What Images Do

Jan Bäcklund / Henrik Oxvig / Michael Renner / Martin Søberg (eds.)

Description

When images look like something they do so because they are different from what they resemble. This difference is not sufficiently captured by the traditional theories of representation and mimesis, and yet it is the condition for any such theory. Various contemporary image theorists have pointed out that Plato already understood that images are not what they look like. Images have their own existence which cannot be identified with a concept, but should be examined in terms of actions. This book comprises fifteen articles that investigate what images do, particularly in relation to the disciplines of architecture, design and visual arts. It claims that it is the differentiating power of images-their actions-which constitutes their capacity to look like something they are not, as well as create something that does not yet exist. What Images Do addresses the crucial role that images might play in producing and investigating what we have not yet seen or understood in and of reality.

Sujets

• Arts visuels
• Arts visuels
• Art

Informations

• Publié par: Aarhus University Press
• Date de parution: 13 septembre 2019
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9788771848298
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 12 Mo

Extrait

110824_cover_what images do_.indd 1 26/07/2019 13.33What Images Do
Aarhus University Press
110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 1 07/08/2019 10.47110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 2 07/08/2019 10.47Editors
Jan Bäcklund
Henrik Oxvig
Michael Renner
Martin Søberg
Aarhus University Press
110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 2 07/08/2019 10.47 110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 3 07/08/2019 10.47Introduction: What Images Do
11 – 19
4
110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 4 07/08/2019 10.47Part I: Acting
Introduction: What Images Do
11 – 19
Gottfried Boehm Divided Attention: Remarks on »Iconic Difference«
23 – 31
Jacques Rancière Doing and Not Doing: The Paradoxes of the Image
33 – 49
Marc Boumeester Iridescence of Perception: A-Signifcation Through Preemptive
Desecration of the Visual Urzustand
51 – 62
Toni Hildebrandt Drawing Distinctions between Aleatorics: »Images Made
by Chance« in Modern Thought
65 – 86
Michael Renner Word and Image: In Search of Unseen Images
89 – 108
4 5
110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 4 07/08/2019 10.47 110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 5 07/08/2019 10.47Part II: Emerging
Jonathan Hay The Worldly Eye
113 – 143
Andrej Radman 3D Perception ≠ 2D Image + 1D Inference: Or Why a Single
Precise Shot Would Often Miss the Target, whereas
a Series of Imprecise Shots Will Eventually Lead to a Hit
145 – 155
Sabine Ammon Some Thoughts on the Generative and Instrumental
Operativity of Technical Images
157 – 167
Henrik Oxvig Building Architecture with Images, Not Vice Versa
169 – 186
Martin Søberg Iconic Stabilizing: Roy Lichtenstein’s Entablatures
189 – 202
6
110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 6 07/08/2019 10.47Part II: Emerging Part III: Symptomizing
Jonathan Hay The Worldly Eye Georges Didi-Huberman To Make Symptoms or to Make Syntheses?
113 – 143 207 – 225
Andrej Radman 3D Perception ≠ 2D Image + 1D Inference: Or Why a Single Sjoerd van Tuinen Mannerism and Hysteria: On the Mode of Existence
Precise Shot Would Often Miss the Target, whereas of Painting 227 – 245
a Series of Imprecise Shots Will Eventually Lead to a Hit
145 – 155
Sabine Ammon Some Thoughts on the Generative and Instrumental Charlotte Warsen Notes on Painting
Operativity of Technical Images 247 – 262
157 – 167
Henrik Oxvig Building Architecture with Images, Not Vice Versa Jan Bäcklund The Invisible Image and the Index of an
169 – 186 Imaginary Order 265 – 282
Martin Søberg Iconic Stabilizing: Roy Lichtenstein’s Entablatures Ludger Schwarte The Birth of the Skeleton: Facing the Truth
189 – 202 285 – 299
6 7
110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 6 07/08/2019 10.47 110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 7 07/08/2019 10.47Contributors, Image Credits, Index
Contributors
301 – 305
Image Credits
306 – 307
Index Keywords
309 – 317
Index Names
319 – 325
8
110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 8 07/08/2019 10.47Contributors, Image Credits, Index
Contributors
301 – 305
Image Credits
306 – 307
Index Keywords
309 – 317
Index Names
319 – 325
8 9
110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 8 07/08/2019 10.47 110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 9 07/08/2019 10.4710
110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 10 07/08/2019 10.47Introduction
With this book, we present the results of a research project that has
investigated what images do. We do not ask what images are, but what they do,
since it is our claim that it is this differentiating power of images which
constitutes their capacity to look like something they are not, as well as
cre1ate something that does not yet exist. Hence, we also address the 1 What Images Do was an
international research network (2012 –14) crucial role that images might play for both art and science in
procomprising researchers from eikones,
ducing and investigating what we have not yet seen or understood The National Center of Competence
in Research (NCCR) Iconic Criticism, in and of reality. When images look like something they do so
beBasel, TU Delft, Kunstakademie
Düscause they are different from what they resemble. This difference is seldorf and The Royal Copenhagen
Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools not suffciently captured by the traditional theories of
