Graduate studies at Western
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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Rudolf Bernet (2002). Unconscious Consciousness in Husserl and Freud. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1 (3):327-351.
Jane Chamberlain (2002). Thinking Time. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:281-299.
Jeffrey Yoshimi (2009). Husserl's Theory of Belief and the Heideggerean Critique. Husserl Studies 25 (2):121-140.
Dan Zahavi (2003). Inner Time-Consciousness and Pre-Reflective Self-Awareness. In Donn Welton (ed.), The New Husserl: A Critical Reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ryan Hickerson (2005). Getting the Quasi-Picture: Twardowskian Representationalism and Husserl's Argument Against It. Journal of the History of Philosophy 43 (4):461-480.
M. Pettersson (2011). Seeing What Is Not There: Pictorial Experience, Imagination and Non-Localization. British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (3):279-294.
Dan Zahavi (2007). Perception of Duration Presupposes Duration of Perception - or Does It? Husserl and Dainton on Time. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15 (3):453 – 471.
Michael R. Kelly (2009). The Consciousness of Succession. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (1):127-139.
Michael R. Kelly (2008). Husserl, Deleuzean Bergsonism and the Sense of the Past in General. Husserl Studies 24 (1):15-30.
John Zeimbekis (2010). Pictures and Singular Thought. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 68 (1):11-21.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #51,880 of 753,454 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,000 of 753,454 )
How can I increase my downloads?