What's the Matter of Dictionaries?

Yes, I mean "the Matter of...," not "the Matter with..."

Setting aside momentarily the rich play on words offered by "matter" (18 senses of the word appear in one dictionary I consulted), today's theme picks up the thread from July 24's post [Use link in the left margin].

There I highlighted a matter of change which is also a change of matter (i.e., material) -- the surging shift of dictionaries from book to electronic form.

For some people, it is also a change that matters negatively; they bemoan loss of the tactile way they interacted with dictionaries.

Quite the opposite for others. To them, the less solid the material composition, the more solid the advantages they see for using dictionaries -- more flexibility, timelier definitions, more words and information about them, speedier definition-searches -- to name a few.

Which camp are you in?

Reconsidering: Does Art indeed have the last word?

Mainly, this post picks up where July 24th left off, peering deeper into the provocative perspective on the change of matter that artist Brian Dettmer's "book sculpting" reveals.

Yes, the image above (presented courtesy of the artist. Thanks, Brian), titled "Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd Ed." is a tantalizing example of his large and growing output.

(Visit www.briandettmer.com for more images and some galleries where you can see the real thing, if you are geographically lucky; online just doesn't cut it for fully experiencing such intricately crafted artwork.)

Previously I wrote "Art has the last word," referring to Dettmer’s sculptures as vivid visual messages that "use" language and books, but not in any conventional linear sense.

Since then I've read commentary by Brian, using language conventionally to explain his intended meanings in creating his sculptures. The explanations enrich my experience of the art -- so, does language really have the "last word"? The field of semiotics is the study of meaning, in which language is just a part: body language, clothing style, tone of voice, other symbols -- all convey meaning. But language is “privileged” -- ultimately we can share our comprehension of the non-verbal, whether art or personal presentation, only through language.

Language – Images – Information –Raw materials: A Media Mash-up?

Closing thoughts to ponder, from Dettmer’s May 2008 interview in Lodown Magazine (www.lodownmagazine.com)

“Images can work as words or phrases and language can work as an image or picture.”

And:

“Information is the natural material of our time and the analog shells can be explored like stone, or approached like their original wooden origin. There is a sensual, physical, tactile quality in old books that is becoming lost. When I approach the book as a raw material I am trying to rediscover and re-expose these qualities, highlight the natural qualities of the material.”

Maybe that’s the heart of the matter.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

OED Violates itself, On a Leaky Raft, Caught by a Sculptor!

No, This Won't Be Titillating

Dictionaries – I’m referring here mainly to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) -- are bodies ofknowledge, not physiological bodies, so be assured this posting will be tantalizing, but not titillating.

A Side Comment, Sort of:

Younger readers probably have no idea what I just referred to. After all, giving “self-violation” a sexual connotation is so day-before-yesterday!

Actually, that “side comment” is central because it illustrates this posting’s main point:

Dictionary definitions change as society changes – but not in real time. (See “Leaky Raft” below).

Back to OED

The OED is generally considered the gold standard in lexicography. So it’s newsworthy -- at least blog-worthy -- to report that OED (Ready for this?) has violated one of its own definitions!

To make the situation truly involuted, the word it has violated is “Dictionary.”

Evidence? Consider OED’s definition of “Dictionary” in both the print and online editions. It begins:

“1. a. A book dealing with the individual words of a language ….” (OED online, accessed 7/7/09)

I highlighted the guilty word -- “book.” Guilty, that is, of appearing under false pretenses as of 2008, when Oxford University Press announced it has no plans to publish OED again in book form; future updates will be incorporated in its online edition.

The media response was quick but, let’s face it, underwhelming. Predictably, it was a New York Times Magazine columnist who gave expression to a rarified emotion: “Lexicographical Longing.” In her column (May 11, 2008) with that title, Virginia Heffernan reminisced about the OED her father gave her many years before, and bemoaned:

“…the O.E.D. was forever. Wasn’t it?

No.

The future is here, and the immortal O.E.D., the one that lives in bound pages last published micrographically in 1991, is obsolete — at least according to the folks who publish it.”

Some Get It, Some Don’t

Several other long-respected book-form dictionaries that are also online -- Webster’s Collegiate, Random House, among others culled on www.dictionary.com – also anachronistically limit their definition of “Dictionary” to “A book that….”

Others waffle. For example, Wordsmyth (www.wordsmyth.net) which I believe was “born” (i.e., first appeared) online, at first is limiting, but inclusive in its second definitiion:

“1. a reference book that contains a list of words ….

2. the electronic form of such a list of words….”

Merriam-Webster Online (www.merriam-webster.com) has caught up with itself by starting its definition as “1 : a reference source in print or electronic form...” [my highlighting], but then reverts to old-fashioned definitions for bi-lingual and other specialized dictionaries, saying both are “reference books…” even though online versions exist.

Cambridge University Press one-ups Oxford with this offering from its Advanced Learners Dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org ): “1. A book… or a similar product for use on a computer.”

The Wiki Approach. Wiktionary (en.wiktionary.org) – a product of non-experts’ collaboration, and the only dictionary of those mentioned here not bound (pun intended) by any print tradition -- shows that it is embedded in the wide-ranging and ever-changing media of contemporary communication. Its definition of dictionary begins: “A publication, usually a book…” and defines publication as “The act of publishing printed or other matter.”

A Leaky Raft .

You wondered about the leaky raft? It is my metaphor for the point about dictionaries and social change.

Think of words, and especially meanings, as fluid -- constantly flowing like a more-or-less tumultuous river. (Theorists will find that metaphor used even more broadly, in Harrison White’s 2008 book, Identity and Control: How Social Formations Emerge.)

In that flow of meanings, dictionaries are one type of socially-organized attempt to carry groups of people along together – that is, enable groups to share meanings and therefore to carry on reasonably coordinated conversations and activities.

Dictionaries help stabilize meanings, for a while, and their creators do manage to repair broken slats in the metaphoric rafts, but they can never be completely up-to-date – at best, they are leaky rafts.

Art has the Final Word.

Using a wonderfully pun-ny title (“Atlanta artist digs old books”), a reviewer for the Atlanta Journal Constitution (7/3/09) describes 30-something sculptor Brian Dettmer’s work. In Catherine Fox’s words:

“Dictionaries and encyclopedias, once library stalwarts, are fast becoming relics. Now that information is in a state of constant update and available almost instantly to anyone with an Internet connection, what is the use of any compendium of knowledge bound between two covers?

Brian Dettmer has found one. Wielding knives, tweezers, surgical tools and the patience of Job, the Atlanta artist transforms book has-beens into art…”

To see how Dettmer’s use of words in their material form, not their “dictionary meanings,” dramatically closes this posting, follow this link (or google him yourself): centripetalnotion.com/2007/09/13/13:26:26/