Glossar-English:Syntactically Incorrect Images

Subitem of: Image Syntax

Original: Syntaktisch unkorrekte Bilder

---

Can there be syntactic errors in images? The concept of syntactic correctness is initially familiar in its linguistic application: Example 1: ‘colorless green ideas sleep furiously’; Example 2: ‘sleep ideas green furiously color­less’. The difference between a syntactically well-formed sentence on the one hand (see example 1), whether it has meaning and practical use or not, and a syntactically incorrect sequence of words on the other hand (see example 2) is evident to anyone with a basic knowledge of the English language ([Chomsky 1957a]Chomsky, Noam (1957): Syntactic Structures. Mouton, Den Haag. : p. 15). Although the historical example only refers to the English language, it is true that language in general - in the sense of 'la langue' - only represents a small part of the multitude of possible sequences of syntactic elements as well-formed sign carriers classified and separated from syntactically incorrect combinations. According to Chomsky, being able to distinguish syntactic well-formedness should be based on language competence itself. Is it possible to argue successfully for an analogue distinction in the case of images? First of all, it should be noted that this question is ultimately less about images (in the actual, i.e. full sense of the word) than about potential image carriers: The term ‘image’ is at best imprecise (and at worst simply wrong) if pragmatic and semantic aspects are to be explicitly disregarded. At first glance, there does not appear to be any comparable classification, i.e. one that only refers to the structure of the (potential) image carrier (cf. [Langer 1984a]Langer, Susanne (1984): Philosophie auf neuem Wege. Das Symbol im Denken, im Ritus und in der Kunst. Fischer, Frankfurt/M. ). A spatial rearrangement of syntactic (or morphological) elements alone, based on the language example, is obviously not enough: The result is still an acceptable image carrier – which, by the way, anyone can easily convince themselves of using a computer-aided image processing system. It is true for certain subclasses of images, ie certain pictorialsign systems, which comprise only a small part of all possible image carriers, that the associated sign carriers can be divided into well-formed and non-well-​formed ones according to language-​like syntactic rules - the system of technical drawings may serve as an example. However, it is not easy to see here how this rule reference could be transferred to images in general and thus be justified in the image competence itself ([Plümacher 1999a]Plümacher, Martina (1999): Wohlgeformtheitsbedingungen für Bilder?. In: Sachs-Hombach, K. & Rehkämper, K. (Hg.), Bildgrammatik. Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zur Syntax bildlicher Darstellungsformen. Scriptum, Magdeburg. ). The presumed lack of a real criterion of syntactic well-formedness is closely related to the often-claimed lack of a pictorial alphabet (⊳ pictorial grammar): While it is always true for linguistic sign systems that a real subset of the theoretically possible phonemes or graphemes are used as building blocks of complex signs, it seems that no corresponding limited graphic alphabet can be given that pictures, in general, are based on ([Sachs-Hombach 1999a]Sachs-Hombach, Klaus (1999): Gibt es ein Bildalphabet?. In: Sachs-Hombach, K. & Rehkämper, K. (Hg.), Bildgrammatik. Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zur Syntax bildlicher Darstellungsformen. Scriptum, Magdeburg. ). Since the lack of an alphabet also makes the combinatorial rules of correct composition obsolete, but the syntactic well-formedness of language is based on the respective combination rules for complex characters from the basic elements of the alphabet under consideration, it follows that no corresponding criterion can be formed for images. For a more precise treatment of the question of whether there can be syntactically incorrect images, the distinction between the geometric basic structure and the visual marker dimensions has proven to be helpful. Real syntactic errors: Disturbances in the basic geometric structure In fact, all changes, both