, for example, Copernicus and Galileo’s theories on the rotation of the Earth.
Objectivity versus neutrality
Neutrality is not synonymous with objectivity. In a controversy, an objective person will not remain neutral but will chose the side supported by the most objective arguments. Objectivity therefore requires a choice, which is often difficult and may prove to be erroneous, whereas neutrality requires no choice.
Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created. While such formulations capture the basic intuitive idea of objectivity, neither is without controversy.
General applications
The term “objectivity” designates both a feature of scientific investigators and a feature of scientific inquiry itself. To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth-conducive methods in one’s thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking. The forms of observation and experimentation, and the canons of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning employed by scientists practicing the verification guide scientists to be objective.
As stated earlier, the term “objective” can be applied to methods used in this process or results produced by it. For example, if a study to determine the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical drug is double-blind, randomized, and placebo controlled, the study can be called “objective” because it adheres to methods that are known to improve the reliability of its results.
Law, medicine, and almost every academic field have developed rules of evidence and guidelines for objectivity particular to their subject matter. In history, for example, objectivity is achieved through the use of the historical method and peer review of journal articles in which authors’ proposed explanations and analyses of historical events are evaluated by other experts, prior to publication.
It is a matter of dispute among experts to what degree aesthetic and ethical judgements, as well as judgements involving the interpretation of the law, can be objective. Some hold that the beauty or merit of artworks and literary works cannot be objectively decided. Others deny this. Some claim that ethical judgements are relative to an individual’s values or to the norms, mores, and folk-ways of society. Others deny this. There are impressive arguments on both sides.
Objectivity and subjectivity
Painting by Jackson Pollock
In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that ‘2 plus 2 equals 4’. A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times, places or people. For instance, ‘That painting is beautiful’ may be true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone.
The above examples are non-controversial. There are, however, other issues considered objective by some, not all. The role of Evolution vs. Intelligent design in the formation of living organisms is a typical example. Here, there are more objective arguments to support evolution than creation. Hence, an objective person will conclude that evolution is the most objective explanation. This illustrates that the objectivity of a theory does not depend on the approval of all. Sometimes, the objective opinion is held by a minority as, for example, Copernicus and Galileo’s theories on the rotation of the Earth.
Objectivity versus neutrality
Neutrality is not synonymous with objectivity. In a controversy, an objective person will not remain neutral but will chose the side supported by the most objective arguments. Objectivity therefore requires a choice, which is often difficult and may prove to be erroneous, whereas neutrality requires no choice.
Neutral Science
Neutral Science is a term coined to describe a science where there
is no materialistic, physical or other implicit or explicit belief system
at the root of explanations for observations. If science, or indeed religion,
is to find the thoughts that truly relate to the world in which we live it
first has to explicitly remove assumtions or belief.
Neutrality probablly exists in something created by humans.(2)
Neutral, such as elegant, horrid, and modern, is a word created by humans. Surely, it exists in something also created by us, such as typeface, artificial pattern, even thought. When we discuss this word widely in philosophy, probably pull back sometimes – it’s a just word in humans’ dictionary, a thought in our mind. Therefore, when someone says: this typeface is neutral, usually, we won’t argue with him. However, it’s a lecture work, we have to question it in philosophic way (likes I’m doing now……). I mean, it’s really hard to define it clearly, it’s not simple like: I’m a female! So, It's a proper way to say that it’s a state in human’s mind, and we can use it to express any concept easily.
by Lucia Shih
by Lucia Shih
Neutrality probablly exists in something created by humans.(1)
In June 2005, Kai Bernau, a student at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts (KABK) in The Hague, asked us (among some other designers) to participate in Neutral, a graduation project that was both a neutral typeface, and a statement about neutrality. Apart from contributing to an e-mail discussion on the subject of neutrality, he also asked the invited designers to create a poster displaying the Neutral typeface. These posters were shown during Kai’s graduating exhibition. More about this project can be seen at LetterlaborThinking about the idea of introducing a new sans serif typeface, we suddenly remembered a quote about Stanley Kubrick, a quote that has been posted on a lot of (typo)graphic forums. It’s a quote pulled from an article in The Guardian, describing Kubrick’s obsession with the typeface Futura: “It was Stanley’s favourite typeface. It’s sans serif. He liked Helvetica and Univers too. Clean and elegant”.
We used this quote as a starting point for our poster. Since Kubrick was supposedly so interested in sans serif type, we figured that the best context to show a new typeface would be a poster for one of Kubrick’s movies; the ultimate testing environment for a sans serif. Also, a movie poster is a very recognisable format, so we thought it would fit quite naturally in Kai’s series of posters.
While we were thinking about this plan (to design a completely typographic poster, as a sort of hybrid between a film poster and a type specimen), we suddenly had another idea. We realised that the most ‘neutral’ letter of a sans serif alphabet would be the ‘I’, as it is just a black vertical bar: it could be either a capital ‘i’ or an undercast ‘L’. In fact, it is the context (the word in which the letter is placed) that decides whether the ‘I’ is an ‘i’ or an ‘L’. At that point, we made the connection between this neutral ‘I’, and the black monolith that plays a central role in Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’.
