{"title":"AI图表(图像)","authors":"J. Parikka","doi":"10.7146/nja.v30i61-62.127893","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A history of images about images is as mesmerising in its own right as images themselves are. This is not merely a history of the copy—the attempt to reproduce an image through an image— but also of the various guides and diagrams that tell a story of production of images. This is also the entry point for my argument about the changing ontology of the image. This argument about ontology concerns then not merely what an image is in its essence, but how images function as as operative ontologies1: described, drawn, pictured, instructed, guided, and diagrammed into existence. Such diagrams are an educational arm of knowledge about images, but obviously they are also images already in themselves. Diagrams occupy a central role as a modern form of knowledge about images. Diagrams that describe the operations and insights of image geometry are a special case in point, where the linear perspective in (and since) the Renaissance period has given rise to a long line of commentary, in the arthistorical way of tracking the changing ontologies of the image. How to calculate image surfaces, lines, and ratios becomes instrumentalised into a productive machinery and subsequently into an analytical machinery, as is the case in the various techniques of reading the geometric data packed into an image. From Johan Heinrich Lambert’s Die freye Perspective, oder Anweisung Jeden Perspektivischen Aufriß Von Freyen Stücken Und Ohne Grundriß Zu Verfertigen (1759) to Colonel Aimé Laussedat’s works on photogrammetry (or “metrophotography”) toward the latter part of the 19th century, the work of descriptive geometry becomes crucial to the diagram of the technical image and image as data.2 They are manuals of “this is how that operates” and take on a second order quality themselves: a cultural technique that recursively images an image. One can also observe a similarity with the function of the metapicture, as per WJT Mitchell’s term that refers to such images that “might be capable of reflection on themselves, capable of providing a second-order discourse that tells us—or at least shows us—something about pictures.”3 In terms of the contemporary image, the shift from questions on the ontology of digital images (do they capture reality? Do THE DIAGRAMS OF AI (IMAGE)","PeriodicalId":38858,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Diagrams of AI (Image)\",\"authors\":\"J. Parikka\",\"doi\":\"10.7146/nja.v30i61-62.127893\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A history of images about images is as mesmerising in its own right as images themselves are. This is not merely a history of the copy—the attempt to reproduce an image through an image— but also of the various guides and diagrams that tell a story of production of images. This is also the entry point for my argument about the changing ontology of the image. This argument about ontology concerns then not merely what an image is in its essence, but how images function as as operative ontologies1: described, drawn, pictured, instructed, guided, and diagrammed into existence. Such diagrams are an educational arm of knowledge about images, but obviously they are also images already in themselves. Diagrams occupy a central role as a modern form of knowledge about images. Diagrams that describe the operations and insights of image geometry are a special case in point, where the linear perspective in (and since) the Renaissance period has given rise to a long line of commentary, in the arthistorical way of tracking the changing ontologies of the image. How to calculate image surfaces, lines, and ratios becomes instrumentalised into a productive machinery and subsequently into an analytical machinery, as is the case in the various techniques of reading the geometric data packed into an image. From Johan Heinrich Lambert’s Die freye Perspective, oder Anweisung Jeden Perspektivischen Aufriß Von Freyen Stücken Und Ohne Grundriß Zu Verfertigen (1759) to Colonel Aimé Laussedat’s works on photogrammetry (or “metrophotography”) toward the latter part of the 19th century, the work of descriptive geometry becomes crucial to the diagram of the technical image and image as data.2 They are manuals of “this is how that operates” and take on a second order quality themselves: a cultural technique that recursively images an image. One can also observe a similarity with the function of the metapicture, as per WJT Mitchell’s term that refers to such images that “might be capable of reflection on themselves, capable of providing a second-order discourse that tells us—or at least shows us—something about pictures.”3 In terms of the contemporary image, the shift from questions on the ontology of digital images (do they capture reality? Do THE DIAGRAMS OF AI (IMAGE)\",\"PeriodicalId\":38858,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7146/nja.v30i61-62.127893\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/nja.v30i61-62.127893","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
关于图像的图像历史本身就像图像本身一样令人着迷。这不仅仅是一部复制的历史——试图通过图像来复制图像——也是讲述图像生产故事的各种指南和图表的历史。这也是我关于图像本体变化的论点的切入点。关于本体论的争论不仅涉及图像的本质是什么,还涉及图像如何作为可操作的本体论起作用:描述、绘制、描绘、指导、引导和图解。这样的图表是关于图像知识的教育工具,但显然它们本身也是图像。图表作为一种关于图像的现代知识形式占据着中心地位。描述图像几何的操作和见解的图表是一个特殊的例子,在文艺复兴时期(以及自文艺复兴以来)的线性视角引发了一长串的评论,以艺术史的方式跟踪图像本体的变化。如何计算图像的表面、线条和比率成为生产机器的工具,随后成为分析机器,就像读取图像中包装的几何数据的各种技术一样。从约翰·海因里希·兰伯特(Johan Heinrich Lambert)的《自由透视》(Die freye Perspective)、《自由透视》(oder Anweisung Jeden Perspektivischen Aufriß Von Freyen stcken Und Ohne Grundriß Zu Verfertigen)(1759)到19世纪后半叶的艾姆斯·劳塞特上校的摄影测量学(或“都市摄影”)作品,描述几何的工作对技术图像的图解和图像作为数据变得至关重要它们是“这是如何操作的”的手册,它们本身具有第二级质量:一种递归地描绘图像的文化技术。我们也可以观察到与元图像功能的相似之处,正如WJT Mitchell所说的那样,指的是这样的图像,“可能能够反思自己,能够提供二阶话语,告诉我们——或者至少向我们展示——关于图像的一些东西。就当代图像而言,从对数字图像本体的质疑(它们是否捕捉到了现实?)做人工智能的图表(图片)
A history of images about images is as mesmerising in its own right as images themselves are. This is not merely a history of the copy—the attempt to reproduce an image through an image— but also of the various guides and diagrams that tell a story of production of images. This is also the entry point for my argument about the changing ontology of the image. This argument about ontology concerns then not merely what an image is in its essence, but how images function as as operative ontologies1: described, drawn, pictured, instructed, guided, and diagrammed into existence. Such diagrams are an educational arm of knowledge about images, but obviously they are also images already in themselves. Diagrams occupy a central role as a modern form of knowledge about images. Diagrams that describe the operations and insights of image geometry are a special case in point, where the linear perspective in (and since) the Renaissance period has given rise to a long line of commentary, in the arthistorical way of tracking the changing ontologies of the image. How to calculate image surfaces, lines, and ratios becomes instrumentalised into a productive machinery and subsequently into an analytical machinery, as is the case in the various techniques of reading the geometric data packed into an image. From Johan Heinrich Lambert’s Die freye Perspective, oder Anweisung Jeden Perspektivischen Aufriß Von Freyen Stücken Und Ohne Grundriß Zu Verfertigen (1759) to Colonel Aimé Laussedat’s works on photogrammetry (or “metrophotography”) toward the latter part of the 19th century, the work of descriptive geometry becomes crucial to the diagram of the technical image and image as data.2 They are manuals of “this is how that operates” and take on a second order quality themselves: a cultural technique that recursively images an image. One can also observe a similarity with the function of the metapicture, as per WJT Mitchell’s term that refers to such images that “might be capable of reflection on themselves, capable of providing a second-order discourse that tells us—or at least shows us—something about pictures.”3 In terms of the contemporary image, the shift from questions on the ontology of digital images (do they capture reality? Do THE DIAGRAMS OF AI (IMAGE)