Depiction and plastic perception. A critique of Husserl's theory of picture consciousness

Continental Philosophy Review 40 (2):171-185 (2007)
Abstract
In this paper, I will present an argument against Husserl’s analysis of picture consciousness. Husserl’s analysis of picture consciousness (as it can be found primarily in the recently translated volume Husserliana 23) moves from a theory of depiction in general to a theory of perceptual imagination. Though, I think that Husserl’s thesis that picture consciousness is different from depictive and linguistic consciousness is legitimate, and that Husserl’s phenomenology avoids the errors of linguistic theories, such as Goodman’s, I submit that his overall theory is unacceptable, especially when it is applied to works of art. Regarding art, the main problem of Husserl’s theory is the assumption that pictures are constituted primarily as a conflict between perception/physical picture thing and imagination/picture object. Against this mentalist claim, I maintain, from a hermeneutic point of view, that pictures are the result of perceptual formations [Bildungen]. I then claim that Husserl’s theory fails, since it does not take into account what I call “plastic perception” [Bildliches Sehen], which plays a prominent role not only within the German tradition of art education but also within German art itself. In this connection, “plastic thinking” [Bildliches Denken] was prominent especially in Klee, in Kandinsky, and in Beuys, as well as in the overall doctrine of the Bauhaus. Ultimately, I argue that Husserl’s notion of picture consciousness and general perceptive imaginary consciousness must be replaced with a more dynamic model of the perception of pictures and art work that takes into account (a) the constructive and plastic moment, (b) the social dimension and (c) the genetic dimension of what it means to see something in something (Wollheim).
Keywords Edmund Husserl  Roland Barthes  Hans-Georg Gadamer  Richard Wollheim  Paul Klee  Phenomenology  Semiotics  Culturalism  Seeing-in  Image  Picture  Depiction  Picture Consciousness  Perception  Plastic Perception  Mentalism  Gestalt  Gebilde  Formation   Shaping Power  Vision  Visibility  Feuerquelle  Spring of Fire
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,941
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
John Brough (1992). Some Husserlian Comments on Depiction and Art. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 66 (2):241-259.
Arthur C. Danto (2001). Seeing and Showing. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59 (1):1-9.
Arthur C. Danto (2001). The Pigeon Within Us All: A Reply to Three Critics. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59 (1):39-44.

View all 8 references

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

27 ( #63,881 of 1,100,749 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #289,565 of 1,100,749 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.