There Are NO Visual Media : W.J.T Mitchell
이 글에서 저자는 purely visual media는 없다고 역설한다. 원래 그런건 존재하지 않는다고. 아무리 painting이라고 해도 it involves other senses. every sense involves other senses. 따라서 이 의견은 Greenburg나 Fried의 pure opticality, modernism media specificity를 전복시킨다.
Any notion of purity semms out of the question with these ancient and modern media, both from the standpoint of the sensory and semiotic elements internal to them and what is external in their promiscuous audience composition. p.396.
Pure painting, pure opticality. This argument, most famously circulated by Clement Greenburg, and cometimes echoed by Micahel Fried, insists on the purity and specificity of media, rejecting hybrid forms, mived media, and anything that lies “between the arts” as a form of theater or thetoric that is doomed to inauthenticity and second-rate aesthetic status.
The fact is that even at tis purist and most single-mindedly optical, modernist painting was alwasy, to echo Tom Wolfe’s phrase, “painted words.” p.396.
회화의 경우 결국 남게 되는 건 touch의 흔적이다.
One thins that would obviously be left is the observation that a painting is a handmade object, and that is one of the crucial things that differentiates it from the medium of photography, where the look of mechanical production is so often foregrounded.
The beholder who knows nothing about the theory behind the painting, a handmade object, to understand that it is a trace of manual production, that everything one sees is the trace of a brush or a hand touching a canvas.
Seeing painting is seeing touching, seeing the hand gestures of the artist. p.397.
For art historians todya, the safest conclusion would be that the notion of a purely visual work of art was a temporary anomialy, a deviation from the much more durable tradition of mixed and hybrid media. p.398.
One corollary of the claim that there are no visual media, is that all media are mixed media.
the very notion of a medium and of mediation already entails some mixture of sensory, perceptual, and semiotic elements.
The notions of medium specificity, then, is never derived from a singular, elemental essence. It is more like the specificity associated with recites in cooking. p.399.
Marshall McLuhan은 이런 관점에서 선견지명이다. 그는 TV를 tactile medium이라고 보았다.
That television is actually a tactile medium. the TV image is an extension of touch. Amputation.
dynamic, interactive character of mediated sensuousness.
The specificity of media, then, is a much more complex issue. it is a question of specific sensory ratios that are embedded in practice, experiences, tradition, and technical inventions. p.400.
McLuhan’s notion of media as sensory rations needs to be supplemented, then, with a concepts semiotic ratios, specific mixtures of sign functions that make a medium what it is. p.400.
Our principle here should be : any medium nay be nested inside another, and this includes the moment when a medium is needed inside istelf-a form of self-reference that I have elsewhere discussed as a metapicture and that is crucial to theories of enframing in narrative. p.401.
Decartes famously compared seeing to touching in his analogy of the vlind man with two walking sticks. Vision, he argued, must be understood as simply a more refined, subtle, and extended from of touch. p.402.
The sentory ratio of vision as such becomes even more complicated when it enters into the region of emotion, affect, and intersubjective encounters in the visual field. p.403.
There are no purely visual media because there is no such things as pure visual perception in the first place. p.403.
Visual culture is the filed of study that refuses to take vision for granted. p.404.