in the quantity and selection of the existing geometric elements and their arrangement, as well as in the assignment of visually distinguishable markings of the geometric parts, always only lead to different image carriers, which it can only be said of that they are better or worse to use with regard to certain pictorial-pragmatic functions, but not that they are syntactically incorrect, i.e. they are not real images simply because of certain peculiarities of the material. As in the concept of syntactic density in principle, any number of small changes in the sign carrier lead to other images in images: it follows that every sequence of such minimal changes also leads to an image again. Consequently, there can be no change in an image surface that can be produced by moving or exchanging areas, which in turn does not lead to a syntactically acceptable image surface. Figure 1: A syntactically incorrect image? (A.E. Arkhipov: «Peasant Girl» (1920s), with a tear in the picture carrier) However, there are quite everyday actions on a picture carrier that directly affect its function as a picture carrier from the ground up: namely the perforation or partial cutting or tearing of the paper, the canvas, etc., and similar damage. A painting (e.g. by Rembrandt), a sketch (e.g. by Picasso), the paper extract of a thermal imaging camera as well as a family snapshot, each with a cut or hole, does not simply become a different image, but the same image with damage (⊳ Identity criteria for image carriers and identity of pictorial signs). What happens here, seen syntactically and morphologically? If an image carrier is injured in the manner mentioned, the topology of the two-dimensional geometric basic structure is partially severely disturbed: Instead of the homogeneous (i.e. evenly distributed) and isotropic (i.e. equally valid in all directions of the image surface) neighborhood relationships between the spatial locations, gaps now appear between originally neighboring locations that do not belong to the image carrier, so that these spatial locations are now simply missing real neighboring pixels. [4] The entire geometric organization of the image carrier is thus disrupted because all higher-order pixels (⊳ image morphology) based on these neighborhoods are affected. Such ruptures therefore particularly affect the basic geometric structure, which has now become incomplete and inconsistent. The assumption that trimmings at the edge are considered qualitatively less serious than cuts within the picture area, since this changes semantic and pragmatic aspects, but does not disturb the connection between the locations within the picture area, speaks in favor of considering the absence of disturbances in the basic geometric structure as the basis for the syntactic well-formedness of pictures. The complete separation of a part of the picture carrier ultimately leads to two other (cropped) pictures, whereby the type of separation is rather secondary: a torn edge also forms an acceptable frame. In contrast to this, in the case of partial ruptures, the two now separated sides remain part of the same picture surface, whose disturbed basic geometric structure impairs the perception of the picture. Incidentally, a disruption of the basic geometric structure must be distinguished from transparent areas of the imagesuch as those that occur in stained glass or picture windows: Such transparent areas correspond to quite regular pixels with a special, albeit less frequently used marking compared to all images. In fact, syntactic special cases such as reflection and transparency in images have an implicitly deictic quality: Aspects of the environment of the image carrier play a role here. When looking at the picture (carrier) from just one perspective, they are therefore not necessarily noticeable - it could be a question of a corresponding regular coloring of the spot. Only a movement of the viewer and the resulting shift in perspective makes it clear that these places are variable and depend on the environment. This connection often makes the citing of syntactically incorrect images problematic: if, instead of the destroyed image carrier, an image of it is presented. As demonstrated in Figure 1, the