FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2024259901> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2024259901 endingPage "120" @default.
• W2024259901 startingPage "107" @default.
• W2024259901 abstract "In 1995, W.J.T. Mitchell proclaimed the advent of the pictorial turn, a post-linguistic, post-semiotic critical swivel from text to picture as the paradigmatic object of cultural interpretation (16). Mitchell's prediction may have been overstated--certainly textuality has not been displaced in the academy--but it did set the stage for the thriving interdisciplinary field of Visual Studies exemplified by works such as Vision and Visuality (Foster 1988), Modernity and the Hegemony of Vision (Levin 1993), Vision and Textuality (Melville 1995), and Vision in Context: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Sight (Brennan 1996). Of course, even within Visual Studies, scholars have been at pains to relativize the dominance of vision. Richard Rorty exposed as early as 1979 the Western reliance on ocular metaphor, while Martin Jay's Downcast Eyes (1993) famously traced a modern anti-ocularcentrism or, in less tongue-twisting form, the denigration of in twentieth-century French thought. More recently, even Jonathan Crary, whose Techniques of the Observer remains a touchstone for studies of nineteenth-century visuality, cautioned his readers against reducing the rich notion of embodiment to mere opticality (Suspensions 3). Moreover, historians such as Alain Corbin in France have reminded us that the non-visual senses--touch, smell, taste--have never been absent from the experiential or discursive ambits ofWestern European thought. But such counter-eddies in the tide of visual studies serve paradoxically to reinforce the undeniable and continuing centrality of the visual mode for studies of human representation--whether pictorial, literary, or scientific. Indeed, if Visual Studies are still thriving today (as evidenced by new courses, anthologies, and journals), (1) it is not because we have left behind the linguistic to enter the age of the pictorial, but because we have been given new tools to explore the philosophical and optical premises behind all discourse, whether visual or verbal, tactile or textual. For by historicizing sight and visuality, recent studies have brought to the fore two important aspects of Western thought? The first is an abiding connection between how the eye works and how the mind knows--i.e. the fact that, from the Ancients on, optics have directly informed epistemology. The second point is that such visual epistemology is both plural and shifting, with the modern age (defined by some as post-Cartesian, by others as post-Keplerian) caught in a continuous struggle between subjectivity and objectivity, between the corporeal and the abstract, the carnal and the conceptual. (3) One might re-state this dichotomy in a number of ways, but simply put, it opposes mental vision to physical sight in order to explain how human subjects attain knowledge of the visible world. Where does the nineteenth century stand in all this? Through works such as Crary's Techniques of the Observer, the nineteenth century in Western European thought has come to be seen as a transitional period between the idealist abstraction of a Cartesian age and the embodied contingency of early twentieth-century phenomenology. This makes a certain sense; after all, in the late eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries, scientists in the field of optics began to pay less attention to the laws of physics and more attention to the physiology of vision, in what Crary identifies as the rise of empiricist visual studies. It is in fact quite tempting to subscribe to the narrative of an epistemic shift from abstraction to corporeality--or to use Merleau-Ponty's terms, from Esprit to CEil, mind to eye. But this teleological story, while heuristically useful, holds up only in retrospect--for one thing, the opposition of idealist versus empiricist vision was put into play by the optical scientist Hermann von Helmholtz in 1867, before which time, Newtonian physics and Lockean empiricism were taken as fully compatible by thinkers like Reid, Buffon, and Hassenfrantz. …" @default.
• W2024259901 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2024259901 creator A5050530842 @default.
• W2024259901 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W2024259901 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2024259901 title "Retinal Fictions: Villiers, Leroux, and Optics at the Fin-de-siecle" @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1487393755 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1488761618 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1528946842 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1536915797 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1541099829 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1541215049 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1541553521 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1551747888 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1553691427 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1576417365 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1582338476 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1583806888 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1584218644 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1602508833 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1664990607 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W1820567615 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W2002062413 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W2012203297 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W2022482891 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W2024021181 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W2035756326 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W2073213487 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W2159866583 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W2317121351 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W3150666340 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W647947290 @default.
• W2024259901 cites W2074915020 @default.
• W2024259901 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/ncf.2005.0056" @default.
• W2024259901 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2024259901 type Work @default.
• W2024259901 sameAs 2024259901 @default.
• W2024259901 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2024259901 countsByYear W20242599012017 @default.
• W2024259901 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2024259901 hasAuthorship W2024259901A5050530842 @default.
• W2024259901 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2024259901 hasConcept C15708023 @default.
• W2024259901 hasConcept C3018451414 @default.
• W2024259901 hasConceptScore W2024259901C142362112 @default.
• W2024259901 hasConceptScore W2024259901C15708023 @default.
• W2024259901 hasConceptScore W2024259901C3018451414 @default.
• W2024259901 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2024259901 hasLocation W20242599011 @default.
• W2024259901 hasOpenAccess W2024259901 @default.
• W2024259901 hasPrimaryLocation W20242599011 @default.
• W2024259901 hasRelatedWork W135163757 @default.
• W2024259901 hasRelatedWork W1557907936 @default.
• W2024259901 hasRelatedWork W2111865594 @default.
• W2024259901 hasRelatedWork W2123836397 @default.
• W2024259901 hasRelatedWork W2248387313 @default.
• W2024259901 hasRelatedWork W3006587989 @default.
• W2024259901 hasRelatedWork W3120330463 @default.
• W2024259901 hasRelatedWork W3203105381 @default.
• W2024259901 hasRelatedWork W1832118649 @default.
• W2024259901 hasRelatedWork W1934311404 @default.
• W2024259901 hasVolume "34" @default.
• W2024259901 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2024259901 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2024259901 magId "2024259901" @default.
• W2024259901 workType "article" @default.