Part of
Interacting with Objects: Language, materiality, and social activityEdited by Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and Mirka Rauniomaa
[Not in series 186] 2014
► pp. 295–318
Edited by Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and Mirka Rauniomaa
[Not in series 186] 2014
► pp. 295–318
Artworks as touchable objects
Guiding perception in a museum tour for blind people
In this chapter we contribute to the description of the interactional accomplishment of object use, by raising the following question “what kind of objects are artworks?”, and consequently, “what kind of interactional practices do they configure?”. By focusing on video-analysis of a guided tour for visually impaired persons (VIPs) allowed to touch artworks, we propose a praxeological analysis of situated procedures of artworks’ formulation and palpation, opening on a reflection on aesthetic touch – both about the way it is reflexively accomplished and the way tactile experience is collectively and sequentially organised in interaction.
References
Cekaite, A
(2010) Shepherding the child: Embodied directive sequences in parent-child interactions. Text & Talk, 30(1), 1–25. 
Cometti, J.-P
(2000) Art, modes d’emploi. Esquisses d’une philosophie de l’usage. [Art, user’s guide: Outline of a philosophy of use]Bruxelles: La Lettre Volée.
Conein, B
(1997) L’action avec les objets: un autre visage de l’action située? [Action with objects: Another face of situated action?] Raisons Pratiques, 8, 25–46.
De Fornel, M
(1993) Faire parler les objets. Perception, manipulation et qualification des objets dans l’enquête policière. [Make the objects talk. Perception, handling and qualification of objects in police investigation] Raisons Pratiques, 4, 241–265.
De Stefani, E
(2010) Reference as an interactively and multimodally accomplished practice: Organizing spatial reorientation in guided tours. In M. Pettorino, A. Giannini, I. Chiari, & F. Dovetto (Eds.), Spoken communication between symbolics and deixis (pp. 137–170). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Deppermann, A
(2011) The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–128.
Dewey, J
(1980 [1934]) Art as experience. New York: Perigee Books.
Garfinkel, H
(2002) Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkeim’s aphorism. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gibson, J.J
(1986 [1979]) The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Goodman, N
(1976) Languages of art. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Heath, C., & vom Lehn, D
(2004) Configuring reception. (Dis-)Regarding the ‘spectator’ in museums and galleries. Theory, Culture and Society, 21(6), 43–65.
Keevallik, L
(2010) Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), 401–426.
Kendon, A
(1990) Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2004) Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LeBaron, C., & Streeck, J
(2000) Gesture, knowledge, and the world. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Review of language and gesture: Window into thought and action (pp. 118–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindwall, O., & Ekström, A
(2012) Instruction-in-interaction: The teaching and learning of a manual skill. Human Studies, 35, 27–49.
Martin, C., & Sahlström, F
(2010) Learning as longitudinal interactional change: From other-repair to self-repair in physiotherapy treatment. Discourse Processes, 47, 668–697.
McNeill, D
(1992) Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.
Mead, G.H
(1932) The physical thing. In The philosophy of the present (pp. 119–139). LaSalle: Open Court.
Mondada, L
(2007) Transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Studies, 9, 809–821.
(2009) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 329–361.
Napier, J
(1980) Hands. New York: Pantheon.
Nishizaka, A
(2007) Hand touching hand: Referential practice at a Japanese midwife house. Human Studies, 30(3), 199–217.
(2011) Touch without vision: Referential practice in a non-technological environment. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 504–520.
Pitsch, K
(2012) Exponat - Alltagsgegenstand - Turngerät. Zur interaktiven Konstitution von Objekten in einer Museumsausstellung. [Exhibition object – Everyday object – Turntaking device. On the interactional constitution of objects in a museum exhibition] In H. Hausendorf, L. Mondada, & R. Schmitt (Eds.), Raum als interaktive Resource [Space as an interactional resource] (pp. 233–273). Tübingen: Narr.
Psathas, G
(1976) Mobility, orientation and navigation: Conceptual and theoretical considerations. New Outlook for the Blind, 9, 385–391.
(1992) The study of extended sequences: The case of the garden lesson. In G. Watson, & R.M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 99–122). Newbury Park: Sage.
Quéré, L
(1999) Action située et perception du sens. [Situated action and the perception of meaning] Raisons Pratiques, 10, 301–338.
Relieu, M
(1994) Les catégories dans l’action. L’apprentissage des traversées par des élèves non-voyants. [Categories in action. Learning to cross a road for visually impaired persons] RaisonsPratiques, 5, 185–218.
Sharrock W., & Coulter J
(1998) On what we can see. Theory & Psychology, 8(2), 147–164.
Streeck, J
(2003) The body taken for granted: Lingering dualism in research on social interaction. In P. Glenn, C.D. LeBaron & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 427–440). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
vom Lehn, D
(2010) Discovering “experience-ables”: Socially including visually impaired people in art museums. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(7–8), 764–769.
Wollheim, R
(1992) Art and its objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by
Cited by 8 other publications
Due, Brian & Simon Bierring Lange
2018. The Moses Effect: The Spatial Hierarchy and Joint Accomplishment of a Blind Person Navigating. Space and Culture 21:2 ► pp. 129 ff. 
Due, Brian L.
2021. Distributed Perception: Co‐Operation between Sense‐Able, Actionable, and Accountable Semiotic Agents. Symbolic Interaction 44:1 ► pp. 134 ff.
Due, Brian L.
2023. Interspecies intercorporeality and mediated haptic sociality: distributing perception with a guide dog. Visual Studies 38:1 ► pp. 3 ff.
Due, Brian L.
2023. Guide dog versus robot dog: assembling visually impaired people with non-human agents and achieving assisted mobility through distributed co-constructed perception. Mobilities 18:1 ► pp. 148 ff.
Due, Brian L.
2023. A Walk in the Park With Robodog: Navigating Around Pedestrians Using a Spot Robot as a “Guide Dog”. Space and Culture ► pp. 120633122311592 ff.
Kobyshcha, Varvara
2018. How Does an Aesthetic Object Happen? Emergence, Disappearance, Multiplicity. Cultural Sociology 12:4 ► pp. 478 ff.
Mondada, Lorenza
2016. Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20:3 ► pp. 336 ff.
Simone, Monica & Renata Galatolo
2023. The situated deployment of the Italian presentative (e) hai. . ., ‘(and) you have. . .’ within routinized multimodal Gestalts in route mapping with visually impaired climbers. Discourse Studies 25:1 ► pp. 89 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.