Glossar-English:Image reception as a communication process

Unterpunkt zu: Bildpragmatik

---

Is image reception a case of sign use? If pictures are used as signs, it follows that objects can only be understood as images if they are viewed as components with a specific function in a communicative interaction between at least two individuals. This bipolar view of the reception situation seems to stand in direct contrast to the view, which has become standard in art history, of the reception situation as a monopolar action – i.e. an action carried out by an isolated individual alone – in front of the picture carrier. To put it another way, the question is: How can the sign theory of the image be conceptually reconciled with the apparently monopolar reception situation? The “classic” monopolar reception situation, the “active” image, and the aura If art-historical considerations address the reception situations of the visual artifacts under consideration, one element is not abandoned, at least in their more traditionally oriented or vulgarized approaches, despite all the variances in the reception situations, if it is to be a question of a correct approach to the picture: the naive viewer, the professional art critic, the experienced art historians, they all stand alone in contemplation in front of the work. It is the picture that seems to turn to the lonely viewer standing in front of him and in it – suddenly or gradually, but always spontaneously – reveals its (the picture's) nature. Similar to the ideational essence view of phenomenology, only an essentially intensive but passive-patient attitude on the part of the recipient opens up access to the true nature of the work. For Marshall McLuhan, however, this monopolar reception situation only represents a historically conditioned view, which from a media-theoretical perspective should be understood as a typical impact of social reactions to the “new” medium of book printing (“Gutenberg galaxy”) (cf. [McLuhan 1962a]McLuhan, Marshall (1962): The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. ). It reflects the dominance of the "linear" monoperspective representations that had become paradigmatic for pictorial representations since the Renaissance and only made room for alternative representations again with the transition to the 20th century. With his concept of the aura, Walter Benjamin had already proposed a description of the bourgeois concept of art that rejects the monopolar reception situation as an outdated historical construct, if not as ideologically burdened ([Benjamin 1939a]Benjamin, Walter (2002): Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit. In: Schöttker, D. (Hg.), Walter Benjamin: Medienästhetische Schriften. Suhrkamp , Frankfurt/M. Notiz: dritte, autorisierte letzte Fassung, 1939 ): Behind the attribution of an aura as a property of the viewed and not as an attitude of the recipient towards his object, not only a remnant of magical image concepts is hidden, which on the one hand may still refer to the sacral-ritual origin of image competence, on the other hand tends to have hermetic features as potential dominating knowledge; On the contrary, the potential of the picture recipients to use this form of communication to come to an understanding about the existing and possible conditions of their coexistence is buried. Ultimately, the conception of the monopolar reception situation leads to the view that images – more precisely, it should probably mean: image carriers – are themselves active agents who first produce what is represented with them for the viewer (and independently of the viewer)(⊳ picture act theory). However, in this projection of an agent on the unsuitable image carrier, the conflict with the fundamentally bipolar sign-theoretical image approach is mitigated, as two agents are actually taken into account, only that the attribution of this predicate, at least for the image carrier, is – to put it mildly – unusual. The classic bipolar reception situation of communication Since the use of signs is meaningfully derived from communication actions , they are each divided into two activity carriers capable of correspondingly complex actions: In communication theories they are usually called 'sender' and 'receiver'. Karl Bühler developed the threefold relation of a carrier object used as a sign to 'sender', 'receiver' and 'referent' as an example for language in his Organon model with the relations 'expression', 'appeal' and 'representation' ([Bühler 1934a]Bühler, Karl (1965): Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Fischer , Stuttgart. ): In the use of signs, the sign carrier is the means to reach an understanding between the two sign-acting subjects involved with regard to something represented. The two action “poles” of the sign actions designate roles of the associated interaction scheme in general. These can indeed be occupied not only by different agents, but also by the same agent. This is the case, for example, with self-talk: A person then presents certain facts to themselves that are important to them. In this way, he or she focuses their thoughts on that topic. Accordingly, the lonely viewing of a picture in an apparently monopolar situation could actually be understood as a kind of pictorial soliloquy and, thus, as fundamentally bipolar: someone shows themselves with the help