✄Micro-Teaching: Exploring Object-Based Learning through Visual and Verbal Interpretation

Background
This microteaching session was designed to explore object-based learning through the lens of visual perception, representation, and semiotics. The session leveraged the philosophical framework of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave to facilitate a deeper understanding of how objects are perceived and described, both visually and verbally. The workshop aimed to challenge the hierarchical relationship between object and subject, drawing on concepts from Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO). A ring gauge was selected as the central object for its metaphorical resonance—akin to “books on books,”¹ this was a case of “rings on rings”—which served to disrupt traditional object-subject dynamics by granting the object agency through self-naming and narrative.

As Harman (2002) suggests, “objects can never be reduced to the mere sum of their relations to humans or other entities. Each object has its own unique essence that is distinct from its interactions or qualities” (p. 7). This notion of objects as autonomous entities underscores the purpose of the workshop: to challenge the subject-object dynamic and allow the object to narrate its identity independently.

Objectives

1. To engage participants in critical thinking about the relationship between visual perception and verbal description.
2. To explore the semiotic processes involved in representing objects through language and imagery.
3. To challenge traditional hierarchies between subject and object, inspired by Object-Oriented Ontology.
4. To investigate how functional, everyday objects can gain autonomy and subjectivity through self-referential abstraction.

Methodology
The session was structured around an interactive, collaborative activity involving six participants divided into two groups (Group A and Group B).
Activity Design

Step 1: Projection and Observation
Group A (three participants) was shown a projection of the silhouette of a ring gauge. This projection was carefully chosen to obscure some functional details, focusing participants on its visual form rather than its utility.

Step 2: Description and Communication
Group A was tasked with describing the projected image using text or verbal language. They were encouraged to articulate their perceptions without naming the object explicitly, focusing instead on shapes, forms, and possible interpretations.

Step 3: Interpretation and Drawing
Group B (three participants), who had not seen the projection, listened to the descriptions provided by Group A. Based solely on these descriptions, Group B created individual drawings of what they envisioned the object to be.

In line with Barthes’ assertion that “It is impossible however (and this will be the final remark here concerning the text) that the words ‘duplicate’ the image; in the movement from one structure to the other second signifieds are inevitably developed” (1977, p. 26), the translation from visual form to verbal description and back to drawing emphasizes the inevitable transformation and divergence between the original object and its representations. This highlights the semiotic process at play: words do not merely “duplicate” the image, but rather generate new layers of meaning that reshape the object’s identity in the minds of participants.

Observations and Reflections
Throughout the session, several key observations emerged:

1. Variability in Perception: Participants in Group A described the silhouette using diverse language, influenced by their individual interpretations and biases. This variability highlighted the subjective nature of visual perception. As Eco (1976) notes, “meaning is not fixed, but is contingent upon the interpreter’s context” (p. 35).
2. Challenges in Translation: Group B’s drawings revealed significant discrepancies between the original object and its interpreted representations. This emphasized the limitations and challenges inherent in translating visual information into verbal language and back into visual form.
3. Object Agency: By refraining from naming the object explicitly and focusing on its visual characteristics, the ring gauge gained a form of autonomy. It became a “useless Thing,” transcending its functional purpose and acquiring a new identity through the participants’ interactions. Harman (2002) discusses the “vitality of objects,” explaining that “objects persist in their being, whether or not they are perceived or understood by human subjects” (p. 9).
4. Semiotic Exploration: The activity illuminated the semiotic processes involved in object representation. The transformation from object to silhouette, to description, to drawing, showcased the layers of meaning that emerge and shift in the communication process.

Conclusion
This microteaching session demonstrated the potential of object-based learning to foster critical engagement with visual perception, semiotics, and the philosophy of objects. By using the Allegory of the Cave as a metaphorical framework, participants were encouraged to question the nature of reality and representation. The ring gauge, as a symbol of “rings on rings,” served as an effective tool for disrupting traditional subject-object dynamics and highlighting the agency of objects.

Future Considerations
For future iterations of this workshop, I will try to incorporate accessibility considerations, such as potential discomfort with darkness should be addressed before the workshop. In addition, consider developing a broader range of objects and exploring digital mediums for representation which could further enhance the exploration of object agency and semiotic transformation. Moving forward, I could refine the pacing, provide clearer role distinctions, and incorporate sensory aspects like texture and sound to further enrich the experience and extend the activity to include a reflective discussion on the philosophical implications of the exercise would deepen participants’ engagement with the theoretical concepts underpinning the session.

References

• Plato. (c. 375 BCE). The Republic (“The Allegory of the Cave”).
• Harman, G. (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects. Open Court. pp.164-179
• Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. University of Minnesota Press.
• Barthes, R. (1977). Image, Music, Text. Fontana Press.
• Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana University Press.
• Steyerl, H. (2012). The Language of Things. Retrieved from https://artistsspace.org/media/pages/exhibitions/hito-steyerl/1128046083-1623172961/the_language_of_things.pdf [Accessed 1 Feb 2025].
• McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.
• Drucker, J. (2004). The Visible Word: Experimental Typography and Modern Art. University of Chicago Press.

1. 
   Drucker, J. (2004). The Visible Word: Experimental Typography and Modern Art. University of Chicago Press. In this work, Drucker explores the relationship between graphic design, text, and the conceptual role of books in design, including the idea of “books on books,” where the form and content of the book are reflexively intertwined, each influencing the other in a continuous dialogue. This concept mirrors the recursive relationship explored in the session through the metaphor of “rings on rings.” ↩︎