From the screenplay of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (1965), by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark:
Dr. Heywood R. Floyd: Any clue as to what it is?
Dr. Bill Michaels: Not really. It’s completely inert. No sound or energy sources have been detected. The surface is made of something incredibly hard and we’ve been barely able to scratch it.
Floyd: But you don’t have any idea as to what it is?
Michaels: Tomb, shrine, survey-marker, spare part… take your choice.
So that is, in short, the idea behind the poster. The neutral sans serif ‘I’, shown as black monolith, in the form of a film poster.
by Experimental Jetset
quoted by Lucia Shih
neutralizing
It's curious to me that Neutralizing doesn't actually imply that what's been neutralized becomes neutral. A counteraction sets the opposing action to zero. Is this a scary image to any one but me?
The phenomenon of carbon offsetting doesn't reduce the total output of carbon but it does make you feel better.
I found this video on the subject:
NOPV
Wikipedia’s goal to function as a reliable online encyclopedia is dependent on a neutral point of view in their articles:
Articles and text should strive towards using a neutral point of view with balance and pertinence; NOPV.
Neutrality does however not mean that it is possible to write a completely objective article, which should be an impossible task. It is instead important to evenhandedly account for all the sides in a conflict by not letting the articles establish, imply or insinuate that one of the sides are the correct one.
So can we consider ourselves neutral as long as we aim towards it?
Articles and text should strive towards using a neutral point of view with balance and pertinence; NOPV.
Neutrality does however not mean that it is possible to write a completely objective article, which should be an impossible task. It is instead important to evenhandedly account for all the sides in a conflict by not letting the articles establish, imply or insinuate that one of the sides are the correct one.
So can we consider ourselves neutral as long as we aim towards it?
Neutral;Normal;Nature
Is nature in its normal state neutral? The 'nature' I'm referring to is the pure simple one of trees and plants competing for sunlight and water. There's this constant struggle for survival but all at a biological and physical plane. There is no mind controlling the actions of the plants. So if neutrality is a state of mind then nature is freed from it which consequently means that nature fulfills being indifferent, emotionless, impartial; neutral. Or does this internal struggle between the plants exclude them from the subject? OR consider that neutrality only qualifies as a mind set and all material goods fall out of the discussion… but what do we do with the values that we projected on to them? Does the mind un-neutralize neutral objects of a purley material nature because of the burden of knowledge?
söndag 12 oktober 2008
lördag 11 oktober 2008
is neutrality the same as indifference? and should we try to achieve it?
is neutrality a good thing? is it the same as not having any prejudice?
when we don´t judge things because of what they are - connecting
different value to different qualities? or is neutrality something with no qualities,
nothing to judge because there is - nothing? is neutrality nothing?
and is nothing neutral?
nothing - good or bad?
could you consider the shadow behind the glass as neutral? as a slave for the being of the glass?
something that just is because it has to, because it is the law of the nature?
or is it simply a construction - our perception of what is "the shadow of a glass"?
maybe it´s simply the sun being blocked by a slightly transparent media. and is the sun neutral?
why do we ask ourselves all these questions? is it because we "have to", because we were given this assignment? is neutrality necessary? is a question neutral? is an answer neutral? and depending on what?
fredag 10 oktober 2008
Manifest?
I woke up this morning with only one question on my mind; is it possible to write a manifest on 'neutrality' and remain neutral or impartial? Are we allowed to have oppinions as slaves to the neutralness? Are we allowed to argue for only one cause? Or should every statement be balanced with the opposite oppinion? For example: neutrality is a state of mind / neutrality is not a state of mind.
/Weekday-philosopher-Frida in my flat
/Weekday-philosopher-Frida in my flat
possible answer: whenever we think something or say something we are in fact stepping out of the neutral. Every single oppinion and suggestion is connected to a certain point of view, therefor we can never be neutral. A person can never be neutral, a person is always personal. neutrality is only something that could be imagined, as an idea, but never truly touched upon. Whenever someone is stating that they are in fact neutral, this is a lie. This might be a weapon of power. Using neutrality as a way of presenting a fact, as though it wasn´t an opinion.
BOF!
I was reminded of a word in the French language 'bof', which is quite hard to explain, but doesn't really mean yes or no, it's somewhere inbetween - neutral oppinion? Have a look at the video to take part of an interesting explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI1ZuY9mZ2o
(I don't know how to make a link to the video that you can watch on the blog)
/frida
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI1ZuY9mZ2o
(I don't know how to make a link to the video that you can watch on the blog)
/frida
torsdag 9 oktober 2008
Neutrality is nirvana
If neutrality is a state of mind, we should probably look towards the buddist monks, and the strive for Nirvana, as a state of nothingness. Neutrality is in a way a strive for being no-one, and nothing. To not stretch in any direction. If one thinks about it neutrality and death have much in common. If you would think along the line that discussion and compromises in the end makes the best result (ie. a neutral result), and that if you would be able to have a conversation without prejudicies, the result would become perfect. Then perfection is death
Neutrality is perfection witch is death.
Neutrality is perfection witch is death.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)