of the picture carrier, whatever seems important to them to show, and thus focuses on their own thoughts on those aspects. Such an interpretation is certainly particularly useful for the so-called “natural” images. However, in the case of other (“normal”) images, the reference to their production situation is largely undermined. Is it even possible to “be surprised by a picture” in this way? The essential problem here lies in the fact that in the case of images – as secondary media – the production and reception situations usually differ in terms of time. Not only that the sender and recipient usually do not know each other. In addition, because of the temporal distance, it is usually impossible for them to ever get to know each other at all. Modifications of the concept of communication are therefore necessary, which was geared towards communicating in primary media with the possibilities of communicative feedback given there (as well as in tertiary media). The bipolar communication model has to be expanded for secondary media, if only because this type of media is only available for the particularly complex class of conscious communication – i.e. sign actions. The quadrupolar reception situation of secondary media The transition from simple communicative interactions, such as expressive movements and signal behavior, to sign actions is characterized in the specialist literature in particular by the fact that the performance of behaviors, which is essential for the performance of communicative actions, is internalized (cf. [Mead 1968a]Mead, George Herbert (1968): Geist, Identität und Gesellschaft aus der Sicht des Sozialbehaviorismus. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. Nicht angezeigt: Original: <em>Mind, Self, and Society</em>. Hg. v. Charles W. Morris. Chicago, 1934 ). However, we do not simply rely here on the convenient spatial metaphor of a (mental) interior space in which the communicative self-representations are now to take place: More precisely, it is about the fact that they “are here detached from the communicative contexts into which they [.. .] are normally embedded, and can develop into the ability of a bodily self-presentation to be carried out solely for oneself" ([Ros 2005a]Ros, Arno (2005): Materie und Geist. Eine philosophische Untersuchung. Mentis, Paderborn. : p. 591). While a behavior presented with a communicative intention is modified, among other things, in such a way that its physical aspects are articulated particularly clearly and are particularly recognizable for the recipient, the reflection of the behavior shown now leads to a reduction of its externally clearly recognizable aspects: instead of clearly visible physical changes (e.g. the pronounced snarling of the teeth) developed in wolves as a gesture from the initial element of a biting attack), a very weak activation of the corresponding nerve tracts is now sufficient, a barely noticeable change in the associated muscle tone.In particular, the activities of presenting of one communication partner and the corresponding reactions of the other communication partner can now be related to each other. By means of internalization, the other person's role can be systematically related to his own role by the communicator himself. Figure 1: Quadrupolar communication model Thus, individuals who can enter into sign actions are always to be understood as dyadic: any concept of an agent who only acts consecutively as a sender or receiver, and not simultaneously, cannot fall under this concept of conscious communication. The two poles of the bipolar communication model must now be understood as split in two, since each of them fills the two roles of sender and receiver internally (see Fig. 1). Three interactions can be communicatively effective: (i) the internalized interaction between the self-model of the “active” sign actor (producer) and his idea of the “passive” communication partner (recipient), (ii) the internalized interaction between the idea of a recipient of the sender and one's own self-model, (iii) the interaction between the producer's self-model and his partner model of the recipient. Furthermore, the coordination between the communicative sub-actions (i) and (iii) can be achieved via the external feedback of the recipient - his reactions including queries - (dashed line in the picture), the coordination between sub-communications (ii) and (iii) via further sign actions of the producers to these recipients. Figure 2: Quadrupolar communication model in secondary media Bei Kommunikation über se­kun­dä­re Me­dien wer­den we­gen der zeit­li­chen Se­pa­rie­rung der Pro­duk­tions- und Re­zep­tions­si­tua­tio­nen die kom­mu­ni­ka­ti­ven Teil­hand­lun­gen (i) und (ii) von­ein­an­der ab­ge­kop­pelt, wäh­rend (iii) in zwei Tei­le zer­fällt, die über den per­sisten­ten Zei­chen­trä­ger nur lose mit­ein­an­der “har­mo­ni­siert” wer­den kön­nen (vgl. Abb. 2). Die “monologische” Rezeptions­situa­tion des Bild­gebrauchs Abbildung 3: Die zwei Vari­an­ten der se­kun­där­me­dia­len Zei­chen­ver­wen­dung bei “mo­no­logischer” Si­tua­tion im quadru­po­la­ren Kom­mu­ni­ka­ti­ons­mo­dell: Ab­ge­kop­pel­te Re­zep­tion mit (a) vor­ge­stell­tem Sen­der oder (b) vor­ge­stell­tem Emp­fän­ger Für asynchrone Kom­mu­ni­ka­tion, wie sie ge­ra­de bei Bild­ver­wen­dung sehr häu­fig auf­tritt, hat die Mead­sche