David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Image 2 (2321):231 (2012)
The purpose of this paper is to show that images have an ontological support by which they obtain an independent existence from the mind. In accordance with the new theories of aesthetics, we will see that the object of art is taken as an object of thought. Image has an important role in the existence of the work of art; therefore the image becomes an object of thought. To show how the image is independent from the mind or to show how it is not a mind-dependent object, the analysis has to start from the pre-ontological level of the work of art in order to understand the existence of images in correlation with the work of art. At the beginning there is only the object. The object is the work of art before its concretization. It is not nature; it is the natural support of art. From this point of view, the role of the image can be explored in all ontological stages of the work of art. Firstly, it can be argued that the intuition of the artist is the image of the idea underlying the work of art. The intentional image is a subjective image. Secondly, it seems that people can see or have in mind different images (representations) referring to a work of art. This is possible in time and space and implies cultural differences, historical events and so on. A question arises: what supports the intentional image? One answer put forward is that the mind is the support of the image, but it seems that the original intentional image has something that can make other intentional images possible, an infinite number of representations, in other words an infinite number of images. The aim of this paper is to show that we can talk about an original intentional image (the first idea), intentional images (the representations of the work of art in time and space), and the transcendental image which can be defined as the ontological condition for the existence of the intentional image. At the end I will argue that the transcendental image is the support or the entity which offers the ontological conditions necessary for all intentional images. Tags: intentional image, transcendental image, ontology, object and subjectivity.
|Keywords||The aim of this paper is to show that we can talk about an original intentional image (the first idea), intentional images (the representations of the work of art in time and space), and the transcendental image which can be defined as the ontological condition for the existence of the intentional image.|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Juhani Pallasmaa (2011). The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture. John Wiley & Sons Inc..
Lambert Wiesing (2011). Pause of Participation. On the Function of Artificial Presence. Research in Phenomenology 41 (2):238-252.
San Juan & Rose Marie (2011). Vertiginous Mirrors: The Animation of the Visual Image and Early Modern Travel. Distributed in the United States Exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan.
Stephen David Ross (2009). For Giving. International Studies in Philosophy Monograph Series:469-504.
Patricia Pisters (2011). Flashforward: The Future is Now. Deleuze Studies 5 (supplement):98-115.
Peter Osborne (2010). Infinite Exchange: The Social Ontology of the Photographic Image. Philosophy of Photography 1 (1):59-68.
Jay L. Garfield (2012). Sellarsian Synopsis: Integrating the Images. Humana.Mente - Journal of Philosophical Studies 21.
Trevor Perri (2013). Image and Ontology in Merleau-Ponty. Continental Philosophy Review 46 (1):75-97.
Forest Pyle (2011). The Romantic Image of the Intentional Structure. In Jacques Khalip & Robert Mitchell (eds.), Releasing the Image: From Literature to New Media. Stanford University Press
Mohan Matthen (2014). Image Content. In Berit Brogaard (ed.), Does Perception Have Content? Oxford University Press 265-290.
Anthony Uhlmann (2006). Samuel Beckett and the Philosophical Image. Cambridge University Press.
James Elkins & Maja Naef (eds.) (2011). What is an Image? Pennsylvania State University Press.
Stephen David Ross (2010). Self Image. International Studies in Philosophy Monograph Series:97-127.
Added to index2012-05-28
Total downloads68 ( #62,123 of 1,796,423 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #60,054 of 1,796,423 )
How can I increase my downloads?