DOI article:
Mádl, Martin: Distinguishing - similarities - style: Carpoforo and Giacomo Tencalla in Czech Lands
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52534#0229
ŠTÚDIE / ARTICLES
Distinguishing — Similarities — Style.
Carpoforo and Giacomo Tencalla in Czech Lands
ARS 40, 2007, 2
Martin MÁDL
Borders and Distinguishing
In a certain sense, the définition of the theme cho-
sen for this Conference seems to be unclear. The équi-
valents of the term “border” háve diverse origins in
different languages and the way they are ušed con-
tains different meanings in each language (e.g. fron-
tière, borderline, boundary, frame, edge, and limit).
In the contemporary discussion, the term “border” is
usually ušed in its geographical sense. “Borders define
géographie boundaries ofpolitical entities or legal juridic-
tions, such as govemments, States or administrative divi-
sions... Borders are complexly understood as a site at and
through which socio-spatial différences are communicatedl'x
When we are thinking about borders in Central
Europe, the image of the “Iron Curtain”, by which
the totalitarian communist régime demarcated itself
off from its European neighbours, may still arise. The
evident physical presence of such a strict type of bor-
der (consisting in walls, razor wires, watchtowers,
soldiers etc.) and the way it was experienced through
the senses, enhanced by the distress arising out of
persécution, necessarily influenced (and the memory
of it still influences) the mentality of both individuals
and groups of people on both sides of the divide and
their notion of distinguishing. The expérience of such
an evident, in practice virtually impassable, interface
between hostile territories is obviously different from
the expérience of the less noticeable boundary which
we perceive between peaceful, friendly neighbours.
However, even in this second case, where the fron-
tière between individual States themselves lose their
1 Wikipedia. The Free Encyklopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Border.
concrète physical, easily perceptible character, our
mind can still be influenced by the intuition of the
différence between “inside” and “outside”, “here” and
“there”, "in front” and “behind”, “I can” and “I must
not”, “we” and “those others” — the intuition of distin-
guishing between territories, social groups, cultures etc.
In both the examples mentioned above, the bor-
dées could be recognized thanks to more or less clear
features that could be perceived by the senses. In
both cases, however, we could perceive only a small
section of the physical border. While it is practical-
ly almost impossible to perceive the entire frontier
surrounding a state (except perhaps for exceptional
views from aircraft or satellites), our mind still has
enough information to work with both iconic and
symbolic représentations of an entire frontier of this
nature. In our culture, the most usual and most com-
préhensible représentation of such an image of bor-
ders is a map.
The impact of the sentient perception of physi-
cal borders is reflected in the mental sphere, even if
we are not immediately confronted with the bor-
ders themselves. It also appears that the mental
image of the map is part of the basic way in which
people (and also animais) orient themselves in space
and in their environment. Psychological “research
suggests that we may form imaginai maps based solely on
ourphysical interaction with and navigations through our
physical environment, even when we never hâve a chance
to ‘see the whole picture, ’ as from an aerial photograph or
a map."1 2 The expérience of borders as well as the
expérience of distinguishing between “inside” and
2 STERNBERG, R. J.: Cognitive Psychology. Forth Worth 1996,
p. 182.
225
Distinguishing — Similarities — Style.
Carpoforo and Giacomo Tencalla in Czech Lands
ARS 40, 2007, 2
Martin MÁDL
Borders and Distinguishing
In a certain sense, the définition of the theme cho-
sen for this Conference seems to be unclear. The équi-
valents of the term “border” háve diverse origins in
different languages and the way they are ušed con-
tains different meanings in each language (e.g. fron-
tière, borderline, boundary, frame, edge, and limit).
In the contemporary discussion, the term “border” is
usually ušed in its geographical sense. “Borders define
géographie boundaries ofpolitical entities or legal juridic-
tions, such as govemments, States or administrative divi-
sions... Borders are complexly understood as a site at and
through which socio-spatial différences are communicatedl'x
When we are thinking about borders in Central
Europe, the image of the “Iron Curtain”, by which
the totalitarian communist régime demarcated itself
off from its European neighbours, may still arise. The
evident physical presence of such a strict type of bor-
der (consisting in walls, razor wires, watchtowers,
soldiers etc.) and the way it was experienced through
the senses, enhanced by the distress arising out of
persécution, necessarily influenced (and the memory
of it still influences) the mentality of both individuals
and groups of people on both sides of the divide and
their notion of distinguishing. The expérience of such
an evident, in practice virtually impassable, interface
between hostile territories is obviously different from
the expérience of the less noticeable boundary which
we perceive between peaceful, friendly neighbours.
However, even in this second case, where the fron-
tière between individual States themselves lose their
1 Wikipedia. The Free Encyklopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Border.
concrète physical, easily perceptible character, our
mind can still be influenced by the intuition of the
différence between “inside” and “outside”, “here” and
“there”, "in front” and “behind”, “I can” and “I must
not”, “we” and “those others” — the intuition of distin-
guishing between territories, social groups, cultures etc.
In both the examples mentioned above, the bor-
dées could be recognized thanks to more or less clear
features that could be perceived by the senses. In
both cases, however, we could perceive only a small
section of the physical border. While it is practical-
ly almost impossible to perceive the entire frontier
surrounding a state (except perhaps for exceptional
views from aircraft or satellites), our mind still has
enough information to work with both iconic and
symbolic représentations of an entire frontier of this
nature. In our culture, the most usual and most com-
préhensible représentation of such an image of bor-
ders is a map.
The impact of the sentient perception of physi-
cal borders is reflected in the mental sphere, even if
we are not immediately confronted with the bor-
ders themselves. It also appears that the mental
image of the map is part of the basic way in which
people (and also animais) orient themselves in space
and in their environment. Psychological “research
suggests that we may form imaginai maps based solely on
ourphysical interaction with and navigations through our
physical environment, even when we never hâve a chance
to ‘see the whole picture, ’ as from an aerial photograph or
a map."1 2 The expérience of borders as well as the
expérience of distinguishing between “inside” and
2 STERNBERG, R. J.: Cognitive Psychology. Forth Worth 1996,
p. 182.
225