Advertisement

The Audiovisual Process of Creating Evidence – Science Television Imagining the Brain

  • Regina BrücknerEmail author
  • Sarah Greifenstein
Chapter

Abstract

In this paper, we look at three audiovisual staging strategies deployed by science television programs which contribute to the popularization of neuroscientific research. In three exemplary case studies we describe how the aesthetic staging of audiovisual images can shape the bodily, affective and cognitive processes of spectators. We assume that what becomes graspable as the meaning of a scientific argument is the result of spectators following and understanding the explanations given, while being highly emotionally engaged through the aesthetic composition. We have identified three levels that commonly shape the understanding process of spectators in science TV: (1) the explanatory dimension, the rhetorical and dramaturgical structure at the center of which stands a depicted brain scan that is described by a scientist. (2) the orchestration of the spectator’s feelings by deploying an array of aesthetic strategies common to fictional films. (3) the way audiovisual images direct the spectator’s process of thinking and understanding by using multimodal metaphors. What is experienced in these television formats as the meaning construction of scientific evidence is not the visualization of the brain itself and its explanation, but something that emerges through the audiovisual staging and the accompanying speech: a multimodal gesture of supposed proof, creating the felt impression of evidence and credibility.

References

  1. Blum, P., and S. Stollfuß. 2011. Logik des Filmischen. Wissen in bewegten Bildern. MEDIENwissenschaft 3 (2011): 294–310.Google Scholar
  2. Boehm, G. 2010. Wie Bilder Sinn erzeugen: die Macht des Zeigens. Berlin: Berlin University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cameron, L. 2007. Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk. Discourse and Society 18 (2): 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deleuze, G. 1986. Cinema I: The movement-image. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
  5. Dudo, A., D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, D. Scheufele, M. Morgan, and N. Signorielli. 2011. Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research 38 (6): 754–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goschler, J. 2007. Is this a metaphor? On the difficult task of identifying metaphors in scientific discourse. Culture, Language, and Representation. Cultural Studies Journal of Universitat Jaume I 5: 27–41.Google Scholar
  7. Grotkopp, M., and H. Kappelhoff. 2012. Film genre and modality. The incestuous nature of genre exemplified by the war film. In In praise of cinematic bastardy, ed. S. Lefait and P. Ortoli, 29–39. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Hasler, F. 2012. Neuromythologie. Eine Streitschrift gegen die Deutungsmacht der Hirnforschung. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  9. Heinemann, T. 2012. Populäre Wissenschaft. Hirnforschung zwischen Labor und Talkshow. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Kappelhoff, H. 2004. Matrix der Gefühle. Das Kino, das Melodrama und das Theater der Empfindsamkeit. Berlin: Vorwerk 8.Google Scholar
  11. Kappelhoff, H., and J.H. Bakels. 2011. Das Zuschauergefühl – Möglichkeiten qualitativer Medienanalyse. Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft 5 (2): 78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kappelhoff, H., and S. Greifenstein. 2015. Audiovisual metaphors – embodied meaning and processes of fictionalization. In Embodied metaphors in film, television, and video games: Cognitive approaches, ed. K. Fahlenbrach, 183–201. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Kappelhoff, H., and S. Greifenstein. 2017. Metaphorische Interaktion und empathische Verkörperung: Thesen zum filmischen Erfahrungsmodus. In Empathie im Film. Perspektiven der Ästhetischen Theorie, Phänomenologie und Analytischen Philosophie, ed. M. Hagener and Vendrell Ferran, 167–194. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  14. Kappelhoff, H., and C. Müller. 2011. Embodied meaning construction. Multimodal metaphor and expressive movement in speech, gesture, and in feature film. Metaphor and the Social World 1 (2): 121–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kessler, S., L. Guenther, and G. Ruhrmann. 2014. Die Darstellung epistemologischer Dimensionen von evidenzbasiertem Wissen in TV-Wissenschaftsmagazinen. Ein Lehrstück für die Bildungsforschung. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 17 (4): 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Larink, W. 2011. Bilder vom Gehirn. Bildwissenschaftliche Zugänge zum Gehirn als Seelenorgan. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Müller. 2008. Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Müller, C., and C. Schmitt. 2015. Audio-visual metaphors of the financial crisis: Meaning making and the flow of experience. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada/Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 15 (2.) (Special issue: Gibbs Jr. RW and Corrêa Ferreira L (eds) Metaphor and metonymy in social practices)): 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Müller, C., and S. Tag. 2010. The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics 6: 85–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinker, S. 1997. How the mind works. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  22. Scherer, T., S. Greifenstein, and H. Kappelhoff. 2014. Expressive movements in audiovisual media: Modulating affective experience. In Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 38.2), ed. C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S.H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, and J. Bressem, 2081–2092. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  23. Schmitt, C., S. Greifenstein, and H. Kappelhoff. 2014. Expressive movement and metaphoric meaning making in audio-visual media. In Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 38.2), ed. C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S.H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, and J. Bressem, 2092–2112. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Media

  1. 2001: A Space Oddyssey (Stanley Kubrick, UK/US 1968).Google Scholar
  2. Das automatische Gehirn (Francesca D’Amicis, Petra Höfer, Freddie Röckenhaus, GER 2011, WDR).Google Scholar
  3. Horizon (Episode The Secret You, Seas. 46, Ep. 2, Dan Walker, UK 2009, BBC 2).Google Scholar
  4. Through the Wormhole (Episode Is There a Sixth Sense?, Seas. 2, Ep. 5), Lori McCreary et al, US 2011, Discovery Channel).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cinepoetics – Center for Advanced Film StudiesFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Europa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder)Frankfurt (Oder)Germany

Personalised recommendations