1887
Volume 10, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study applies Leo Groarke’s (2019) ART approach and KC (Key Component) table method to social housing buildings designed by a significant Dutch architectural movement during the early twentieth century – the so-called Amsterdam School. Unlike members of other contemporary architectural movements, architects of the Amsterdam School seldom wrote about their theories or beliefs, leaving very little evidence about their feelings and attitudes apart from the architectural forms they constructed. The expressive designs of Amsterdam School social housing buildings and present promising opportunities for theoretical reflection on architecture as a form of embodied visual and multimodal argumentation (‘bricks as arguments’), however, other theoretical tools may be necessary to supplement the ART approach in order to fashion a critical method capable of apprehending the full scope of argumentation in the complex and rich Dutch polylogue.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.20012.con
2021-12-14
2022-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark and Sally Jackson
    2005 Technology, Interaction, and Design. InHandbook of Language and Social Interaction, eds.Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders, 411–436. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Amsterdam School Museum Het Schip
    Amsterdam School Museum Het Schip 2018 Wall text, Permanent Exhibition,. Amsterdam School Museum Het Schip, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Appelman, Sonja, Wouter Beekers, John Cüsters, Jos van der Lans, Margriet Pflug
    2016Canon Volkhuisvesting. Amsterdam: Vereniging Canon Sociaal Werk.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barteet, Cody
    2019Architectural Rhetoric and the Iconography of Authority in Colonial Mexico: The Casa de Montejo. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429505157
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429505157 [Google Scholar]
  5. Birdsell, David and Leo Groarke
    2007 “Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy43(3&4): 103–113. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blesser, Barry and Linda-Ruth Salter
    2009Spaces Speak: Are You Listening?Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bock, Manfred, Sigrid Johannisse, and Vladimir Stissi
    1997Michel de Klerk: Architect and Artist of the Amsterdam School, 1884–1923. Rotterdam: NAI Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burke, Kenneth
    1984Attitudes Towards History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Casciato, Maristella
    1983 “Michel de Klerk: Utopia Built.” InThe Amsterdam School: Dutch Expressionist Architecture, 1915–1930, ed. byWim de Wit, 93–120. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chryslee, Gail J., Sonja K. Foss and Arthur L. Ranney
    1996 “The Construction of Claims in Visual Argumentation.” Visual Communication Quarterly3(2): 9–13. 10.1080/15551399609363319
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15551399609363319 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dodd, N. L. and M. P. P. Stultjens
    1996 “Jewish Education in Schools in the Netherlands from 1815 to 1940.” Studia Rosenthaliana30(1): 67–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Finnegan, Cara
    2001 “The Naturalistic Enthymeme and Visual Argument: Photographic Representation in the ‘Skull Controversy.’” Argumentation and Advocacy37: 133–149. 10.1080/00028533.2001.11951665
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2001.11951665 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fleming, David
    1996 “Can Pictures Be Arguments?” Argumentation and Advocacy33(1): 11–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gibbons, Michelle
    2007 “Seeing the Mind in the Matter: Functional Brain Imaging as Framed Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy43: 175–188. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821673
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821673 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilbert, Michael A.
    1994 “Multi-modal Argumentation.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences24(2): 159–177. 10.1177/004839319402400202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/004839319402400202 [Google Scholar]
  16. Groarke, Leo
    1996 “Logic, Art and Argument.” Informal Logic18: 105–129. 10.22329/il.v18i2.2376
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v18i2.2376 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2015 “Going Multimodal: What is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does it Matter?” Argumentation29: 133–155. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9336‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2019 “Depicting Visual Arguments: An “ART” Approach,” inInformal Logic: A ‘Canadian’ Approach to Argument, ed. byFederico Puppo, 332–374. Windsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Groarke, Leo, Catherine H. Palczewski, and David Godden
    2016 “Navigating the Visual Turn in Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy52: 217–235. 10.1080/00028533.2016.11821871
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2016.11821871 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hahner, Leslie A.
    2013 “The Riot Kiss. Framing Memes as Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy49: 151–166. 10.1080/00028533.2013.11821790
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2013.11821790 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hauser, Gerard
    1999 “Incongruous Bodies: Arguments for Personal Sufficiency and Public Sufficiency.” Argumentation and Advocacy36: 1–8. 10.1080/00028533.1999.11951633
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1999.11951633 [Google Scholar]
  22. Heijdra, Ton
    2019 Email to author, September26 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Heijdra, Ton, Alice Roegholt, and Richelle Wansing
    2012Workers’ Palace: The Ship by Michel de Klerk. Amsterdam: Museum Het Schip.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hermans, Louis M.
