 butterfly
thesis
| Advertisement |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
LIGHT |
 In the
beginning there was light. And the desire to see things clear
in their essence was reflected in the old Hellenic culture.
Here is how Erich Auerbach describes lucidity as the main
characteristic of the culture:
Clearly outlined, brightly and uniformly
illuminated, men and things stand out in a realm where
everything is visible; and not less clear - wholly expressed,
orderly even in their ardor -- are the feelings and thoughts
of the persons involved.
 Seeing implied
and was implied by knowing. The Greek ocularcentrism -- the core
of their study of cognition -- can be expressed by the Plato's
definition of intellect as 'the eye of the mind'. Such words
as 'idea' and 'theory' derive from the Greek verbs meaning 'to
see' and 'to look at attentively, to behold'. Plato also argued
that the eye is able to perceive the light rays because it shares
a like quality with the source of light, the sun (Phaedo).
Early Greek philosophers believed that the eye not only received,
but also transmitted light rays (the theory of extramission).
Empedocles and Democritus had concepts of that kind (Theophrasus,
De Sensu). They claimed that perception involves a sort of
physical emission which is coming from the eye to meet the stream
of particles coming from an object.
|
|
|
AMPHORA |
Let's look at an amphora. What we feel when our sight is
chaotically scanning its shape as if searching for a flaw?
(That indiscernible motion of the pupils is not actually
chaotic, though. Definitely, it is conformable to and strictly
determined by the form (object's shape), and here is harmonic
enough to bring visual pleasure).
When we encounter a
'flaw', it can be perceived as a property of the real thing in
contrast to our imaginary ideal one, and the sense of
authenticity can color the process of perception. Moreover, we
can take as a flaw something we are unaware of, or we do not
quite understand about the object. This unknown property of
the image - the flaw qua something new - when it traps our
attention, may cause a kind of interruption in this particular
case. Then it generates curiosity, demands complementary data
knowledge, and can even change our attitude and the status of
observation.
|
|
|
THE VIEWER |
Erwin Panofski in his Meaning in the Visual Arts
claims that whenever we are experiencing a static form
aesthetically, or investigating it 'archaeologically', it is
obvious that, to apprehend its meaning, we are re-producing
it. In, quite literally, 'realizing' the intention of the
creator, we are mentally re-enacting the creative process.
And in this re-creative experience we depend not only on our
psychophysical but also on the cultural equipment
(conceptualization).
An object of art provides a place for the viewer. This place
and the mode of perception are embedded in the very act of
representation. In reproduction of the cultural equipment,
a master shares institutionalized knowledge of his craft
with his apprentice. Also he passes on his personal experience
-- that "know how" to represent. The apprentice takes it all
and builds on it his own vision. By the time he becomes an
artist, he will be able to reproduce the meaning creation
aparatus of their school, which is permanently in charge of
the process of cultural reproduction in his society.
Meanwhile our discourse of conceptualizing the past (even
this story) comes from our scholastic background caused by
our own cultural reproduction process. Thus our ideology bears
a witness to cultures of the past.
Created by Hrachia Kazhoyan, © 1999.
Last updated: August 27, 1999.
| |
Times: Butterfly | The Greeks | thesis
