A Lesser Being. From Louis Marin to Simondon and Back

Q3 Arts and Humanities Nordic Journal of Aesthetics Pub Date : 2021-07-02 DOI:10.7146/nja.v30i61-62.127841
Emmanuel Alloa
{"title":"A Lesser Being. From Louis Marin to Simondon and Back","authors":"Emmanuel Alloa","doi":"10.7146/nja.v30i61-62.127841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How to qualify the changing ontology of the image—that is the suggestive as well as provocative question we are invited to answer in this questionnaire. The question itself is formulated rather vaguely, and leaves space for at least two interpretations: Does it mean that the ontology of the image is undergoing a major change today (because of the mutation in its materialities, its codes, its modes of circulation, for instance)? Or does it mean that the ontology of the image—its imaginal or iconic being— could never be addressed other than in terms of inconstancy and change? Either interpretation is suggestive and provocative, as it either hints at a change within ontology or at an ontology of change. Both interpretations, however, presuppose that we can address images in ontological terms at all, and that visual studies should talk about images qua being. For sure, for centuries, a lasting onto-theological tradition made such an endeavour unthinkable: in Aristotelian metaphysics, images belong to a category of relational entities that have no substantial existence of their own, while in a Platonic setting, images are defined by their lack of being. While excessive in their appearance, they are deficient with respect to the being they depict.1 Against the backdrop of such a lack that expresses itself in the guise of falsehood (pseudos) or non-being (mè on), images can’t be grafted onto an ontology; or, inversely, they can’t offer secure grounds for any ontology to come. If the point of any ontology is to study what remains unchanged of a being throughout all its contingent alterations, both the idea of a change within the ontology of the image as well as the idea of an ontology of change tout court must resonate rather oddly. Either the contemporary image changes to a point that it becomes something radically diverse, setting up an altogether new way of being that has nothing in common with what was before. Or it forces, in its ever-changing modes, to change the very project of what we call ontology, beyond the substantiality of the unmodified. Undeniably, the current fixation of certain regions of the social","PeriodicalId":38858,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/nja.v30i61-62.127841","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How to qualify the changing ontology of the image—that is the suggestive as well as provocative question we are invited to answer in this questionnaire. The question itself is formulated rather vaguely, and leaves space for at least two interpretations: Does it mean that the ontology of the image is undergoing a major change today (because of the mutation in its materialities, its codes, its modes of circulation, for instance)? Or does it mean that the ontology of the image—its imaginal or iconic being— could never be addressed other than in terms of inconstancy and change? Either interpretation is suggestive and provocative, as it either hints at a change within ontology or at an ontology of change. Both interpretations, however, presuppose that we can address images in ontological terms at all, and that visual studies should talk about images qua being. For sure, for centuries, a lasting onto-theological tradition made such an endeavour unthinkable: in Aristotelian metaphysics, images belong to a category of relational entities that have no substantial existence of their own, while in a Platonic setting, images are defined by their lack of being. While excessive in their appearance, they are deficient with respect to the being they depict.1 Against the backdrop of such a lack that expresses itself in the guise of falsehood (pseudos) or non-being (mè on), images can’t be grafted onto an ontology; or, inversely, they can’t offer secure grounds for any ontology to come. If the point of any ontology is to study what remains unchanged of a being throughout all its contingent alterations, both the idea of a change within the ontology of the image as well as the idea of an ontology of change tout court must resonate rather oddly. Either the contemporary image changes to a point that it becomes something radically diverse, setting up an altogether new way of being that has nothing in common with what was before. Or it forces, in its ever-changing modes, to change the very project of what we call ontology, beyond the substantiality of the unmodified. Undeniably, the current fixation of certain regions of the social
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个较小的存在。从Louis Marin到Simondon和Back
如何界定图像不断变化的本体——这是我们在本问卷中被邀请回答的一个既有启发性又有挑衅性的问题。这个问题本身表述得相当模糊,并为至少两种解释留下了空间:这是否意味着图像的本体论今天正在发生重大变化(例如,由于其物质性、代码和流通模式的变化)?或者这是否意味着图像的本体——它的想象或标志性存在——除了多变和变化之外,永远无法解决?任何一种解释都是暗示性的和挑衅性的,因为它要么暗示本体论内的变化,要么暗示变化的本体论。然而,这两种解释都预设了我们可以用本体论的术语来处理图像,视觉研究应该谈论图像的存在。可以肯定的是,几个世纪以来,一种持久的神学传统使这样的努力变得不可想象:在亚里士多德的形而上学中,图像属于一类没有实质存在的关系实体,而在柏拉图的背景下,图像是由其不存在来定义的。虽然它们的外表过于夸张,但在它们所描绘的存在方面却有缺陷。1在这种以虚假(赝品)或非存在(mèon)为伪装的缺乏的背景下,图像无法移植到本体论上;或者,相反,它们不能为任何本体论的出现提供安全的依据。如果任何本体论的目的都是研究一个存在在其所有偶然变化中保持不变的东西,那么图像本体论中的变化概念和变化本体论的概念都必须引起相当奇怪的共鸣。要么当代形象发生了变化,变得完全多样化,建立了一种与以前毫无共同点的全新存在方式。或者,它以其不断变化的模式,迫使改变我们所称的本体论的项目,超越未经修改的实体。不可否认的是,目前对社会某些地区的固定
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nordic Journal of Aesthetics
Nordic Journal of Aesthetics Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Your Tongue Here (Or Not): On Imagining Whether To Take a Bite (Or Not) Stay with Me: Uncertain Indices and Attentional Presence in Chat Interfaces Kant's "Aesthetic Idea": Towards an Aesthetics of Non-Attention Nothing to See? Paying Attention in the Dark Environment Attention, Affect, and Aesthetic Experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1