"Man is the measure of all things."
- Protagoras-
'L' Picture mind. " And 'This is the postmodern assumption on the presentation of reality. If we start from the concept of truth we can immediately say that it expresses a correspondence with reality, and in some way with the facts. The truth that otherwise would approach a unveiling of reality where it is accepted falsely. Speaking of image means first all talk of artifact, as an object created by humans, therefore we should consider how an artifact can be interpreted and then somehow known, and especially in relation to the content of our personal experiences. The image uses a language known as indefinite, ambiguous and evocative, with signs which may be relatively value of icons, symbols, and in some cases up to idols, according to the meaning that is subjectively assigned. It is also the result of a subjective point of view, evident in a formal framework that includes certain elements and exclude others. If we consider the possibility of an image to be true or false, we should reflect, albeit in a different way, the possibility of an image to tell something true or something false. Stated another way is to think in different ways on "what," says an image and "how" it says, this is equivalent to saying that a picture can tell something true through a "false" staging or other in a truthful way to tell a fake fact.
If we try to analyze the communication through images in the four interdependent image, meaning, means and context of use , it is interesting to note as the image, be it painting, photography or film, to achieve a high level of ambiguity.
It as matter is the fundamental object of this communication, certain forms of the abstract, it shows something of partly objective, especially when it comes to photographic object. The half is the medium through which visual communication is achieved, it is often assessed by their ability to mimic reality and the ability to alter it. The media is what has given more than all the technical development of the visual representation, it is enough to weigh the route that would brought pictorial image through the image until you get the picture film photography widely understood. And yet, just think of how digitization has strongly influenced the visual communication so as to merge into one "means" that which had previously been represented by different means. The meaning however, is the most abstract of the notice, it determines the interpretation and shall be given in a totally subjective by the person affected by the visual communication, this aura of subjectivity bears the image to take on several diverse meanings and interpretations. A single image can have it at the same time an iconic, symbolic, metaphorical and allegorical to come to an end where the image takes on the value of idol albeit through very different cultural contexts and subjects. The significance seen in this context is what makes ambiguous image, and consequently, what prevents us from assessing in the absolute truth and falsehood in an image.
The last, the context is that element which allows, in a decisive manner, the subjective interpretation that gives every person from time to time to the images that led to decode. The context is in fact the factor of communication visual influence all over the assimilation of meaning. The ambiguity of the image is also the result of an equally ambiguous exchange that occurs in visual communication, as well as any other human communication between the sender and the recipient of a particular message. Tightening the field to the image communication, the sender, may decline even in the plural, is in some way the carrier will , or rather one that affects the first framing, how to use and the possible interpretations. On the other hand, the recipient is someone who through special coding tools, the occasion by way of communication. The prior knowledge and cultural filters that are provided allow him to play more or less "correct" the visual message, meaning correctly a certain conformity with reality.
The lack of tools and knowledge to proper interpretation of the images in the twentieth and twenty-first century invade human communication, has led to an imbalance of forces between sender and recipient, with the latter, the observer post-modern subject and used to a mink multiplied by the multiple images, makes it increasingly difficult to believe what he sees. This relentless skepticism, both caused by the infinite possibility of manipulation of digital technologies as the company's growing literacy in the visual field, it fits perfectly in the post-modern can be accepted where a disproportionate amount of interpretation, but as works of prospective George Rousse, if we want to achieve a correct paraphrase that comes close to reality as much as possible, we should, in my secular views, accept the opportunity to provide ourselves with a plurality of views and at the same time seek the views just to help us read the images the second perspective.
The last, the context is that element which allows, in a decisive manner, the subjective interpretation that gives every person from time to time to the images that led to decode. The context is in fact the factor of communication visual influence all over the assimilation of meaning. The ambiguity of the image is also the result of an equally ambiguous exchange that occurs in visual communication, as well as any other human communication between the sender and the recipient of a particular message. Tightening the field to the image communication, the sender, may decline even in the plural, is in some way the carrier will , or rather one that affects the first framing, how to use and the possible interpretations. On the other hand, the recipient is someone who through special coding tools, the occasion by way of communication. The prior knowledge and cultural filters that are provided allow him to play more or less "correct" the visual message, meaning correctly a certain conformity with reality.
The lack of tools and knowledge to proper interpretation of the images in the twentieth and twenty-first century invade human communication, has led to an imbalance of forces between sender and recipient, with the latter, the observer post-modern subject and used to a mink multiplied by the multiple images, makes it increasingly difficult to believe what he sees. This relentless skepticism, both caused by the infinite possibility of manipulation of digital technologies as the company's growing literacy in the visual field, it fits perfectly in the post-modern can be accepted where a disproportionate amount of interpretation, but as works of prospective George Rousse, if we want to achieve a correct paraphrase that comes close to reality as much as possible, we should, in my secular views, accept the opportunity to provide ourselves with a plurality of views and at the same time seek the views just to help us read the images the second perspective.
0 comments:
Post a Comment