Collecting and analyzing data are closely related, and particularly within qualitative methods it is inevitable not to start analyzing data during the collecting process. Early findings, as well as obstacles; in this case in respect of employee interviews, has led the study into its final direction, which was also the case in Lysgaards “Arbeiderkollektivet”, where the researchers planned to study the working processes in the factory, including both employees and leaders, but ended up studying only the blue collar workers, due to interesting findings of hidden collectives among these early in the research process. (Lysgaard 1985) The analyses of the collected data in my study are based on 1) Visual analysis and 2) Comparative cross case analysis.
1.3.5.1 Visual analysis
Visual art and architecture represent separate disciplines, each complex and with different traditions, practices and sets of rules. But the two disciplines also have several qualities in common; they both represent visual expressions made in different times and in different cultures. This means that the visual appearance of a church, a corporate building, a work of art as well as an art collection are visual phenomenon that express signals that are perceived and interpreted in different ways, depending on the individual and cultural learned experiences and
preferences. In other words, the interpretation of such visual expressions depends on the spectator, who will interpret the visual expression of a building, an artwork and other visual objects on the basis of his or hers education, social background, religious and political affiliation; or with the words of Bourdieu;
with their social position and cultural capital incorporated in their habitus.
(Bourdieu 1995)
As mentioned above, I include nearly 200 photographs to show examples of art and architecture that is included in my discussions and empirical examinations, which also make them functioning as “evidence”, similar to what Becker describes within visual sociology where photographs are analyzed and interpreted in a similar way as other collected data. (Becker 2007) Analyzing
39 Actually I use this authorized Norwegian encyclopedia consciously, because it was threatened with being closed down in 2010, as it lost the public economic support, but was saved by the change of owners.
visual expressions requires a critical methodological approach to reveal how visual representations can inhabit cultural and social signals of class, gender, race and sexuality. According to the Norwegian sociologist Tove Thagaard, a critical approach to visual expressions should be based on three traditions: 1) the production of visual expressions, referring to the social, economic and cultural basis for the production, 2) the distinctive character of the visual expressions;
which cultural patterns and social relations are presented by the expressions, and 3) the hallmarks of the audience; which cultural and social relations influence the reception of the visual expressions. (Thagaard 2009) All three traditions have relevance in this study, as the design of corporate headquarters and the founding of an art collection presumably reflect the social, economical and cultural basis for a specific architecture and a specific art collection, which rely both on the society and on the founder and decision makers. Presumably the distinctive character of corporate art and architecture may also reflect cultural patterns and social relations as well as style and gender issues. Finally cultural capital, taste and aesthetical judgments influenced by social background, education and income of the spectators decide the reception of corporate art and architecture.
In the visual analysis I also apply metaphors, which according to Thagaard, give visual associations to data, usually descriptive text, and analyzing metaphors can give relevant information on the actors or cultures that are examined. The essential meaning of a metaphor is that it gives new meaning to a phenomenon that we are familiar with. Thus the metaphor contributes to create new meaning, and to lead our interpretation of a phenomenon towards the new meaning expressed in the metaphor. (Thagaard 2009) Metaphors have been used by many theoreticians such as Morgan who uses metaphors to interpret work
organizations. (Morgan 1992) Also architects use metaphors to characterize architecture. One of the most well known metaphors within architecture is made by Le Corbusier, who looked at the house as “a machine”. Here I use metaphors in a double sense; applied as a tool of interpretation, and to describe architecture in terms of form-metaphors. According to Alvesson and Sköldberg; using such metaphors belongs to the hermeneutic tradition, based on what the philosophers Martin Heidegger and Paul Ricoeur describes as “poetic hermeneutics”; a school within the “alethic hermeneutics”,40 (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2000) here aiming to reveal both clearly communicated and hidden qualities.
Visual art and architecture is often analyzed and interpreted within an aesthetical perspective. But according to the sociologist and philosopher Theodor W.
Adorno, understanding art in our time on the basis of a traditional aesthetical
40 Alethic: from the Greek aletheia, which means to uncover (reveal) something hidden
thinking, may lead to a misunderstanding rather than to an understanding of art.
The reason for this is that seeing art objectively, but communicated through subjectivity, is an idea that is delivered from the classical tradition, and which has no relevance for art within Modernism. (Adorno 1998) Vesely on his side claims that the critical turning point of modern art was when traditional poetics was transformed into aesthetics. Similar to the philosopher Hans-Georg
Gadamer, he points out that the appearance of new art, instead of complementing nature was contrasting reality, and led to an aesthetic differentiation where art no longer has a place within the aesthetic consciousness. (Vesely 2006) According to the art historian Erwin Panofsky, a work of art is not necessarily created to be experienced aesthetically. Still a work of art always has what he mentions as
“aesthetic significance”, which must not be confused with aesthetic value. He describes how every work of art demands to be experienced aesthetically, independent of whether it is good or bad. But also every other natural or
manmade object can be experienced aesthetically, which most of us do often only by looking at the object, without relating it to anything else. In opposition, the experience is not aesthetically when we start to associate the object with
something else, as in the carpenter when he is associating a tree with what he can make out of it. (Panofsky 1982) This applies also when people are preoccupied with the function and utility of art, for instance at work; where art is expected to influence the work place in different ways, which I discuss later.
