Author: Klaus Hentschel

Title: Spectroscopy or Spectroscopies?

Abstract: Scientific instruments (such as Rowland's concave gratings, Anderson's blazed gratings, or Toepfer's micrometer measuring microscope) as well as larger instrumental setups (such as the solar towers at the Mt.Wilson and Potsdam Observatories) have played a key role in my studies of the evolving experimental practice and theoretical interpretations of spectroscopic effects. My more recent focus on visual representations of spectra reveals a similarly intricate interplay between experimental practice, preferred types of representation, and printing techniques. However, when I read Charlotte Bigg's and Klaus Staubermann's long list of possible topics for the workshop in Munich I was most intrigued by the following question: ``Were the techniques similar enough from one field to another so as to facilitate communication between different groups? Or did they conversely vary so much that one can not speak of a single 'community of spectroscopists'?'' In my paper for this workshop, I would like to discuss why---in my opinion---spectroscopy never made the transition to a disciplinary identity, but rather remained an (albeit well-known and broadly applied) `research technology' (Terry Shinn)---or should we rather say, a whole bundle of research techniques? Where do concepts like `visual culture' lead us here? Finally, I shall compare Martin Jay's notion of `scopic regimes' against what I would like to call `spectro-scopic domains' and explore the implications of this notion.