Non-classical subject of vision. Part I
Philosophy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2021-2-179-190Keywords:
visual turn, subject of vision, transcendental subject, affected subject, observer, aura, power of distance, power of memory, power of gazeAbstract
This article explores a fundamental shift in the humanities called the «visual turn». We are talking about the transformation of visuality in the late 19th – early 20th centuries. The difficulty of analyzing this phenomenon is due to the fact that the modern humanities have not yet developed a single subject and method for studying the visual turn. In this article, the turn as a transition from the classical to the non-classical observer is analyzed as a transformation of the very human presence in the world. The change in visuality is primarily associated with a change in the concept of the classical transcendental subject and the transition to understanding the affected and temporal subject of our time. In this article, we analyze the transformation of subjectivity based on the three-part mechanism of the power of distance, the power of gaze, and the power of memory, which was proposed by W. Benjamin. We show that at the beginning of the 20th century there takes place rethinking of a person’s presence in the world through the understanding of the destruction of the distance between the subject and the object (the world), a change in the power of gaze and a change in the role of memory in the perception of what is seen. The visible no longer acts as directly given to the subject, but presupposes the power of visual perception and the special role of memory in what is seen. This means that in modern non-classical concepts of visuality, an attempt is made to understand the act of seeing as an event of the formation of a subject. In this three-part mechanism of visual distance, the power of gazing into the visible and the role of memory in what is seen, the act of seeing becomes the very presence of modern man. However, in this case, the presence in the act of seeing eludes the subject of experience himself. Thus, visual experience in the form of a present consciousness of the world that is eternally and always does not correspond to it, is an unconscious atrophy of the most apathetic «narcissist» of vision. The article concludes that the lack of understanding of this moment of presence of the modern subject results in the fact that both the return of distance within the framework of the concept of the classical observer and the complete destruction of the aura within the concepts of the non-classical observer lead to a theoretical impasse in understanding the very experience of non-classical vision.References
Бахманн-Медик Д. Культурные повороты. Новые ориентиры в науках о культуре. М.: Новое лит. обозрение, 2017. 504 с.
Беньямин В. Произведение искусства в эпоху его технической воспроизводимости // Беньямин В. Произведение искусства в эпоху его технической воспроизводимости: избр. эссе. М.: Медиум, 1996. С. 15–65.
Бодлер Ш. Поэт современной жизни // Бодлер Ш. Об искусстве. М.: Искусство, 1986. С. 283–315.
Вирилио П. Машина зрения. СПб.: Наука, 2004. 144 с.
Диди-Юберман Ж. То, то мы видим, то, что смотрит на нас. СПб.: Наука, 2001. 264 с.
Инишев И.Н., Бедаш Ю.А. Визуальное, социальное, образное: зрительное восприятие как фактор современной культуры // ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Проблемы визуальной семиотики. 2016. Т. 1, № 7. С. 9–25.
Ищенко Е.Н. «Визуальный поворот» в современной культуре: опыты философской рефлексии // Вестник Воронежского государственного университета. Серия: Философия. 2016. № 2. С. 16–27.
Камю А. Миф о Сизифе. Эссе об абсурде // Камю А. Бунтующий человек. Философия. Политика. Искусство. М.: Политиздат, 1990. С. 23–92.
Кант И. Критика чистого разума. М.: Мысль, 1994. 591 с.
Крэри Дж. Техники наблюдателя. М.: V-A-C press, 2014. 256 с.
Липовецки Ж. Эра пустоты. СПб.: Владимир Даль, 2001. 336 с.
Молок Н.Ю. Качели Фрагонара. Вуайеризм реформа видения в эпоху Просвещения // Из истории классического искусства Запада. М.: Эпифания, 2003. С. 166–173.
Петровская Е.В. Верните ауру, без ауры тоска / Полит.ру. 2013. 14 мар. URL: https://polit.ru/article/2013/03/14/ep140313/ (дата обращения: 20.10.2020).
Петровская Е.В. Теория образа. М.: РГГУ, 2012. 280 с.
Савчук В.В. Философия фотографии. СПб.: Изд-во СПбГУ, 2005. 256 с.
Сартр Ж.-П. Дневники странной войны. Сентябрь 1939 – март 1940. СПб.: Владимир Даль, 2002. 815 с.
Сонтаг С. О фотографии. М.: AdMarginem, 2013, 272 с.
Сосна Н.Н. Необратимое видимое. Техническая перспектива // Философский журнал. 2018. Т. 11, № 4. С. 95–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2018-11-4-95-105
Трэски А. Теория видео. Онлайн-видео. Эстетика или деградация. Харьков: Гуманит. центр, 2017. 252 с.
Хэмингуэй Э. Смерть после полудня. М.:АСТ, 2015. 416 с.
Ямпольский М. О близком (Очерки немиметического видения). М.: Новое лит. обозрение, 2001. 240 с.
