Notes on Stafford, _Good Looking_:

* I _wanted_ to like the book.
* Appalling, jargon-filled writing, typical of a professor of literature.
* At least smart enough not to be sucked in by the worst pomo excesses (e.g.
Baudrillard).
* An achingly superficial acquaintance with the sciences, and those philosophies bordering on them, e.g., she thinks Dennett is talking about something purely _linguistic_ in his Multiple Drafts Model and how it supports a ``Joycean Machine,'' which means she's obviously either not read or not understood anything
his written (chapters and chapters of _Consciousness Explained_) on the phi effect or perceptual filling-in.  Again, she takes him to task for neglecting
visual design, while being full of concern over the design of organisms,
computers, etc.; either she doesn't realize these are two totally separate
uses of the word ``design,'' or for some obscure reason she feels a need to
score points off Dennett.  Her acquaintance with the history of neuroscience
is so slight that she thinks considerations of <em>embodiment</em> are a new
development, being pushed forward by Damasio; which a careful and intelligent
reading of Damasio himself would suffice to dispel.  Sherrington, to say
nothing of William James and Hermann Helmholtz, would roll in their graves if
they deigned to notice such foolishness.
* Other instances: The best books on visual representation are those of Tufte;
he doesn't even rate a mention.  She proposes ``design'' as a unifying theme
for intellectual life some thirty years after Herbert Simon did, with none of
Simon's clarity or justification or insight into the process of design.
* A _very_ unreliable way with her authors and texts.  Hume's essay ``On
Miracles'' is not attacking the visual evidence --- the whole <em>basis</em> of
Hume's philosophy, which Stafford at some points tries to claim as her own and
present as a new revelation, is that all knowledge has its origins in sense
perception, including, very much, visual perception.  Rather he is attacking
<em>credulity</em> with respect to <em>claims</em> of eyewitness testimony.
Not only is this an elementary point made by almost any commentator on the
essay, but Hume is himself the clearest of philosophical authors, someone who
it takes either great talent or great effort to misunderstand; Stafford
evidently possesses one or the other or both.  I would like, as a mere matter
of charity, to think that it was effort (i.e., that she was deceptive, rather
than obtuse), but I cannot.
* Just what is this knowledge supposedly possessed by graphic artists, which
isn't shared by cognitive scientists, neurologists, etc.?  What are they
missing out on?  Deponenth saieth not; one suspects whatever it is could be
far more easily learned from video game designers, whose work must pass far
more stringent tests than those to which most self-conscious artworks are
subjected.