> but what if we for a
> moment broaden (not blur) our conception of the image to incorporate it's
> multiple manifestations and extensions within contemporary cultures? where
> do these images reside? how do we inhabit them? within what kind of space
> would a taxonomy of contemporary image-types reside? what (different kinds
> of) movements between evidence, memory and the imagination are provoked
> within processes of image formation, recollection and response? how to
> describe - in terms of both subject AND world - the mutations that arise
> out of these complex negotiations and interplay between 'internal' and
> 'external'...?
For the sake of argument, can we agree on the difference between 'the
image' and 'the visual' that Brian and I have discussed (via Serge
Daney)? Because this distinction allows us to 'broaden our conception
of the image' toward a formation that is significantly more than a
representation, while it allows us to very specifically look at the
structure of representation as linked to the visual faculty. This
distinction might enable us to mobilize a critique. For example, where
the representation (the visual) is wedded to its technological facing,
the image exceeds it; where the visual is semiotic the image is shot
through with mobilizing and materializing vectors (taking us toward, and
beyond, the performative); where the visual is relational the image is
immersive or phoroptic; etc., etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------
a forum on spatial articulations, perspectives, and procedures
texts are the property of individual authors
for information, email majordomo@forum.documenta.de with
the following line in the message body: info blast
archive at http://www.documenta.de/english/blasta.htm
or http://www.documenta.de/deutsch/blasta.htm
documenta X Kassel and http://www.documenta.de 1997
-------------------------------------------------------------