dop­pelt-bi­po­lare Kon­zep­tion ent­schei­den­de Kon­se­quen­zen. Ins­be­son­de­re führt sie zu ei­ner dem mo­no­po­la­ren An­satz dia­met­ral ent­ge­gen­ge­setz­ten Fas­sung ei­ner Re­zep­tions­äs­the­tik: Wer al­lei­ne ei­nen Bild­trä­ger als Bild be­trach­tet, nimmt si­mul­tan die Rol­le von Sen­der und Emp­fän­ger des Bild­zei­chens ein – er zeigt es sich selbst in der Rol­le ei­nes an­de­ren. Dabei ent­spricht die Ambi­gui­tät der Phrase ‘in der Rolle eines Anderen’ in dem vorigen Satz durch­aus den beiden Mög­lich­keiten: ‘er selbst in der Rolle des (vorge­stellten) Senders (und den von ihm dem Sender zuge­schriebenen Charak­teristika) zeigt sich selbst das Bild’ (Abb. 3 (a)) vs. ‘er zeigt einem anderen, den er sich in der Rolle des Emp­fänger vorstellt, das Bild’ (Abb. 3 (b)). Diese Dopp­lung tritt aber nicht nur auf der Rezep­tions­seite auf: Auch der Produ­zent hat bei der Her­stellung des Bildes ja stets be­stimmte Vor­stellungen vom Emp­fänger, an den er sich richtet. Ganz entsprechend ist schon 1934 für John Dewey der Begriff der ästhe­tischen Er­fahrung prinzi­piell in einer zwar mög­licher­weise zeit­lich aufge­spalteten, gleich­wohl nur im Zusammen­hang zu denken­den Situa­tion einer Zeichen­hand­lung zwischen Produ­zent und Rezi­pient zu verstehen (vgl. [Dewey 1934a]Dewey, John (1934): Art as Experience. Minton, Balch & Company, New York. ). Nach Matthias Vogel unter­scheidet Dewey dabei prinzi­piell die folgen­den vier Aspekte ganz in Ana­logie zum quadru­polaren Kommu­nika­tions­modell (vgl. [Vogel 2001a]Vogel, Matthias (2001): Medien der Vernunft. Eine Theorie des Geistes und der Rationalität auf Grundlage einer Theorie der Medien. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. : S. 139): (1) Die ästhetische Erfahrung des Produz­enten (P1) umfasst (a) ein aktivisches Moment, inso­fern P1 einen Gegen­stand K ge­staltet; (b) sie umfasst ein passivisches Moment, inso­fern P1 Im­pulse von K auf sich wirken lassen muss, um K gemäß den unter­stell­ten Wahr­nehmungs­weisen von Pn zu gestal­ten. (2) Die ästhetische Erfahrung des Rezi­pienten (P2) umfasst (a) ein aktivisches Moment, inso­fern P2 einen Gegen­stand K inter­pretiert; (b) sie umfasst ein passivisches Moment, inso­fern P2 Im­pulse von K auf­nehmen muss, um K gemäß der unter­stellten Absicht von P1 zu inter­pretieren. Je nach vorgestellten Kommu­nika­tions­partnern ergeben sich so tat­säch­lich jeweils unter­schied­liche Varian­ten des Kommu­nika­tions­prozesses und damit des er­reich­ten Bild­ver­ständ­nisses. Damit öffnen sich der theo­retischen Betrach­tung Spiel­räume für Wieder­verwen­dungen und Re­inter­preta­tionen von Bild­trägern jen­seits einer einzigen als histo­risch korrekt mar­kierten Deutung. Die Re­konstruk­tion der pro­duktions­seitigen Kommu­nika­tions­inten­tionen im ent­sprechen­den histo­rischen Kontext mit einem ange­nommenen Selbst­modell des Produ­zenten und den vermut­lich von ihm anvi­sierten Emp­fängern bildet eine (wenn auch etwa kunst­historisch vor allem interes­sierende) Deutungs­möglich­keit neben vielen weiteren rezep­tions­seitig indu­zierten Inter­preta­tionen. Die scheinbar monopolare Verwendungs­weise eines Bildes ent­puppt sich dabei als piktu­rales Ana­logon eines not­wendig von Kommu­nika­tion ab­hängigen Mono­logs. Siehe auch: Bildakt-Theorie Bildsemiotik Interaktion und Kommunikation "natürliche" Bilder Typologien der Medien Zeichen, Zeichenträger, Zeichensystem

Anmerkungen Literatur [Benjamin 1939a]Benjamin, Walter (2002): Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit. In: Schöttker, D. (Hg.), Walter Benjamin: Medienästhetische Schriften. Suhrkamp , Frankfurt/M.[Bühler 1934a]Bühler, Karl (1965): Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Fischer , Stuttgart.[Dewey 1934a]Dewey, John (1934): Art as Experience. Minton, Balch & Company, New York.[Jonas 1961a]Jonas, Hans (1961): Die Freiheit des Bildens – Homo pictor und die differentia des Menschen. Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung, 15.[McLuhan 1962a]McLuhan, Marshall (1962): The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.[Mead 1968a]Mead, George Herbert (1968): Geist, Identität und Gesellschaft aus der Sicht des Sozialbehaviorismus. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M.[Ros 2005a]Ros, Arno (2005): Materie und Geist. Eine philosophische Untersuchung. Mentis, Paderborn.[Schirra 1994a]Schirra, Jörg R.J. (1994): Bildbeschreibung als Verbindung von visuellem und sprachlichem Raum. DISKI, St. Augustin.[Vogel 2001a]Vogel, Matthias (2001): Medien der Vernunft. Eine Theorie des Geistes und der Rationalität auf Grundlage einer Theorie der Medien. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. Ausgabe 1: 2013 Verantwortlich: Schirra, J.R.J. Lektorat: Halawa, Mark Seitenbearbeitungen durch: Joerg R.J. Schirra und Marcel Lemmes — (Hinweis) Zitierhinweis: [Schirra 2013g-g]Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Bildrezeption als Kommunikationsprozess. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Bildrezeption_als_Kommunikationsprozess]. Webadresse: bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Bildrezeption_als_Kommunikationsprozess Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Image reception as a communication process. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Glossar-English:Image_reception_as_a_communication_process].