mapping of a syntactically incorrect image is itself (usually) a syntactically well-formed image: The cut is represented by a regular pixem with normal color markings, and the topology of the basic structure is not affected. Pragmato-syntactic errors: Disturbances in marker assignment While damage to the spatial cohesion of the basic geometric structure leads to real syntactical errors, which can be distinguished solely on the basis of syntactical properties, problems in the dimensions of the marker values ​​can only trigger syntax errors that can only be determined as such by pragmatic factors. The splintering off of pigments, which makes the reason visible, can only be seen in relation to the normal state of the picture being viewed be identified as an error in the assignment of the marker values ​​and thus as non-pixemes. It could just as well be intentional, i.e. a pixem intended in this form (cf. e.g. sgraffito techniques). This is also reflected in the fact that the pictorial citing of such a disturbed image is significantly less problematic: The color and texture values ​​that the quote shows at the damaged point are in fact in the damaged original at that point. Reflexive use of syntactically incorrect images As an indirect pictorial quotation, Figure 1 represents a typical case of reflective use of the image, the presentation of the image is not intended to refer to a farm girl, but as an example of some aspects of the use of the image itself. Just as the example of syntactically incorrect word order is quoted in a book on language syntax, the example of a geometrically disturbed image carrier is shown as a negative example of syntactically well-formed image carriers. Figure 2: Lu­cio Fon­ta­na: «Con­cet­to Spa­zia­le» (1965) Otherwise, syntactically incorrect images that are used directly in a reflexive manner also appear in an artistic context: L. Fontana (1899–​1968) in particular plays with the deviation from syntactically well-formed image carriers. His sectional images are reflectively used image carriers, with the help of which attention can be drawn to materiality as a basic condition of image use through a negative Eexemplification (cf. [Whitfield 1999a]Whitfield, Sarah (1999): Lucio Fontana. Hayward Gallery Publ., London. , [Hynes 2005a]Hynes, Maria (2005): Rethinking Reductionism. Culture Machine, 7. Webadresse: www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/viewArticle/33/41 Notiz: online journal and [Sachs-Hombach 2003a]Sachs-Hombach, Klaus (2003): Das Bild als kommu­nika­tives Medium. Ele­mente einer allge­meinen Bild­wissen­schaft. Halem, Köln. : p. 212ff). The requirement of an undisturbed two-dimensional spatiality as the basic geometric structure of the physical image carrier for the regular use of the image catches the eye precisely because of its violation. [7] Accordingly, “pictures”, of the kind shown in Figure 2, would be pictures, if one does not want to understand them as borderline cases to sculpture anyway, only in the same improper sense as the sequence of letters in the example 2 above occurs in an only improper sense as a sentence in a linguistics textbook. On the other hand, if one were to understand them as quite regular images, one would ignore the point that also constitutes the essential difference between the image 'Figure 2' itself and the work by Fontana reproduced there. Syntactic (in)correctness with special image classes Diagramme, technische Zeichnungen und andere Gruppen von Struktur­bilder sind in der Regel mit bestimm­ten expli­ziten Darstel­lungskon­venti­onen verbun­den. Diese Regeln lassen sich teilwei­se auf syntak­tischer Ebene prüfen, so dass sich für diese Bildgrup­pen dann auch aus entspre­chenden Ver­stößen gegen die jewei­lige Darstel­lungskon­vention eine Form der syntak­tischen Unkor­rektheit defi­nieren lässt. Ähnli­ches gilt für ande­re Konven­tionen zur Abgren­zung eines Teilbe­reichs von Bildern oder eines Bildme­diums, sofern diese Konven­tionen sich anhand syntak­tischer Merkma­le bestim­men lassen. Das kann insbe­sonde­re Aspek­te des Stils betref­fen, so dass sich etwa hinsicht­lich einer bestimm­ten kunstge­schichtli­chen Epo­che ein Bild als syntak­tisch wohlge­formt oder aber unkor­rekt