Paradoxes of Visibility

IF 0.1 0 FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION
László Tarnay
{"title":"Paradoxes of Visibility","authors":"László Tarnay","doi":"10.1515/ausfm-2017-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper investigates two possible critical arguments following the pictorial turn. The first is formulated within ocularcentrism, the dominance of sight, and starts with the right to visibility as a general principle that governs today’s digital culture but gets twisted in special cases like the Auschwitz photos of the Shoa, the Abu Ghraib prison videos, or recently the website called Yolocaust. The second is conceived outside the visual culture and is meant to vindicate the other senses vis-à-vis the eyes. However, the argument is truncated here only to highlight the boomerang effect of the other senses: haptic vision. It is the case of visual perception when (a) there is a lack of things to see and (b) indeterminate synaesthesia: when vision intensifies the other senses in the embodied viewer. The two arguments converge upon a dialectic of the visible and the imaginable, which is formulated here as two paradoxes that the discussed examples transcend. By enforcing visibility at all costs where there is hardly anything recognizable to see, they lead to two diverging results. On the one hand, the meaning of “image” is extended toward the unimaginable, the traumatic experience, on the other hand, it is extended toward the invisible, the encounter with the radical Other.","PeriodicalId":40721,"journal":{"name":"Acta Universitatis Sapientiae-Film and Media Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Universitatis Sapientiae-Film and Media Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ausfm-2017-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract The paper investigates two possible critical arguments following the pictorial turn. The first is formulated within ocularcentrism, the dominance of sight, and starts with the right to visibility as a general principle that governs today’s digital culture but gets twisted in special cases like the Auschwitz photos of the Shoa, the Abu Ghraib prison videos, or recently the website called Yolocaust. The second is conceived outside the visual culture and is meant to vindicate the other senses vis-à-vis the eyes. However, the argument is truncated here only to highlight the boomerang effect of the other senses: haptic vision. It is the case of visual perception when (a) there is a lack of things to see and (b) indeterminate synaesthesia: when vision intensifies the other senses in the embodied viewer. The two arguments converge upon a dialectic of the visible and the imaginable, which is formulated here as two paradoxes that the discussed examples transcend. By enforcing visibility at all costs where there is hardly anything recognizable to see, they lead to two diverging results. On the one hand, the meaning of “image” is extended toward the unimaginable, the traumatic experience, on the other hand, it is extended toward the invisible, the encounter with the radical Other.
可见性的悖论
摘要:本文探讨了绘画转向后可能出现的两种批判论点。第一种观点是在视觉中心主义的基础上形成的,即视觉的主导地位,它从可见权开始,作为一项支配当今数字文化的普遍原则,但在奥斯维辛集中营的照片、阿布格莱布监狱的视频,或者最近名为Yolocaust的网站等特殊案例中被扭曲了。第二种是在视觉文化之外构思的,目的是为了维护其他感官-à-vis眼睛。然而,这个论点在这里被截断,只是为了强调其他感官的回旋效应:触觉视觉。这是视觉感知的情况,当(a)缺乏可看到的东西和(b)不确定的联觉:当视觉强化了具体化的观看者的其他感官。这两个论点汇聚在可见和想象的辩证法上,在这里被表述为讨论的例子超越的两个悖论。通过不惜一切代价在几乎看不到任何可识别的东西的情况下强制执行可见性,它们导致了两个不同的结果。一方面,“形象”的意义被延伸到不可想象的、创伤性的经历,另一方面,它被延伸到不可见的、与激进的他者的相遇。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信