Manmade objects that are not demanding to be experienced aesthetically, and because of that usually are called practical objects; can be divided into two classes, described by Panofsky as: 1) vehicles of communication, and 2) tools, or apparatuses. While the first, a vehicle of communication is intended to transmit a concept, the second, a tool is intended to make a function, although this may be to serve the transmission of a communication, for example a typewriter.
(Panofsky 1982) But according to Panofsky, also works of art belong to one of these classes. A painting is also a vehicle of communication, while architecture may be seen as a tool; but only in a sense, because they are not only a vehicle of communication or a tool. In any event, to look at art as well as architecture as vehicles of communication is harmonious to my way of interpreting art and architecture in this study, since aesthetical judgements are not applied here.
It is also relevant to apply visual analysis and interpretations in terms of iconography and iconology as this is described by Panofsky, (Panofsky 1982) here on the visual appearance of the art collections and the headquarters architecture, and the symbolic values and meanings embedded in art and architecture. According to Panofsky visual expressions inhabit three layers of
meaning; 1) The primary or natural meaning connected to the form of an object, for example a building or the motif of an artwork, named as “pre-iconography”.
2) The secondary or conventional meaning refers to the content of the visual expression, whether this is the motif of an artwork, or the style of a building which requires general cultural knowledge. It represents pictorial stories or allegories, and is called “iconography”. 3) The third meaning is the inner meaning or content of the visual expression. It is established through adequate cultural and historical knowledge, and includes symptoms of “something else”, or conditions outside of the object or artwork that the creator may be unaware of.
This meaning constitutes the “iconology” of the visual expression. (Panofsky 1980) As the interpretation of art and architecture also depend on which culture and time period the visual expression is created, and in which culture and time it is interpreted, it may also be analyzed in terms of semiotics, in the same way as the literature theoretician Roland Barthes “read” photographs and images as re-presentation of reality, by reading the denotative “signs” of art and architecture;
the materials, motifs and means that in the next turn establishes the connotations of art and architecture; “what it says”, or communicates. (Barthes 1994)
In respect of interpreting art and architecture, it may also be useful to be aware of what Lefebvre call the “trialectics of society”; which refers to the physical, mental and social appearance of society. According to the political geographer Edward W. Soja, these three dimensions are described as an interrelated triad of:
1) spatial practise, referring to the space of production and reproduction, 2) representations of space, referring to the space of scientists, planners, urbanites and technocrats, and 3) spaces of representation, referring to a community of a distinct form with coded and complex symbolisms, a “non-verbal subliminality”, a common understanding, and with the insightfulness of art versus science. The third space is inhabited by artists, writers, philosophers and others from the cultural and educated classes of society. (Soja 1996) Apparently the production within the third space with its codes and symbols is similar to the production within cultural fields that Bourdieu describes as “the production of belief”, as discussed later, which also presupposes access to codes and symbols within the current community. (Broady 1987)
1.3.5.2 Comparative cross-case analysis
As my study includes multiple cases the collected data are analyzed in terms of cross-case analysis, where information on a number of categories, here visual qualities of art collections and headquarters architecture are placed in a matrix, to literally “eyeball the table” as suggested by the social scientists Matthew B.
Miles and A. Michael Huberman in order to compare the cases and look for
patterns. (Miles and Huberman 1984) A matrix also creates a basis to conduct what Yin describes as pattern-matching; “For case-study analysis, one of the most desirable strategies is the use of a pattern matching logic.” (Yin 1990)41 According to Yin, the advantage of pattern matching is that it strengthens the internal validity of the study, if the patterns coincide. The main objective of this study is not to generalize findings, but rather to seek to explain findings and coincidental patterns; what Yin calls “explanation-building.” (Yin 1990) In addition, the analysis may also generate hypothesis, as a main goal for this study is also to develop ideas for further research. Also Thagaard describes the use of matrixes as a suitable way to analyse qualitative data and conduct what she describes as theme-centred analysis. (Thagaard 2009) A similar way of using matrixes in comparative cultural analysis is demonstrated by the American sociologist Wendy Griswold, in her analysis of Romantic plays in London theatres. (Griswold 1986)
As also Martorella claims, to study corporate art collections, which includes disciplines such as art, art history and sociology; it is necessary to use different approaches. (Martorella 1990) The same applies when the study includes architecture. As mentioned above, being open, with the bohemian mind of the flâneur, one may also make unexpected findings, due to the latent functions of phenomena, and reveal what Merton mentions as “unintended consequences”.
(Merton 1968) According to Alvesson and Sköldberg, multiple methods from different traditions applied in the same study, also contributes to create a methodology that is interrelated and reflexive. (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2000)
41 Page 109