representaof Architecture, Design, and
Conser2tion and mimesis, and yet it is the condition for any such theory. vation and Schools of Visual Arts. Its
activities were funded by the Danish Various contemporary image theorists have pointed out
Research Council. The articles pre -
that Plato already understood that images are not what they look sented in this book were written by
researchers and keynote speakers who like, but moreover have their own existence which cannot be
idenparticipated in the network’s research
tifed with a concept, but should be examined in terms of actions. symposia and the What Images Do
international conference, which took In the Sophist Plato lets The Stranger ask the following question:
place in Copenhagen at the
Charlot»Then what we call a likeness [eikóna], though not really existing, tenborg Palace in 2014.
2 See, for instance, the convincing 3really does exist?« With reference to The Stranger’s question,
Daargument regarding the concept of
vid Summers has pointed out that mimesis by Jacques Rancière, The
Future of the Image (London: Verso,
2007), 73 – 74.
»Socrates had long ago already raised two fundamentally 3 Plato, Sophist, 240b.
4 David Summers, »The Archaeology important and fnally incompatible questions. The frst is
of Appearance as Paradox,« in Para-
this: Why is there a desire to create doubles to the point doxes of Appearing, ed. Michael
Asgaard Andersen and Henrik Oxvig of reanimation … The second question is this: If Socrates
(Baden: Lars Müller, 2009), 36.
is right, and we do not really want images to be doubles,
because then they could not serve their purposes as
im4ages, what are the purposes only images can serve?«
In the German-speaking part of the world, one fnds among
contemporary image theorists a similar attention to the questions Plato raises
10 11
INDHOLDSFORTEGNELSE
Dette materiale er ophavsretsligt beskyttet og må ikke videregives
110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 10 07/08/2019 10.47 110824_What Images Do_Final_cs6__r1_.indb 11 07/08/2019 10.47What Images Do
5 Horst Bredekamp, Theorie des Bild- following The Stranger’s question. Horst Bredekamp, with
referakts (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2007), 52. ence to the above quotation, has noted that the »truth in this
6 Gottfried Boehm, »Ikonische Difer -
5enz,« Rheinsprung 11 – Zeitschrift für paradox is the logic of the image,« while Gottfried Boehm has
Bildkritik 1 (2011): 170. pointed out that The Stranger’s question articulates the central
6concern in contemporary image theory.
In his keynote presentation at the second of our research symposia
in Basel 2013 – and published in this volume as »Divided Attention: Remarks
on ›Iconic Difference‹« – Gottfried Boehm pursues the possibility of fnding
a common denominator that could help us understand the doings of
images. Boehm distinguishes between different images – which he refers to as a
horizontal image difference – and »difference as a constitutive structure of each
77 Gottfried Boehm, »Divided Atten- individual image,« which, he suggests, is a »vertical« and
genertion: Remarks on ›Iconic Diference‹,« al characteristic the many different images share. This
distincin this book, 22.
tion is aimed at developing a greater understanding of what the
term »iconic difference« – which has been central to his research for many
years – means. For Boehm, when an epoch like the Renaissance directed its
focus towards establishing an identity between images and reality, it came to
suppress this iconic difference, and consequently to introduce – albeit para-
doxically and inadvertently – a certain »iconoclasm«: an iconoclasm that
does not consist in the destruction of images, but rather in the negligence
of the power of images that follows from a desire to create images that act
88 »Image should not be – reality must as »doubles to the point of reanimation.« For Boehm, Renaissance
be – precisely: The image must be real- artists and architects seemed more interested in the image
refectity. But if one thinks this thought to end
one experiences surprisingly that the ing or re-presenting reality than in the realities, affects or
environperfect image coincides with a com- ments images create. As Jonathan Hay put it in his keynote at the
plete iconoclasm.« Gottfried Boehm,
»Die Bilderfrage,« in Was ist ein Bild, concluding conference in Copenhagen in 2014 – and elaborates in
ed. Gottfried Boehm (Munich: Wilhelm his article »The Worldly Eye« in this volume – the Renaissance was
Fink, 1994), 336.
9 Jonathan Hay, »The Worldly Eye,« in not only the beginning of an artistic Modernity that »repressed the
this book, 123. evidence of topological thinking and bodily perception, conversely
9privileging the scopic,« but also crucial for the understanding of past art
and art from other cultures that prevailed in our cultural circles throughout
the twentieth century:
»During the twentieth century, this scopic model had enormous
infuence over the study of pre-Renaissance and non-Western art
as well. The art history of recent decades, however, has in part
involved the slow rediscovery of the prevalence of topological
thinking and bodily perception in history. Even our picture of European
1010 Hay, »The Worldly Eye,« 123. art since the ffteenth century has gradually been transformed.«
Hay has introduced the succinct and very promising concept
»scape« to capture the material, cultural and conceptual environment that
11 Jonathan Hay, Sensuous Surfaces: images participate in creating, most prominently in his
monoThe Decorative Object in Early Modern 11graph Sensuous Surfaces: The Decorative Object in Early Modern China.
China (London: Reakti