Atkinson P. Henry Bergson and visual culture: A Philosophy for a new aestetic. N.Y.: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020. 336 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350161801
Beith D. The Birth of Sense: Generative Passivity in Merleau-Ponty’s Philosophy. Athens, ОН: Ohio University Press, 2018. 240 p.
Berger J. About looking. N.Y.: Vintage International, 1991. 225 р.
Crary J. Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle and Modern Culture. Cambridge, МА: The MIT Press, 1999. 416 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6569.001.0001
Jay M. Scopic Regimes of Modernity // Vision and Visuality / ed. by H. Foster. N.Y.: Bay Press, 1988. P. 3–23.
References
Atkinson, P. (2020). Henry Bergson and visual culture: A philosophy for a new aestetic. New York: Bloomsbury Academic Publ., 336 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350161801
Bachmann-Medick, D. (2017). Kul’turnye povoroty. Novye orientiry v naukakh o kul’ture [Cultural turns. New orientations in the study of culture]. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie Publ., 504 p.
Baudelaire, Ch. (1986). [The painter of modern life]. Bodler Sh. Ob iskusstve [Baudelaire Ch. On art]. Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ., pp. 283–315.
Beith, D. (2018). The birth of sense: generative passivity in Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. Athens, ОН: Ohio University Press, 240 p.
Benjamin, V. (1996). [The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction]. Benyamin V. Proizvedeniye iskusstva v epokhu yego tekhnicheskoy vosproizvodimosti: Izbrannye esse [Benjamin V. The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction: Selected essays]. Moscow: Medium Publ., pp. 15–65.
Berger, J. (1991). About looking. New York: Vintage International Publ., 225 p.
Camus, A. (1990). [Myth of Sisyphus. Essay on the absurd]. Kamyu A. Buntuyuschiy chelovek. Filosofiya. Politika. Iskusstvo [Camus A. The rebellious man. Philosophy. Politics. Art]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., pp. 23–92.
Crary, J. (1999). Suspensions of perception: Attention, spectacle and modern culture. Cambridge, МА: The MIT Press, 416 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6569.001.0001
Crary, J. (2014). Tekhniki nablyudatelya [Techniques of the observer]. Moscow: V-A-C Press Publ., 256 p.
Didi-Huberman, G. (2001). To, chto my vidim, to, chto smotrit na nas [What we see looks back at us]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka Publ, 264 p.
Hemingway, E. (2015). Smert’ posle poludnya [Death in the afternoon]. Moscow: AST Publ., 416 p.
Iampolskiy, M. (2001). O blizkom (Ocherki nemimeticheskogo videniya) [About the near (Essays of the non-mimetic vision]. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie Publ., 240 p.
Inishev, I.N. and Bedash, Yu.A. (2016). [The visual, social, and imaginative: visual perception as a factor of contemporary culture]. ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Problemy visual’noy semiotiki [ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics]. Vol. 1, no. 7, pp. 9–25.
Ishchenko, E.N. (2016). [«Visual turn» in contemporary culture: experience of philosophical reflection]. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya [Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Philosophy]. No. 2, pp. 16–27.
Jay, M. (1988). Scopic regimes of modernity. Vision and visuality, ed. by H. Foster. New York: Bay Press, pp. 3–23.
Kant, I. (1994). Kritika chistogo razuma [Critique of pure reason]. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ., 591 p.
Lipovetsky, G. (2001). Era pustoty [The era of emptiness]. Saint Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’ Publ., 336 p.
Molok, N.Yu. (2003). [Fragonard’s swing: Voyerism and vision reforms in the Age of Enlightement]. Iz istorii klassicheskogo iskusstva Zapada [From the history of classical art in the West]. Moscow: Epifaniya Publ., pp. 166–173.
Petrovskaya, E.V. (2012). Teoriya obraza [Image theory]. Moscow: RSUH Publ., 280 p.
Petrovskaya, E.V. (2013). Vernite auru, bez aury toska [Return the aura, without the aura of longing]. Polit.ru. Mar. 14. Available at: https://polit.ru/article/2013/03/14/ep140313/ (accessed 20.10.2020).
Sartre, J.-P. (2002). Dnevniki strannoy vojny. Sentyabr’ 1939 – mart 1940 [War diaries: notebooks from a phoney war, September 1939 – March 1940]. Saint Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’ Publ., 815 p.
Savchuk, V.V. (2005). Filosofiya fotografii [The philosophy of photography]. Saint Petersburg: SPBU Publ., 256 p.
Sontag, S. (2013). O fotografii [On photography]. Moscow: Ad Marginem Publ., 272 p.
Sosna, N.N. (2018). [Irreversibly visual: a technical perspective]. Filosofskiy zhurnal [Philosophy Journal]. Vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 95–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2018-11-4-95-105
Treski, A. (2017). Teoriya video. Onlayn-video. Estetika ili degradatsiya [Video theory. Online video aesthetics of the afterlife of video]. Kharkov: Gumanitarnyy Tsentr Publ., 252 p.
Virilio, P. (2004). Mashina zreniya [The vision machine]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka Publ., 144 p.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