beur­teilen läßt. Ursache sind in der Regel syntak­tisch diskre­te Subsys­teme, die in die an sich syntak­tisch dichten Dimen­sionen bildhaf­ter Zeichen einge­bettet sind. Das gilt mithin auch für die einfa­cheren Versi­onen von Digi­talbil­dern mit ihren örtli­chen (gege­benen­falls auch zeitli­chen) und den Farbraum betref­fenden Raste­rungen. Rela­tiv zu den einge­schränkten Bildman­nigfal­tigkei­ten, die durch einen solchen Nota­tionsfor­malis­mus umfasst werden, müssen Bilder mit Pixe­men jenseits der Raste­rung als syntak­tisch unkor­rekt gelten. Praktisch ist dieser Fall für die Compu­tervisu­alis­tik wenig rele­vant, da übli­cherwei­se dann statt eines solchen syntak­tisch hinsicht­lich der Digi­tali­sierungs­konven­tion unkor­rekten Bildes einfach das ähnlich­ste syntak­tisch korrek­te Bild substi­tuiert wird, was häufig ausreicht. Allerdings können verschiede­ne techni­sche Proble­me auch in der Compu­tervi­sualis­tik zum Auftre­ten syntak­tisch unkor­rekter Bilder im enge­ren Sinn führen. Natür­lich geht es hierbei nicht um digi­tale Bilder von syntak­tisch unkor­rekten Bildern (wie etwa Abb. 1), die in der Regel ja selbst durchaus syntak­tisch korrekt sind. So können etwa Störun­gen der Marker­werte entste­hen durch Fehler beim Projek­tionsver­fahren: “Blinde” Stellen des Bildschirms führen etwa dazu, dass an bestimm­ten Orten die Farbdar­stellung nicht mehr richtig funkti­oniert. Noch gravie­render sind techni­sche Proble­me beim Über­tragen oder Abspei­chern, die zu Fehlern in der Nota­tion führen: Die syntak­tische Beschrei­bung des Bildträ­gers kann unvoll­ständig oder inkon­sistent werden. Im Grenzfall lassen sich dann immer noch Teile der Bildflä­che proji­zieren, doch gibt es, wie im Fall der zerris­senen Leinwand, Flächen inner­halb des Rahmens, die tatsäch­lich gar nicht zum Bildträ­ger gehö­ren – also eine massi­ve Störung der geomet­rischen Basis­struktur dieses Bildes. Siehe auch: Aufmerksamkeit Bild in reflexiver Verwendung Bildgrammatik Bildmedien Bildmorphologie Bildzitat Diagramm Digitales Bild Exemplifikation Farbe als bildsyntaktische Kategorie Identität bildhafter Zeichen Identitätskriterien für Bildträger Künstlerisches Bild und Alltagsbild Material Materialität Notation Original Rahmung, Rahmen Raum und Geometrie Reflexion und Transparenz Skulptur Strukturbild Syntaktische Dichte Zeichen, Zeichenträger, Zeichensystem

Anmerkungen Literatur [Chomsky 1957a]Chomsky, Noam (1957): Syntactic Structures. Mouton, Den Haag.[Hynes 2005a]Hynes, Maria (2005): Rethinking Reductionism. Culture Machine, 7.[Langer 1984a]Langer, Susanne (1984): Philosophie auf neuem Wege. Das Symbol im Denken, im Ritus und in der Kunst. Fischer, Frankfurt/M.[Plümacher 1999a]Plümacher, Martina (1999): Wohlgeformtheitsbedingungen für Bilder?. In: Sachs-Hombach, K. & Rehkämper, K. (Hg.), Bildgrammatik. Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zur Syntax bildlicher Darstellungsformen. Scriptum, Magdeburg.[Ros 1979a]Ros, Arno (1979): Objektkonstitution und elementare Sprachhandlungsbegriffe. Hain, Königstein/Ts.[Sachs-Hombach 1999a]Sachs-Hombach, Klaus (1999): Gibt es ein Bildalphabet?. In: Sachs-Hombach, K. & Rehkämper, K. (Hg.), Bildgrammatik. Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zur Syntax bildlicher Darstellungsformen. Scriptum, Magdeburg.[Sachs-Hombach 2003a]Sachs-Hombach, Klaus (2003): Das Bild als kommu­nika­tives Medium. Ele­mente einer allge­meinen Bild­wissen­schaft. Halem, Köln.[Sacks 1996a]Sacks, Oliver (1996): Migräne. Rowohlt , Hamburg.[Whitfield 1999a]Whitfield, Sarah (1999): Lucio Fontana. Hayward Gallery Publ., London. Ausgabe 1: 2013 Verantwortlich: Schirra, Jörg R.J. Lektorat: Liebsch, Dimitri Seitenbearbeitungen durch: Joerg R.J. Schirra und Marcel Lemmes — (Hinweis) Zitierhinweis: [Schirra 2013g-1]Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Syntaktisch unkorrekte Bilder. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Syntaktisch_unkorrekte_Bilder]. Webadresse: bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Syntaktisch_unkorrekte_Bilder Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Syntactically Incorrect Images. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Glossar-English:Syntactically_Incorrect_Images].