Talk:Art of memory

New article

Redirecting Art of Memory to "Method of Loci" is unacceptable. The term "method of loci" itself is not an accepted or well-known term found in works on the Art of Memory. It is also a confusing grammatical construction employing a Latin term that general readers will not be likely to understand (loci for "places"). Furthermore, the use of the "places" in the Art of Memory is only one aspect of what was understood by practitioners of the Art of Memory as the 'Artificial Memory'. It does not take into account the other techniques involved in the Artificial Memory, nor does it take into account what was understood as the natural memory. It is in fact an arbitrarily selected portion of an extensive subject. --Picatrix (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New Art of Memory Page - Removal of Redirect

I've mentioned the inadequacy of the "Method of Loci" article as a full discussion of the Art of Memory on the talk page for the Method of Loci article. In the absence of any response I am posting the basic elements of a full art of memory article now, and I intend to expand it in coming weeks. --Picatrix (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that the Method of Loci page has significant overlap with the Art of memory page, requiring the integration of the two pages. My suggestion would be to include subsections in the Art of memory page providing overviews of each of the mnemonic technique groupings mentioned in primary studies such as the works of Yates and Carruthers. My best attempt to categorize the mnemonic techniques in groups currently includes Architectural Mnemonic (this would include much of the material from Method of Loci and covers the classical "place" system), Graphical Mnemonic (this would cover notae and non-alphabetic/numeric schemata, Metrodorus of Scepsis, etc.) and Textual Mnemonic (covering 'visual alphabets', letter and number notation, some forms of marginalia, etc.). I'll be adding these sections shortly. I also hope to incorporate a list of fundamental principles of the art of memory mentioned by authorities. --Picatrix (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've incorporated more material from the Method of Loci article in the Origins section, thereby changing it to Origins and History. The Method of Loci material provided a good historical overview so I hope no one minds its inclusion here pending some decision about merging articles... I've also added a basic Graphical Mnemonic section. I envision the addition of Textual Mnemonic section and then some basic material on principles of the art (orderly arrangement, limited sets, importance of visual sense, importance of affect, etc.). I hope this will be enough to get the article on its feet as a reasonable overview. --Picatrix (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The page gets better all the time!!!

I have made one or two corrections which might have led the querent astray. Ramus died in the sixteenth century and Agricola did not even trouble that century with his presence, let alone the following one. I have also restored the reference to Kilwining Mother Lodge as this is an important instance of the art being implemented by a key group in society. Also I think all we can see is that its use became occluded, as it continued to be practised in the privacy of certain organisations for whom discretion was essential. Perhaps we can find a better way to handle this ticlish issue?Harrypotter (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Some Criticism

Sorry, this article is a prime example of how wiki articles should not be written, academic verbiage void of content. Some practical examples and more straightforward formulation would go a long way in conveying meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.141.25 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is quite long yet fails to convey any meaningful information. It mentions obscure concepts like 'artificial memory' and such without any explanation of what these things are. This is a prime example of how a wiki article should not be written. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Section merger

Shouldn't the "Method of Loci" section be merged with the "architectural mnemonics" subsection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.7.74 (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

While that is certainly a possibility, I opted to keep the sections distinct because of the fact that the 'method of loci" has a distinct history in psychology and cognitive science. For that matter, while the 'architectural mnemonic' and the 'method of loci' both rely on 'structures' deployed in virtual 'space' it is clear that the method of loci does not depend upon buildings (for example, the 'loci' could be stations along a virtual pilgrimage route). I'll grant that the distinction is not perfect, but the independent development of a substantial body of research on the 'method of loci' that does not fit neatly into the work of a Yates or Carruthers (though Carruthers of course cites Luria) suggested to me that it deserved a somewhat separate treatment. Happy to hear suggestions. Thanks for the input. --Picatrix (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)