Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 10:1 (2023) ► pp.227–245

Visual art, discourse, and Cognitive Linguistics

The live-show painting as a triple-scope conceptual integration network

ORCID logo | University of Gabes

A live-show painting is a unique art experience and more unique is the live-show painting that takes place amid an interaction between the artist and his audience. The discourse taking place consists in an artist who is receiving propositions from his audience while painting. The present study is a cognitive discourse analysis of the interaction artist/audience in line with a semiotic analysis of the content of the resulting painting. Since the resulting painting blends the mental representations of the artist with those of the audience, this live-show painting is framed within a complex conceptual integration network that is a triple-scope rather than a double-scope network. The framework is Gill Fauconnier & Mark Turner’s (2002) Conceptual Blending Theory that fits into the understanding of the interaction artist/audience during the live-show painting. Thus the present study investigates a perceived interface between visual art, discourse, and Cognitive Linguistics.

Keywords: live-show painting, blend, mental space, projection
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Findings and discussion
    • 4.1Principles of conceptual integration
    • 4.2Process of conceptual integration
    • 4.3Conceptual integration network
  • 5.Conclusion and implications
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00096.bou
References
Coulson, S.
(2006) Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric, and ideology. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 187–210). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donald, M.
(2006) Art and cognitive evolution. In M. Turner (Ed). The artful mind: Cognitive science and the riddle of human creativity (pp. 3–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Francuz, P. J., Szymańska, A., & Wojtasiński, M.
(2019) Linguistic analysis of statements concerning paintings viewed under different instructions by experts and novices in the visual arts. Psychology of Language and Communication, 23 (1), 357–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2020) Visual metaphor in extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 7 (1), 13–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niu, P.
(2019) An integrated study of visual metaphors in Chinese editorial cartoons. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(2), 325–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parsons, M. J.
(1987) Talk about a painting: A cognitive developmental analysis. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21 (1), 37–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silver, R.
(2001) Art as language: Access to thoughts and feelings through stimulus drawings. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M.
(2007) Conceptual integration. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 377–393). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Frame blending. In R. R. Favretti (Ed.), Frame, corpora, and knowledge representation (pp. 13–32). Bologna: Bologna University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, B., Healey, P., & Kirsh, D.
(2014) Cognitive science and the arts. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 361, 58–59.Google Scholar
Weir, C., & Mandes, E.
(2017) Interpreting visual art: A survey of cognitive research about pictures. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar