Image, Medium, Body

7/30/2019 Image, Medium, Body

1/27

SoPaulo,julho/2006n.08

CISC

CentroInterdisciplinar

deSemiticadaCulturaedaMdia GhrebhRevistadeComunicao,CulturaeTeoriadaMdia

issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 5

AIMAGE,

MEDIUM,

BODY:

ANewApproachtoIconology

porHansBelting1

(InternationalesForschungszentrumKulturwissenschaften IFK)

Reviso:JulianoCappi

Abstract:

Thisarticle

proposes

anew

iconology

on

the

basis

of

the

relations

between

image,

medium

and

body.Amongseveral issues,thediscussion focusestheways imagesworkonbodiesandmedia,

thelinksbetweenimageanddeath,iconoclasmandtheconditionoftraditionalimagesbeforethe

newhorizonofdigitaltechnologies.

Keywords:image;body;medium;iconology

Resumo:Esteartigopropeumanovaiconologiaconsideradaapartirdasrelaesentreimagem,

mdiaecorpo.Sodiscutidos,entreoutrostemas,osmodospelosquaisas imagensoperamnos

corposenasmdias,osvnculosentreaimagemeamorte,iconoclasmoeacondiodaimagem

tradicionalfrenteaonovocenriodetecnologiasdigitais.

Palavraschave:imagem;corpo;mdia;iconologia

1 Hans Belting acts as director of the Internationales Forschungszentrum Kulturwissenschaften (IFK) in

Vienna.His

recent

books

include

Art

History

after

Modernism

(2003)

and

Bild

Anthropologie:

Entwrfe

fr

eine Bildwissenschaft (2001).He is the editor of Quel Corps? Eine Frage derReprsentation (2002) and

JeromeBosch:TheGardenofEarthlyDelights (2002).Two forthcomingbooksaretobeentitledFaceand

Mask:TheirViewasImagesandTheSpectacleoftheGaze:ImageandGazeinWesternCulture.Since2003

memberof theInternationalAdvisoryBoardofGHREBH.


2/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 6

1.WhyIconology?

Inhis1986bookoniconology,W.J.T.Mitchellexplainedthetaskoficonologyby

usingthetermsimage,text,ideology2.InmyrecentbookonBildAnthropologie,Ialsouse

atriadofterms inwhich,forobviousreasons, imageremainsbutnow isframedbythe

termsmediumandbody3.ThischoiceisnotintendedtoinvalidateMitchell'sperspective.

Rather, itcharacterizesanotherapproachamong themanyattempts tograsp images in

their rich spectrumofmeanings andpurposes. Inmy view, however, their significance

becomesaccessible

only

when

we

take

into

account

other,

noniconic

determinants

such

as,inamostgeneralsense,mediumandbody.Medium,here,istobeunderstoodnotin

theusualsensebutinthesenseoftheagentbywhichimagesaretransmitted,whilebody

meanseithertheperformingortheperceivingbodyonwhichimagesdependnolessthan

ontheirrespectivemedia.Idonotspeakofmediaassuch,ofcourse,nordoIspeakofthe

bodyassuch.Bothhavecontinuouslychanged (whichallowsustospeakofahistoryof

visualtechnologies,aswearealsofamiliarwithahistoryofperception),butintheirever

changingpresence

they

have

kept

their

place

in

the

circulation

of

images.

Imagesareneitheronthewall(oronthescreen)nor intheheadalone.Theydo

not exist by themselves, but they happen; they takeplace whether they are moving

images (where this issoobvious)ornot.Theyhappenvia transmissionandperception.

TheGermanlanguageignoresthedifferencebetweenpictureandimage,which,thoughit

seemstobea lackofdistinction,nicelyconnectsmentalimagesandphysicalartifactsto

oneanother

which

also

is

my

intention

in

this

essay.

It

may,

however,

be

acause

for

2SeeW.J.T.Mitchell,Iconology:Image,Text,Ideology(Chicago,1986).

3 The present essay is an attempt to summarize and to extend the discussion in my book Bild

Anthrropologie:EntwrfefreineBildwissenschaft(Munich,2001).AFrenchtranslationisduetoappearthis

fall.Pouruneanthropologiedesimages,trans.JeanTorrent(Paris,2004).


3/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 7

disagreementamong

us

to

identify

images

in

acontinuing

history,

which

has

not

ended

with the rise of the digital era. Only if one shares this position does my approach to

iconologymakeanysense.Otherwise,anysuchattemptwouldbe lefttoanarchaeology

ofimageswhosemeaningnolongerappliestocontemporaryexperience.Iliketoinsiston

thispredispositionas it is theonlyreason for thegeneralityofmyapproach. Insteadof

discussing contemporary culture, I stillentertain the idealismof conceiving anongoing

history of images. It is for this reason that I propose a new kind of iconology whose

generalityserves

the

purpose

of

bridging

past

and

present

in

the

life

of

the

images

and

thatthereforeisnotlimitedtoart(aswasPanofsky'siconology,whichIhereleaveaside)4.

Itmaybe lessdisputable tobridge thedifferencebetweenartandnonart in the

realmof images.Suchadifference,anyway,canbemaintainedforthemoderneraonly

when art, no longer expected to be narrative in the old sense, keeps the distance of

autonomousaestheticsandavoidsinformationandentertainment,tomentionjusttwoof

thepurposesofimages.Thewholedebateofhighandlowrestedonthisfamiliardualism,

whosetarget, inthemeanwhile,hasbecomeanoccasionformemory.Today,thevisual

arts again take up the issueof the image,which for so longhas been shut off by the

dominatingtheoriesofart.Itiscontemporaryartthatinamostradicalwayanalyzesthe

violenceorbanalityofimages5.Inakindofvisualpracticeoficonology,artistsabolishthe

received distinction between image theory and art theory, the latter being a noble

subcategory of the former. A critical iconology today is an urgent need, because our

societyisexposedtothepowerofthemassmediainanunprecedentedway.

4SeeErwinPanofsky,StudiesinIconology:HumanisticThemesilltlleArtoftheRenaissence(Oxford,1939).

5SeeHighandLow,ed.JamesLeggio(exhibitioncatalog,MuseumofModernArt,NewYork,7Oct.199015

Jan.1991).


4/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 8

Thecurrent

discourse

of

images

suffers

from

an

abundance

of

different,

even

contradictoryconceptionsofwhat imagesareandhowtheyoperate.Semiology,togive

oneexample,doesnotallow images toexistbeyond the controllable territoryof signs,

signals,andcommunication.Arttheorywouldhaveotherbutequallystrongreservations

aboutany imagetheorythatthreatenstheoldmonopolyofartand itsexclusivesubject

matter. The sciencesin particular, neurobiologyexamine the perception activity of the

brain as a phenomenon of "internal representation," while the perception of artifacts

usuallyreceives

little

attention

in

this

context.

Ihave

recently

proposed

an

anthropological approach, anthropology understood in the European sense as

differentiatedfromethnology.Inthisapproach,internalandexternalrepresentations,or

mental and physical images, may be considered two sides of the same coin. The

ambivalenceofendogene imagesandexogene images,which interactonmanydifferent

levels,isinherentintheimagepracticeofhumanity.DreamsandIcons,asMarcAugcalls

them inhisbookLaGuerredesrves,aredependentoneachother6.The interactionof

mentalimages

and

physical

images

is

afield

still

largely

unexplored,

one

that

concerns

the

politicsofimagesnolessthanwhattheFrenchcalltheimaginaireofagivensociety.

2.MediumandImage

Thewhatofanimage(theissueofwhattheimageservesasanimageortowhatit

relatesasan image) issteeredbythehow inwhich ittransmits itsmessage. Infact,the

howisoftenhardtodistinguishfromthewhat;itistheveryessenceofanimage.Butthe

how,in

turn,

is

to

alarge

extent

shaped

by

the

given

visual

medium

in

which

an

image

resides.Anyiconologytodaymustthereforediscusstheunityaswellasthedistinctionof

6SeeMarcAug,LaGuerredesrves:Exercisesd'ethnofiction(Paris,1997);trans.underthetitleTheWar

ofDreams:ExercisesinEthnofictionbyLizHeran(Sterling,Va.,1999).


5/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 9

imageand

medium,

the

latter

understood

in

the

sense

of

acarrier

or

host

medium.

No

visible images reach us unmediated. Their visibility rests on their particular mediality,

whichcontrolstheperceptionofthemandcreatestheviewer'sattention.Physicalimages

are physical because of the media they use, butphysical can no longer explain their

present technologies. Images have always relied on a given technique for their

visualization. When we distinguish a canvas from the image it represents, we pay

attentiontoeithertheoneortheother,asiftheyweredistinct,whichtheyarenot;they

separateonly

when

we

are

willing

to

separate

them

in

our

looking.

In

this

case,

we

dissolve their factual "symbiosis" by means of our analytical perception. We even

remember images from the specificmediality inwhichwe firstencountered them,and

remembering means first disembodying them from their original media and then

reembodyingtheminourbrain.Visualmediacompete,soitseems,withtheimagesthey

transmitoTheytendeithertodissimulatethemselvesortoclaimthefirstvoice.Themore

wepayattentiontoamedium,thelessitcanhideitsstrategies.Thelesswetakenoteofa

visualmedium,

the

more

we

concentrate

on

the

image,

as

if

images

would

come

by

themselves.When visualmedia become selfreferential, they turn against their images

andstealourattentionfromthem7.

Mediality,inthissense,isnotreplaceablebythematerialityofimagesashasbeen

the custom in the old distinction of form and matter. Materiality would anyway be

inappropriateasatermfortoday'smedia.Amediumisform,orittransmitstheveryform

in which we perceive images. But mediality equally cannot be reduced to technology.

Mediausesymbolictechniquesthroughwhichtheytransmitimagesandimprintthemon

thecollectivememory.Thepoliticsofimagesreliesontheirmediality,asmedialityusually

7SeeBelting.BildAntropologie.pp.2933.


6/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 10

iscontrolled

by

institutions

and

serves

the

interests

of

political

power

(even

when

it,

as

weexperienceittoday,hidesbehindaseeminglyanonymoustransmission).Thepoliticsof

imagesneedsamediumtoturnan image intoapicture.Weeasilydistinguishold from

new pictures, both of which require a different kind of attention as a result of their

differentpictorialmedia.

We also distinguish private from public media, both of which have a different

impactonourperceptionandbelongtothedifferentspacesthatcreatethemjustasthey

arecreatedbythem.Itistruethatweexperienceimageandmediumasinseparableand

thatwerecognizetheoneintheother.Andyetimagesarenotmerelyproducedbytheir

media,as technologicaleuphoria sometimeswants it tobe,but are transmitted in this

waywhich means that images cannot be described by an exclusively mediological

approachinanysatisfactoryway.

3.MediumandBody

Theuseofvisualmediaplaysacentralroleintheinterchangebetweenimageand

body.Media form themissing linkbetween theoneand theotheras theychannelour

perception and thus prevent us from mistaking them either as real bodies or, at the

oppositeend,asmereobjectsormachines.Itisourownbodilyexperiencethatallowsus

toidentifythedualisminherentinvisualmedia.Weknowthatweallhaveorthatweall

own images,thatthey live inourbodiesor inourdreamsandwaittobesummonedby

ourbodies

to

show

up.

Some

languages,

like

German,

distinguish

aterm

for

memory

as

an

archive of images (Gedchtnis) from a term for memory as an activity, that is, as our

recollectionofimages(Erinnerung).Thisdistinctionmeansthatwebothownandproduce

images. In each case, bodies (that is, brains) serve as a living medium that makes us


7/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 11

perceive,project,

or

remember

images

and

that

also

enables

our

imagination

to

censor

or

totransformthem.

Themedialityof images reaches farbeyond thevisual realm,properly speaking.

Languagetransmitsverbal imagerywhenweturnwords intomental imagesofourown.

Wordsstimulateourimagination,whiletheimaginationinturntransformsthemintothe

imagestheysignify. In thiscase, it is languagethatservesasamedium fortransmitting

images. But here, too, it needs our body to fill them with personal experience and

meaning;this is the reasonwhy imaginationsooftenhasresistedanypubliccontrol. In

thecaseofverbalimagery,however,wearewelltrainedtodistinguishimagefrommedi

um,whileinthecaseofphysicalorvisibleimagerywearenot.And,yet,theappropriation

ofimagesislessfarapartinbothsituationsthanoureducationallowsustobelieve.

The distinction of language and writing also applies to my case. The spoken

language is linked to a body, which, as a living medium, speaks it, while the written

languagewithdraws

from

the

body

and

retreats

to

abook

or

monitor,

where

we

do

not

listentoavoicebutreadatext.Theactofreadingdependsonouracquireddistinctionof

wordandmediumwhich, inaway,alsoappliestotheactofviewing images,thoughwe

areusuallyunawareofthosemechanisms.Infact,wealso,inasense,readvisualimages

whenwedistinguish them from theirmedia.Visualmedia, to a certaindegree,match

written language,buttheyhavenotundergonethetypeofcodificationthatwritinghas.

Alsoourearparticipatesintheappropriationofimageswhentheycomewithsoundand

thusoffers

an

unexpected

agent

or

companion

for

perceiving

images.

The

sound

film

was

the first visual medium to exploit our capacity to link sound and sight closely. It so

happensthattheaccompanyingmusic,alreadyprovided forsilentmoviesbyanoutside

pianist, also changes the experience of the same images in the sense that they look


8/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 12

differentwhen

adifferent

sound

track

shapes

the

impression

they

make

on

our

sentiments.

The selfperception of our bodies (the sensation that we live in a body) is an

indispensableprecondition forthe inventingofmedia,whichmaybecalledtechnicalor

artificialbodiesdesignedforsubstitutingbodiesviaasymbolicalprocedure. Images live,

asweare led tobelieve, in theirmediamuchaswe live inourbodies.Fromearlyon,

humans were tempted to communicate with images as with living bodies and also to

acceptthemintheplaceofbodies.Inthatcase,weactuallyanimatetheirmediainorder

toexperienceimagesasalive.Animationisourpart,asthedesireofourlookcorresponds

to a given medium's part. A medium is the object, an image the goal, of animation.

Animation,asanactivity,describes theuseof imagesbetter thandoesperception.The

latter is valid for our visual activity in general and in everyday life. Visual artifacts,

however,dependonaspecifickindofperception perceptionofimages,asiftheywere

bodiesor inthenameofbodies that is,perceptionofasymbolicalkind.Thedesirefor

imagesprecededtheinventionoftheirrespectivemedia.

4.ImageandDeath

Thisdistinctionneedsashortdigression.Thetopicofimageanddeathcausedme

toembarkonthetypeoficonologyIampresentinghere.Thoughourimageconsumption

todayhasincreasedtoanunprecedenteddegree,ourexperiencewithimagesofthedead

haslost

its

former

importance

altogether.

Thus,

our

familiarity

with

images

almost

seems

reversed.Wheneverarchaicsocietiessaw images,theysaw imagesofthedead,whono

longer lived in their bodies, or images of the gods, who lived in another world. The


9/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 13

experienceof

images

in

those

times

was

linked

to

rituals

such

as

the

cult

of

the

dead,

throughwhichthedeadwerereintegratedintothecommunityoftheliving8.

It seems appropriate to remind us of the conditions that contributed to the

introductionofphysical images intohumanuse.Among such conditions thecultof the

dead ranks as one of the oldest and most significant. Images, preferably three

dimensionalones, replaced thebodiesof thedead,whohad lost theirvisiblepresence

along with their bodies. Images, on behalf of the missing body, occupied the place

deserted by the person who had died.A given community felt threatened by the gap

causedbythedeathofoneof itsmembers.Thedead,asaresult,werekeptaspresent

and visible in the ranks of the living via their images. But images did not exist by

themselves.They, inturn,were inneedofanembodiment,whichmeans inneedofan

agent or a medium resembling a body. This need was met by the invention of visual

media,whichnotonlyembodied imagesbutresembled livingbodies intheirownways.

Evenrealskullswerereanimatedaslivingimageswiththehelpofshellsinsertedasnew

eyes,andacoatofdayasanewskinovertheface,asearlyas7000BC intheNeolithic

cultureof theNearEast.Both image andmedium live from abody analogy.We could

speak, inBaudrillard's terms,ofa"symbolicexchange"betweenadeadbodyanda live

image9. The triadic constellation in which body, media, and image are interconnected

appearsherewithutmostclarity.Theimageofthedead,intheplaceofthemissingbody,

theartificialbodyoftheimage(themedium),andthelookingbodyofthelivinginteracted

increatingiconicpresenceasagainstbodilypresence.

8Seeibid.,chap.6("BildundTod:VerkrperunginfrhenKulturen[MiteinemEpilogzurPhotographie]")

pp.14388.

9SeeJeanBaudrillard,L'Echangesymboliqueetlamort(Paris,1976):trans.underthetitleSymbolic

ExchangeandDeathbyIainHamiltonGrant(ThousandOaks,Calif.,1993).


10/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 14

5.Iconoclasm

The linkofphysical imageswiththemental images intowhichwetranslatethem

may explain the zeal inherent in any iconoclasm to destroy physical images. The

iconoclastsactuallywantedtoeliminate images inthecollective imagination,but infact

theycoulddestroyonlytheirmedia.Whatthepeoplecouldno longerseewould, itwas

hoped,nolongerliveintheirimagination.Theviolenceagainstphysicalimagesservedto

extinguishmental images.Controlover thepublicmediawasa guidingprinciple in the

prohibitionofimages,muchassuchcontrolhadforcedtheirofficialintroductiontobegin

with.Bothof theseactsareviolent toa similardegreebecauseany circulationof such

images rests on open or secret violence. Today's iconoclasm, when images are simply

withdrawnfromtheircirculationontheTVor inthepress,maybemorediscreet,but it

aims nevertheless at eliminating their public visibility. Seen in today's perspective, the

destructionof the Soviet and Iraqimonuments (like anymonuments, theywere visual

media of the most official kind) was anachronistic to the same degree, as such

monuments themselves represented theanachronismofpublic sculptureand therefore

lent themselves so easily to public revenge and physical destruction in the old sense.

Officialimages,meanttoimprintthemselvesonthecollectivemind,triggerediconoclasm

asapracticeofsymbolicalliberation.Moresubtlewasthecustomtodenounceimagesas

deadmatterorasblindsurfacesthat,itwassaid,pretendedinvaintoshelterimages.This

strategy intendedtodenouncethevariousmedia,which,thendeprivedoftheir images,

didbecomeemptysurfacesormerematterandlosttheirverypurpose10.

Someoldculturesentertainedthepracticeofconsecratingtheircultimagesbefore

taking themup in ritualuse.At the time,consecrationwasneeded to turnobjects into

10SeeIconoclash,ed.BrunoLatourandPeterWeibel(Karlsruhe,2002).


11/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 15

images.Without

such

aconsecration

ritual,

images

were

merely

objects

and

were

thus

regardedas inanimate.Only through sacredanimation could these imagesexertpower

andtheirmatterbecomemedium.Thecreationofsuchimages,inafirstact,wascarried

outbya sculptor,while the secondactwasentrusted toapriest.Even thisprocedure,

which looks likeoutdatedmagic,alreadyimpliedadistinctionof imageandmediumand

called forapriest tochangeamereobject intoamedium. It isalso telling that images

alwaysimpliedlife(infact,itisourownlifethatisprojectedtothem),whileobjectswere

easilythought

as

dead.

The

"mouth

opening

ritual"

in

ancient

Egypt

is

reflected

in

the

biblicalstoryofGod'screationofAdam,whowasfirstmoldedofcayand,inasecondact,

animated.Thebiblicalnarrativehasatechnomorphicalbasisbecause itreflectspractices

inasculptor'sworkshop.lnadvancedcultures,animationnolongerremainsthetaskofa

priest,butweexpecttheartist (and,today,technology) tosimulate lifevia live images.

However, the transformationofamedium intoan image continues to call forourown

participation11.

6.DigitalShadows

Technology inouradmiration todayhas replaced the formermeaningofartistic

skill. It isno longerartbut technology thathas takenover themimesisof life. Itsbody

analogiescallupmirrorandshadow,oncearchetypalmediaforrepresentingbodies.The

cast shadow, which inspired Pliny's tale of the Corinthian girl, and the water surface,

which inspiredthestoryofNarcissus,mustberegardedasnaturalmediaforthegaze12.

11SeeBelting,BildAuthropologie,pp.163,177.

12OnPliny'stale.seeTheElderPliny'sChaptersontheHistoryofArt.trans.KatherineJexBlake(Chicago,

1968),chap.35;onshadowandpaintingatCorinth,seeibid.,chap.151,andRobertRosenblum,"TheOrigin

ofPainting:AProblemintheIconographyofRomanticClassicism,"ArtBulletin39(Dec.1957):279.
http://revista.cisc.org.br/ghrebh8/artigo.php?dir=artigos&id=belting_2#_ftn11http://revista.cisc.org.br/ghrebh8/artigo.php?dir=artigos&id=belting_2#_ftn11


12/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 16

Butthe

step

toward

technical

media

was

short.

At

Corinth,

the

girl

needed

awall

as

a

medialsupportinordertooutlinethecastshadowofherlover.Thewaterreflection,on

theotherhand,wassoontakenupbythereflectionofbodies inancientmetalmirrors.

Visualmedianotonlyactasthebody'sprosthesisbutalsoserveasthebody'sreflection,

which lends itself to thebody's self inspection. Themost advanced technologies today

simulatebodiesintheguiseoffleetingshadowsorofinsubstantialmirrorimages,which

areexpectedtoliberateusfromthelawsofgravitationthatwearesubjecttoinempirical

space.

Thedigitalmediareintroducethebodyanalogyviadenial.Thelossofthebodyhas

alreadyhauntedthemirrorfantasiesofthenineteenthcentury,whenthedoppelganger

nolongerobeyedthespectatorbutabandonedthemimesisofthereflectingbody.Digital

imagesusuallyaddressourbodies' imaginationandcross theborderlinebetweenvisual

images and virtual images, images seen and images projected. In this sense, digital

technologypursues themimesisofourown imagination.Digital images inspiremental

images, much as they are inspired by mental images and their free flux. External and

internalrepresentationsareencouragedtomerge.

The experience of digital images surpasses their intrinsic logic as tools of

technology. Bernard Stiegler, in his essay on the discrete image (" discrete" in the

sciences' sense of a discontinuous and digitally encoded image), has proposed the

distinction of analytic perception and synthetic perception: analytic with regard to

technologyor

medium

and

synthetic

with

regard

to

the

mental

image

that

results

in

our

perception.Syntheticandsynthesis,asterms,areappropriatefordescribingtheforming

of an image in our brain. It means, first, analyzing a given medium and, second,

interpreting it with the image it transmits. Our images, says Stiegler, do not exist by


13/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 17

themselvesor

of

themselves.

They

live

in

our

mind

as

the

"trace

and

inscription"

of

images

seen intheoutsideworld.Mediaconstantlysucceed inchangingourperception,butwe

stillproducetheimagesourselves13.

Image and medium do not allow the same kind of narrative in describing their

history.Ahistory ina literalsenseappliesonly tovisual technologies; images resistany

linearhistory,astheyarenotsubjecttoprogresstothesamedegree.Imagesmaybeold

evenwhen they resurface innewmedia.Wealsoknow that theyage inwaysdifferent

fromtheagingofmedia.Themediaareusuallyexpectedtobenew,while imageskeep

their lifewhentheyareoldandwhen they return inthemidstofnewmedia.Wehave

littledifficulty in reconstructing thepathof images,whichhavemigratedacrossseveral

stagesthat implyhistoricalmedia. Images resemblenomads inthesensethattheytake

residence in one medium after another. This migration process has tempted many

scholarstoreducetheirhistorytoameremediahistoryandthusreplacethesequenceof

collectiveimaginationwiththeevolutionofvisualtechnology.Americanauthors,asRgis

Debray has remarked in his book Transmettre, often favor a master discourse that

privilegestechnologyattheexpenseofpolitics.Thepoliticsofimages, indeed,surpasses

themere exploitation of visual media.Debray also insists on the term transmission in

placeofcommunication,astransmissionimpliessomebodywhowantstoexertpowerand

tocontrolthecirculationofimages14.

13SeeBernardStiegler,"TheDiscreteImage,"inJacquesDerridaandStiegler,EchographiesofTelevision:

Filmedlnterviews,trans.JenniferBajorek(Cambridge.2002),pp.14563.

14SeeRgisDebray,Transmettre(Paris,1997);trans.underthetitleTransmittingCulturebyEricRauth(New

York,2000).


14/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 18

Representationand

perception

dosely

interact

in

any

politics

of

images.

Both

are

chargedwithsymbolicalenergy,whicheasily lends itselftopoliticaluse.Representation

surely ismeant to ruleoverperception,but the symmetrybetween the twoacts is far

fromcertain.Thereisnoautomatisminwhatweperceiveandhowweperceivedespiteall

attempts to prove the contrary. Perception may also lead us to resist the claims of

representation. The destruction of official images in this sense is only the tip of the

iceberg; it isonlyatsurfacevalue,amountingonlytothedestructionofthe imageshost

media,as

those

media

were

said

to

be

misused,

that

is,

used

by

the

wrong

authority

15

.

7.ALivingMedium

lmageandmediumboth are linkedwith thebodyas the thirdparameter tobe

consideredinitsownright.Thebodyalwayshasremainedthesameand,preciselyforthis

reason,hasbeensubjectedtoconstantchangewithrespecttoitsconceptionaswellasto

its selfperception. The gap between the certainty of its physical presence and the

uncertaintyof

its

notion

never

doses.

Bodies

are

strongly

shaped

by

their

cultural

history

andthusneverceasetobeexposedtomediationviatheirvisualenvironment.Bodiesthus

cannotbeconsideredan invariantanddonotresistthe impactofchanging ideas inthe

experiencing of them. But they are more than merely passive recipients of the visual

mediathatshapedthem.Theiractivity isneededinordertopracticevisualmediainthe

firstplace.

Perceptionalone

does

not

explain

the

interaction

of

body

and

medium

that

takes

place in the transmissionof images. Images, as Ihave said,happen,or arenegotiated,

between bodies and media. Bodies censor the flux of images via projection, memory,

15Onrepresentation,seeChristopherPrendergast.TheTriangleofRepresentation(NewYork,2000).


15/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 19

attention,or

neglect.

Private

or

individual

bodies

also

act

as

public

or

collective

bodies

in

a

givensociety.Ourbodiesalwayscarryacollective identity inthattheyrepresentagiven

culture as a result of ethnicity, education, and a particular visual environment.

Representing bodies are those that perform themselves, while represented bodies are

separate or independent images that represent bodies. Bodies perform images (of

themselvesorevenagainstthemselves)asmuchastheyperceiveoutsideimages. Inthis

double sense, they are living media that transcend the capacities of their prosthetic

media.Despite

their

marginalization,

so

much

a

la

mode,

Iam

here

still

pleading

their

causeasindispensableforanyiconology.

Plato, the firstmediologist, strongly resistedwritingasadanger for thebodyas

livingmemoryandcalledtechnicalmemories, likethealphabet,deadbycontrast.What

mattersherearenothiscondusions,whichwerealreadyananachronisminhisowntime,

but his valid distinction between two kinds of media, speaking bodies and written

language,torecallhismostfamiliarargument.Withregardtomemory,heintroducedan

analogousdistinctionbetweenlivingbodiesandlifelessimages,theoneabletoremember

thedead themselvesand theotheronlydepicting them16.Physical images, inhisview,

onlyduplicatedeath,whiletheimagesofourownmemorybringthedeadtoanewlife.In

supportofthisdistinction,heconsciouslyneglectedanymaterialimagesofthedeadand

discreditedallsuchimagesasmereillusion.Thefactthathefoiledthemeaningofimages

ofthedeadexcludedthemforever inWesternphilosophy.Heneverthelessdevelopeda

mostpowerfultheory,establishingthebodyasalivingmedium17.

16SeeIrisDrmann.TodundBild:EinephnomenologischeMediengeschichte(Munich,1995).

17SeeBelting,BildAnthropologie,chap.6,sect.8("PlatonsBildkritik"),PP.17376.


16/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 20

Mentaland

physical

images

will

merge

as

long

as

we

continue

to

assign

images

to

the realm of life and animate media as alive in the name of their images. The

contemporary obsessionwith live images in this respect isproof enough. Images have

been imbuedbothwithmovementandwithspeechas inmoviesor inTV transmission.

Weanyway closely relate images toourown lifeandexpect them to interactwithour

bodies,withwhichweperceive, imagine,anddream them.But theuncertainnotionof

thebody,whoseongoingcrisisisevident,hasledustoextrapolatetheexpectationoflife

andto

invest

artificial

bodies,

as

against

living

bodies,

with

asuperior

life

of

their

own.

This tendencyhas caused a lotof confusion, turning the very functionof visualmedia

upsidedown.Thus,contemporarymediahavebecomeinvestedwithaparadoxicalpower

overourbodies,whichfeeldefeatedintheirpresence.

8.IconicPresence

Imagestraditionally livefromthebody'sabsence,which iseithertemporary(that

is,spatial)

or,

in

the

case

of

death,

final.

This

absence

does

not

mean

that

images

revoke

absent bodies and make them return. Rather, they replace the body's absencewith a

differentkindofpresence. Iconicpresence stillmaintainsabody'sabsenceand turns it

intowhatmustbecalledvisibleabsence.Imageslivefromtheparadoxthattheyperform

thepresenceofanabsenceorviceversa(whichalsoappliestothetelepresenceofpeople

intoday'smedia).Thisparadox inturn isrooted inourexperiencetorelatepresenceto

visibility.Bodiesarepresentbecause theyarevisible (evenon the telephone theother

bodyis

absent).

When

absent

bodies

become

visible

in

images,

they

use

avicarious

visibility. Recently, this notion has been causing the violent contradiction of the


17/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 21

posthumantheories,

which

urge

us

to

replace

such

categories

by

the

mere

notion

of

patternrecognition,preferablyinatechnicalsense18.

Wereadilydelegatethebody'svisibilitytoimages,which,however,areinneedof

anappropriatemedium inwhich tobecomevisible. Imagesarepresentbecauseofand

throughtheirmedia,yettheystageanabsenceofwhichtheyareanimage.Thehereand

nowofan image, itspresence,toacertaindegreereliesonavisualmedium inwhich it

resides(eventhe imagesofourdreamsuseourbodyasmedium).External images,as it

were,needasubstitutebody,whichwecallamedium.Buttheambivalenceofabsence

andpresencealsoinvadestheconstellationof imageandmedium.Mediaarepresent in

thewaysofbodies,whileimagesarenot.Wethereforecouldrephrasethepresenceofan

absence,which still is themost elementary definitionof images, in the followingway:

imagesarepresentintheirmedia,buttheyperformanabsence,whichtheymakevisible.

Animationmeansthatweopentheopacityofamediumforthetransmissionofimages.

Sincethe

days

of

Galileo

or

of

Rntgen,

however,

we

are

familiar

with

another

kind

of absence, namely, absence from sight and not absence as such. The worlds of the

telescopeorthoserepresentedbyXraysarenevervisibleinthewayhumanbodiesare.

They arepresent and yet remain invisible.Weneed visualmediawith theirprosthetic

functionwhenwewanttowatchamicrocosmorouterspace.Butevenherewereplace

the remote targetsofvision (letme call thembodies)with images,whichnotonlyuse

technologybutareentirelydependentonitinordertomaketheseworldspresenttoour

sight.Such

images

are

of

even

greater

importance

than

they

would

be

in

an

average

situation.Weoftenforgetthattheyonlysimulatetheimmediacyofaperception,onethat

18 See N. Katherine Hayles,HowWe Became Posthumam: Virtual Bodies in Cybcmetics. Literature. and

Informatics(Chicago,1999).


18/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 22

seemsto

be

our

own

but,

in

fact,

is

theirs.

The

recent

debates

in

the

journal

Imaging

Scienceandelsewherebelatedlyabandonthe illusion inthebeliefthatscientific images

arethemselvesmimeticinthesamewayinwhichwewantandneedimages.Infact,they

are specifically organized to address our visual navet and thus serve our bodies, as

imageshavedoneforever.

Thenewtechnologiesofvision,however,haveintroducedacertainabstractionin

ourvisualexperience,aswenolongerareabletocontroltherelationexistingbetweenan

imageanditsmodel.Wethereforeentertainmoreconfidenceinvisualmachinesthanwe

trustourowneyes,asaresultofwhichtheirtechnologymeetswitha literalblindfaith.

Media appear less as a gobetween than as selfreferential systems, which seem to

marginalizeus at the receivingend.The transmission ismore spectacular thanwhat it

transmits.And,yet, thehistoryof images teachesusnot toabandonourviewsofhow

imagesfunction.Wearestillconfinedtooursinglebodies,andwestilldesireimagesthat

makepersonal sense forus.Theold spectacleof imageshasalwayschangedwhen the

curtainreopensonstageandexhibitsthelatestvisualmediaathand.Thespectacleforces

itsaudiencetolearnnewtechniquesofperceptionandtherebytomasternewtechniques

of representation. But the body has remained a pice de rsistance against the

accelerating velocity of media, which are coming and going. Those images, which we

invest with a personal significance, are different from the many ones that we only

consumeandimmediatelyforget.

9.Mixed

Media

It isobvious thatmedia come rarelyby themselves andusually exist aswhat is

calledmixedmedia.Thisterm,however,doesnotdescribetheprecisionandcomplexity

of their interaction. Media are intermediary by definition, but they also act as


19/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 23

intermediariesamong

themselves

in

that

they

mirror,

quote,

overlap,

and

correct

or

censoroneanother.Theyoftencoexistinlayerswhosecharactersvaryaccordingtotheir

position inhistory.Oldmediadonotnecessarilydisappear foreverbut, rather, change

theirmeaningandrole.Thetermintermedialitythereforewouldbemoreprecisethanthe

termmixedmedia.Painting livedon inphotography,moviesdid inTV, andTVdoes in

whatwe callnewmedia in visual art. Thismeansnotonly thatweperceive images in

mediabutalsothatweexperienceimagesofmediawheneveroldmediahaveceasedto

servetheir

primary

function

and

become

visible,

on

second

look,

in

away

they

never

had

been.

Marshall McLuhan has dealt with this phenomenon in his cogent essay

"EnvironmentandAntiEnvironment19.Hisassertionthatamediumbecomestheobjectof

attentiononly after it is supplantedby anewermedium,which discloses itsnature in

retrospect, prompts several conclusions. Current media dissimulate their true strategy

behindtheeffectsoftheirseemingimmediacy,whichremainstheirverypurpose.Itmay

beaddedthatourperceptionskills,also,arebuilt in layersthatenableustodistinguish

mediaofdifferentkindsandfromdifferentages.Accordingly,mediacontinuetofunction

even if their original use belongs to the past. Thus, today'smedia sometimes adopt a

storage,ormemory,capacitywhentheyadministeranelectronicarchiveof imagesthat

comefromfaraway.Sometimes,newmedialooklikenewlypolishedmirrorsofmemory

in which images of the past survive, much as images did in other times in churches,

museums,andbooks.Itespeciallydeservesattentionthatwefeeladdressedevenbyvery

old images that reside in obsoletemedia.Obviously, there is no automatism involved.

Imagesentertainandopenacomplexrelationwiththeirmediaandtherebywithus.

19SeeMarshallMcLuhan,"EnvironrnentandAntiEnvironrnent,"inMediaResearch:Technology,Art,

Comunication,ed.MichaelA.Moos(NewYork,1997).


20/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 24

Inthe

midst

of

the

high

tide

and

speed

of

today's

live

images,

we

often

watch

the

silent imagesof thepastwithagazeofnostalgia. Itwasasimilarexperiencewhen the

faithfulintheeraoftheCatholicReformationturnedtoreligiousicons,whichantedated

theriseofRenaissanceart20.Theoldiconsthusbecamethefocusofanewmiseenscene,

which resulted in baroque installations, like huge altarpieces as stages, with political

overtones. And the framed easel picture, when it came into use, still contained the

memoryofthe icon,whosebasicshape,a framedandamovablepanel, itcontinuedto

employwhile

it

changed

in

meaning

and

visible

structure

altogether.

The

invention

of

the

easelpicture illustrates the complexity inherent in visualmedia,which canbe reduced

neither tomaterial Isnor to techniques21.Theearlymodernpicture, togetherwith the

perspective it offered, was an exclusively Western invention. It invested the human

subject,whobecameselfconsciousatthetime,with imagesor,rather,picturesneeded

forselfreflexivity.Onemaysaythatthepanelpicturewasamediumforthegaze,while

the photograph, in which the body is mechanically recorded, in the beginning was

welcomedas

amedium

of

the

body.

This

meant

that

the

body

created

its

own

trace

withoutrelyingontheobservinggazeofapainterany longer. Intoday'sdigitalmiseen

scene of photography the interrelation among medium, image, and body again has

changeddramatically.Thesituationisespeciallycomplexinfilmimages,whichareneither

viewedonthefilmitselfnoraffixedonthemoviescreenbut,asweknow,comeaboutvia

20SeeBelting,BildundKult:EineGeschichtedesBildesvordemZeitalterderKunst(Munich,1990);trans.

underthetitleLikenessandPresence:AHistoryoftheImagebeforetheEraofArtbyEdmundJephcott

(Chicago,1994),chap.20.

21BeltingandChristianeKruse,DieErfindungdesGemldes:DasersteJahrhundertderNiederlndischen

Malerei(Munich,1994).


21/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 25

projectionand

via

deception

of

aspectator

who

appropriates

them

in

the

double

time

rhythmofpublicprojectionandpersonalimagination22.

10.TraditionalImages?

Therolesthathavebeenassignedtoimage,medium,andbodyconstantlyvaried,

but their tight interaction continues up to the present day. The medium, despite its

polysemanticcharacterandpolyvalentuse,offerstheeasiestidentificationandisforthis

reasonfavored

by

contemporary

theories.

The

body

comes

next,

but

it

is

all

too

often

and

alltooneatlyplayedoutagainstcurrenttechnologiesandconsideredastheirobverse.It

thereforeneedsanewemphasisonbodiesaslivingmedia,abletoperceive,toremember,

andtoprojectimages.Thebody,asownerandaddresseeofimages,administeredmedia

asextensionsofitsownvisualcapacities.Bodiesreceiveimagesbyperceivingthem,while

media transmit them to bodies. With the help of masks, tattooing, clothing, and

performance,bodiesalsoproduceimagesofthemselvesor,inthecaseofactors,images

representingothers

in

which

case

they

act

as

media

in

the

fullest

and

most

original

sense.

Theirinitialmonopolyonmediatingimagesallowsustospeakofbodiesasthearchetype

ofallvisualmedia.

Thereremainstheimage,thefirstofmythreeparameters,whichturnsouttobe

themostdifficult todetermine. It iseasier todistinguish images from theirmedia and

frombodiesthanto identifythem inpositiveterms.Thedualismofmentalandphysical

imageshas

to

be

considered

in

this

respect.

Images

not

only

mirror

an

external

world;

they also represent essential structures of our thinking. Georges DidiHuberman has,

22SeeBelting,BildAnthropologie,chap.4,pp.10813.


22/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 26

surprisingly,spoken

of

the

"anachronism"

inherent

in

images

23

.In

fact,

they

do

not

just

presentanunwelcomeanachronism in contemporary theories inwhich technologyand

medialityare favored.Theyalsobehave inananachronisticmannerwith regard to the

progress inherent in the history ofmediawithwhich they donot keep pace.Gnther

Andersasearlyasthe1950sspoke ironicallyofhumansasantiquatedbeings,whomhe

wanted to defend for that very reason. Today's quest for virtual reality and artificial

intelligenceisatellingconfirmationinthisrespect,asitrevealstheurgetogobeyondthe

limitsof

real

bodies

and

thereby

also

to

beat

the

so

called

traditional

images.

LevManovichclaimsthatinthedigitalagethetraditionalimagenolongerexists24.

Butwhat isatraditional image? Is ittraditionalmerelybecause itstill interactswithour

bodies? Or do we all too quickly denounce predigital images as mere tools of naive

imitation charged with duplicating the visible world? Was Baudrillard right when he

sharplydistinguished images from reality and accused contemporary imagepracticeof

forgingreality,asifrealityexistedtotallyapartfromtheimagesbywhichweappropriate

it?Isitpossibletodistinguishimagesfromsocalledrealitywithsuchontologicalnavet?

Atrapofanotherkindwaitsforusinthefamiliardistinctionofanaloguemediaanddigital

mediaanaloguewith regard to theworld they reproduceanddigitalwith regard to an

allegedtotal liberation fromanymimesis.Wewalk intoatrapwhenwesimplytransfer

thisdistinctionfrommediatoimages,whereitdoesnotfunctionatall.

23 See Georges Didi Huberman, Devant le temps: Histoire de L'art et anachronisme des images (Paris,

2000).

24SeeLevManovich."EineArchologiederComputerbilder,"Kusntforum,International132(1996):124.See

alsoManovich.TheLanguageofNewMedia(Cambridge.2001).andthecriticismofthispositioninAnette

Hsch,"DergerahmteBlick"(Ph.D.diss.,HochschulefrGestaltung.Karlsruhe,2003).


23/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 27

Itis

an

unjust

simplification

to

speak

of

historical

images

as

merely

imitative

and

thus todeprive themof their roleaspilots for thecollective imagination.VilmFlusser

maygotoafarwhenhespeaks inhisphilosophyofphotographyof imagesas"magical"

andassignsthemtoourliveswhereeverythingrepeats,whileintheworldofinvention

everything changes. But we must admit that he is on the right track here. He also

maintainsthatimagesintervenebetweentheworldandus.Ratherthanrepresentingthe

world,theyobstruct itandcauseusto livewiththem,whichwemadeourselves25.The

retroactivefunction

of

representation,

in

the

widest

sense,

is

thus

well

put

into

place.

However,wecannotspeakof images injustonesensebut,rather,mustclassify images

with different aims and effects. Today, images in the realm of information enjoy an

undeservedprominence,asdoimagesintherealmsofentertainmentandadvertisement.

Entertainment,as inmovies,however,hasan immediateaccess toourprivate stockof

images, which remains anachronistic in OidiHuberman's sense. Images that serve our

cognitionareverydifferentfromthosethataddressourimagination.

11.TheColonizationofImages

The difference between image and medium clearly emerges in a crosscultural

context. It is obvious that media, such as film or TV, easily enter different cultural

environmentswheretheresulting imagesnonethelesscontinuetorepresentaparticular

localtradition.Thisevenappliestophotography,asChristopherPinneyhasdemonstrated

inhisbookon Indianphotography26. Itthereforeisnotatallselfevidentthattheglobal

disseminationof

visual

media,

however

rooted

they

are

in

Western

culture,

will

cause

a

25VilmFlusser,FreinePhilosophiederFotografie(Gttingen,1989),pp.910;mytranslation.

26SeeChristopherPinney,CameraIndica:TheSocialLifeofIndianPhotographs(London,1997).


24/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 28

worldwidespread

of

Western

images

or,

even

less

so,

of

Western

imagination.

The

opposite is more likely to happen if economic conditions will allow another course of

events.

Currentimagetheories,despitetheirclaimstouniversalvalidity,usuallyrepresent

Western traditionsof thinking.Views that are rooted in traditionsother thanWestern

havenotyetenteredouracademicterritoriesexceptinethnology'sspecialdomains.And,

yet, nonWestern images have left their traces in Western culture for a long time. I

thereforewould like toendmyessaywith two such cases, the remembranceofwhich

may replace an impossible conclusion. The one is primitivism, which, a century ago,

dominatedthesceneofavantgardeart.TheotheristhecolonizationofMexicanimages,

halfamillenniumago,bytheSpanishconquerors.

Primitivismwas the longing foranalien andeven superiorartwhere art, in the

Westernsense,hadneverexisted.TheexclusivelyformalappropriationofAfricanmasks

and"fetishes"

resulted

in

aperception

that

separated

image

and

medium.

Picasso

and

his

friendsneverreproducedanyAfricanfiguresassuchbut,rather,transferredAfricanforms

toWesternmedia, suchasoilpainting.Tobemoreprecise,primitivistartistsextracted

their own images of what the African artifacts looked like and reapplied them to

modernistart. In the firstmoment, theydidnotcareabout thesignificance the images

hadfortheindigenouspeoplebutabstractedfromthoseimageswhattheyreinterpreted

asstyle,thusdissolvingtheoriginalsymbiosisofimageandmedium.Theimagesthatthe

Africanartifacts

were

meant

to

convey

at

home

totally

differed

from

the

ones

aWestern

audiencewould identify in them. Inotherwords, the same visualmedium transmitted

imagesofverydifferentkinds intheoriginalsituationand intheWesternsituation.The

Western audience did not merely misunderstand what it saw; it also invested the


25/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 29

importedworks

with

mental

images

of

its

own.

It

is

in

keeping

with

this

dual

process

of

deappropriationandreappropriationthatthe linkwith livingritualswas lost inadouble

abstraction: abstraction in terms of the images' translation into modernist style and

abstractionintermsoftheirtransfertogalleryart27.

The colonization of indigenous images as a result of the Spanish conquest of

Mexico has been beautifully analyzed by Serge Gruzinski, whose book Images at War

providesaconvenientguideforthetopic28.Twodifferent issues inthishistoricsituation

maybesingledoutformypurpose.Thefirstistheclashbetweenseeminglyincompatible

conceptsofwhatimagesare,whichcausedtheSpaniardstorejectthepossibilitythatthe

Aztecs had images at all. The Spaniards denounced Aztec images as merely strange

objects,whichtheydefinedascernisandthusexcludedfromanycomparisonwiththeir

ownimages.Thesamerejectionappliedtothenativereligion,whichdidnotseemjusta

different religion but no religion at all. In fact, the images on both sides represented

religion,whichwasanadditionalreasonfortheSpaniardstorecognizenothingbut idols

or pseudo images in Mexico. In a countermeasure, the importation of Spanish images

becameanimportantpartofSpanishpolitics.Buttointroducetheforeign"icons"intothe

"dreams"of the indigenous, amental colonizationwas needed.Heavenly visionswere

enforced on selected Aztecs to guarantee the appropriation of the imported images,

whichmeantthat livingbodiesbecame involved inthat imagetransfer.Theprojectwas

27See"Primitivism"inTwentiethCenturyArt:AffinityontheTribalandtheModern,ed.WilliamStanley

Rubin(NewYork.1984).

28SeeSergeGruzinski.LaGuerredesimages:ChristopheColombaBladeRunner(14922019)(Paris,1990);

trans.underthetitleImagesatWar:MexicofromColombusto"BladeRunner"(14922019)byHeather

MacLean(Durham,N.C.,2001).


26/27


CISC



issn16799100

Ghrebh n.08 30

completeonly

when

the

imported

images

also

had

taken

possession

of

the

mental

images

oftheothers.

TheprojectoftheSpaniards,whichwascarriedoutwithrelentlesszeal,provides

aneasyinsightintothemechanicsofimagetransmission,whichneversparesthemental

partbutconsidersitthetruetargetalsointhepublicspace.Mylastexampleseemstobe

far removed from today's concerns, and yet I have chosen it precisely because of its

seeminganachronism,whichneverthelessmakes itapplicabletomyargument. It isnot

applicableforthereasonthatthecolonizationofourimaginationstillgoesontodayand

evenhappenswithinourownhemisphere,asAughasdemonstratedsowellinhisbook

LaGuerredesrves.Itisapplicablebecauseitexplainstheinteractionofimage,body,and

mediuminastrikingway.ltwasnotonlytheSpanishimagesbutalsotheirmediacanvas

painting and sculpturethat caused resistance among the indigenous,whosebodies (or

brains)lackedanyexperienceofthiskind.

Spanishart

was

surely

involved

in

this

event,

as

it

was

art

that,

at

the

time,

providedtheonlyvisualmediainexistence.Buttheimportedartifactsdidnotmatteras

art. They mattered only as agents of the allimportant images. It therefore would be

redundanttostressthepoliticalmeaning,whichisselfevidentinthiscase.Onlyartinthe

modernsense,anartwithaclaimofautonomy,todayattractsthefamiliarcontroversies

about political stance or lack of poltical meaning. In our case, however, the

depoliticizationof the indigenous imageswasnothingbutanotheractofpolitics. ltwas

onlyin

Spain

that

Aztec

artifacts

became

classified

as

art

and

collected

as

such

in

order

to

become deprived of any political or religious significance and to remain outside the

circulation of images. It is not necessary to draw parallels to our time, in which art

constantlybecomesneutralizedbytheartmarket.


27/27


CISC



issn16799100

Gh bh 08 31

Originally,iconology,

in

art

history's

terms,

was

restricted

to

art

alone.

Today,

it

is

thetaskofanewiconologytodrawalinkbetweenartandimagesingeneralbutalsoto

reintroducethebody,whichhaseitherbeenmarginalizedbyourfascinationwithmedia

ordefamiliarized as a stranger inourworld.Thepresentmass consumptionof images

needsourcriticalresponse,whichinturnneedsourinsightsonhowimagesworkonus.

Documents

Image, Medium, Body