    1901Krotten en Sloppen: Een Onderzoek Naar Den Woningtoestand Te Amsterdam Ingesteld in Opdracht Van Den Amsterdamschen Bestuurdersbond. Amsterdam: Van Looy.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Iedema, Rick
    2003 “Multimodality, Resemiotization: Extending the Analysis of Discourse as Multisemiotic Practice.” Visual Communication2(1): 29–57. 10.1177/1470357203002001751
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357203002001751 [Google Scholar]
  26. Inmann, Thomas
    2010Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism. New York: Forgotten Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jewish Historical Museum
    Jewish Historical Museum 2018Wall text, Permanent Exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Johnson, Ralph H.
    2005 Why Visual Arguments?ed. byH. V. Hansen, C. Tindale, and R. H. Johnson. web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/philosophy/johsoa/visargtext.htm
  29. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2007 “Visual Argumentation in Scandinavian Political Advertising: A Cognitive, Contextual and Reception Oriented Approach.” Argumentation and Advocacy43: 124–132. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821668
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821668 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2013 “Strategies of Visual Argumentation in Slideshow Presentations: The Role of Visuals in an Al Gore Presentation on Climate Change.” Argumentation27(4): 425–443. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9296‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9296-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2015 “The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation.” Argumentation29: 115–132. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9348‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen
    2006Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203619728
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203619728 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lewiński, Marcin
    2014 “Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understand of Fallacies.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric36(49): 193–218. 10.2478/slgr‑2014‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lewiński, Marcin and Mark Aakhus
    2014 “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.” Argumentation28: 161–185. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  35. Leydesdorff, Selma
    1994We Lived with Dignity: The Jewish Proletariat of Amsterdam, 1900–1940. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. O’Keefe, Daniel J.
    1977 “Two Concepts of Argument.” Journal of the American Forensic Association13: 121–128. 10.1080/00028533.1977.11951098
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1977.11951098 [Google Scholar]
  37. Och, Gunnar
    2015 “Die Erfindung des Jüdischen Witzes: Diskursanalytische Überlegungen zu Texten des Frühen 19. Jahrhunderts.” InDer Jüdische Witz: Zur Unabgegoltenen Problematik einer Alten Kategorie, ed. byGunnar Och and Burkhard Meyer-Sickendiek, 19–48. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Palczewski, Catherine H.
    2005 “The Male Madonna and the Feminine Uncle Sam: Visual Argument, Icons, and Ideographs in 1909 Anti-Women Suffrage Postcards.” Quarterly Journal of Speech91(4): 365–394. 10.1080/00335630500488325
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630500488325 [Google Scholar]
  39. Patterson, Steven W.
    2010 “‘A Picture Held Us Captive’: The Later Wittgenstein on Visual Argumentation.” Cogency2(2): 105–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Pfister, Damien Smith and Carly S. Woods
    2016 “The Unnaturalistic Enthymeme: Figuration, Interpretation, and Critique after Digital Mediation.” Argumentation and Advocacy52: 236–253. 10.1080/00028533.2016.11821872
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2016.11821872 [Google Scholar]
  41. Roberts, Kathleen G.
    2017 “Visual Argument in Intercultural Contexts: Perspectives on Folk/Traditional Art.” Argumentation and Advocacy43(3&4): 152–163. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821671
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821671 [Google Scholar]
  42. Roegholt, Alice and Ton Heijdra
    2018The Dageraad. Amsterdam: Museum Het Schip.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Roque, Georges
    2012 “Visual Argumentation: A Further Reappraisal,” inTopical Themes in Argumentation Theory, eds.Frans van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 273–290. Amsterdam: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_18 [Google Scholar]
  44. Searing, Helen E.
    1971 Housing in Holland and the Amsterdam School. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.
  45. Torrens, Kathleen M.
    1999 “Fashion as Argument: Ninetenth-Century Dress Reform.” Argumentation and Advocacy36: 77–87. 10.1080/00028533.1999.11951639
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1999.11951639 [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Eemeren, Frans and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Verzets Resistance Museum
    Verzets Resistance Museum 2018Wall text, Permanent Exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.20012.con
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.20012.con
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Amsterdam School; architecture; argumentation; iconography; polylogue; polysemy; visual argument
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error