ABSTRACT
As our photo play continued, so did the experiments in visualizing ideas. I began to think, in particular, of ways of realizing some of the implications of the constructionist ideas that had opened the performative path for us in the first place (see chapter 1). For constructionists, the word “truth” can be dangerous. It can suggest that a particular way of putting things is superior to all others. If we possess “the truth” there is no need for further discussion. All contrary voices are silenced. How could we use visual means of undermining transcendent declarations of truth? Here we focused on one of the weak points in traditional views of truth, namely its dependency on a picture theory of language. In this tradition, theoretical language should be driven by what there is in the world. Figuratively, if we spy a cat and a dog and a mouse in the room, then we should require these three words (or their equivalent) to describe the existing condition. And when this description is shared with others, they could enter the room and evaluate whether this was so. In effect, the words would be an accurate picture of what is the case. However, such an account requires that the relationship between word and referent remain stable. The account would only be true if all parties used words in the same way at all times. Here was an opening to the visual: could we demonstrate that the use of words is always context specific, dependent on how we use them in a particular time and place? This would help us realize that meaning is always in motion. Declarations of Truth are suppressive: they arrest motion.
