Picture, Image and Visual Perception

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Tarbiat modares university, Tehran

2 Tarbiat Modares University

Abstract

Visualization have visual features and is the simplest way of imaginings, which employs a process of visual imagery. Image is a medium and seems that any visual image can be used in a sensory visualizing. Nonetheless, it should be noted that there are some difficulties to understanding the meaning of image, and pictorial and subjective ideology may be the best definition for it. According to our knowledge and identification of the world, experimental data shows that our practice in imagining, the same ours in seeing includes picture. Herein the questions are: 1) which aspect of image can be differently interpreted through the history and transferred by its medium? And 2) to what extent there are some equal characteristics among perceived image and reality? This paper will answers those questions in a semantics research about the visual content of picture and by employing some reasonable account, explain the striking realities within artworks. We should consider that, imagination do not have grammar rules, grammar allow images to represent linear process and these modes render instantaneous while grammar elaborates the meaning in a temporally articulated sequence. This, the image’s essential instantaneity is lost, while its concise quality constitutes a unifying synthesis that is already present: this is above all a concise vision of a totality articulated in its unity. When we speak of a grammar of the imagination, we make an analogy with verbal language without overlaying these two fields. If we speak of a semantics of the image, we are dealing with a process of organizing a structure that cannot be individuated and facing it sequentially that can be logically reconstructed. We administrate ourselves through experience by seeing. This vision is full of pre-cognitions of the world. It is not relevant here to claim what the image reflects; but, it is important to understand what is evoked to us by image. As we have seen, the image is endowed with an entry point. It has a frame through which it objectifies itself for us. What we have recognized in our world through the image, what in the image has enticed our attention, is, so to speak, brought onto the stage. We find ourselves alternatively in the image, it has also become a part of us, an image of ourselves. The part that we call memory. Our knowledge (and more than any other that gained through the image) has a history. The space occupied by the image consequently becomes the space of the subject, a space in which we hold fast to our vision in the objectivity of the medium in order to locate ourselves in this same objectivity, and to work from within it. The resulting position thus sheds light that the certain visual nature of image content have a live quality and this can make the entity of our mind apparent. Further, the Framework and objectivity of artwork stand on the active subject-matter which any of them is the way of seeing the world.

Keywords

References

 آرنهایم، رودلف (1393)، هنر و ادراک بصری: روان شناسی چشم خلاق، ترجمه‌ی مجید اخگر، انتشارات سمت، تهران.
بریجانیان، ماری (1393)، فرهنگ اصطلاحات فلسفه و علوم اجتماعی، ویراسته بهاالدین خرمشاهی، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران.
کوهن، تامس (1394)، ساختار انقلاب‌های علمی، ترجمه‌ی سعید زیباکلام، انتشارات سمت، تهران.
Alloa, E (2005), Bare exteriority: Philosophy of the image and the image of philosophy in Maurice Blanchot and Martin Heidegger, COLLOQUY text theory critique, 2005(10), pp. 69-82.
 
Alloa, E (2016), Iconic Turn: A Plea for Three Turns of the Screw, Culture, Theory and Critique, 57(2), pp. 228-250.
 
Belting, H (2011), An anthropology of images: Picture, medium, body (p. p9), Princeton University Press, Princeton.
 
Belting, H & Jephcott, E (1996), Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
 
Breidback, O; Vercellone, F & Kaiser, W (2013), Thinking European Worlds : Thinking and Imagination, The Davies Group Publishers, Aurora, US.
 
Donald, M (2006), Art and cognitive evolution, The artful mind: Cognitive science and the riddle of human creativity, ?????, pp.3-200.
 
Gregory (1), D (2010), Imagery, the imagination and experience, The Philosophical Quarterly, 60(241), pp. 735-753.
 
Gregory (2), D (2010), Visual imagery: visual format or visual content?, Mind & Language, 25(4), pp. 394-417.
Johnson, C. D (2012), Signale: Modern German Letters, Cultures, and Thought : Memory, Metaphor, and Aby Warburg's Atlas of Images, Ithaca, Cornell University Press and Cornell University Library, US, Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.
 
Mitchell, W.J.T (1995), Picture Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
 
Ricoeur, P (2003), The rule of metaphor: The creation of meaning in language, Psychology Press, ?????.
 
Schelling, F.W.J (1978), System of transcendental idealism (1800), University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
 
Schlegel, F.von (1968), Dialogue on poetry and literary aphorisms, Translated by Ernst Behler and Roman Struc, University Park, Pennsylvania State Univ Pr, PA.
 
Schroeder, J. E (2003), Visual methodologies and analysis, Visual anthropology, 16(1), pp. 81-88.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Journal of Fine Arts: Visual Arts
Volume 23, Issue 2
July 2018
Pages 5-12

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics