سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات158
تعداد شماره‌ها6,228
تعداد مقالات67,752
تعداد مشاهده مقاله115,086,023
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله89,825,074
زمانی گندمانی, حامد, ستاری, محمد, بلخاری قهی, حسن. (1402). از کلاسیک به فراکلاسیک:جستاری در جایگاهِ مخاطب در رویکردِ دومینیک مَک آیوِر لوپِس. , 28(2), 19-26. doi: 10.22059/jfava.2023.353919.667040
حامد زمانی گندمانی; محمد ستاری; حسن بلخاری قهی. "از کلاسیک به فراکلاسیک:جستاری در جایگاهِ مخاطب در رویکردِ دومینیک مَک آیوِر لوپِس". , 28, 2, 1402, 19-26. doi: 10.22059/jfava.2023.353919.667040
زمانی گندمانی, حامد, ستاری, محمد, بلخاری قهی, حسن. (1402). 'از کلاسیک به فراکلاسیک:جستاری در جایگاهِ مخاطب در رویکردِ دومینیک مَک آیوِر لوپِس', , 28(2), pp. 19-26. doi: 10.22059/jfava.2023.353919.667040
زمانی گندمانی, حامد, ستاری, محمد, بلخاری قهی, حسن. از کلاسیک به فراکلاسیک:جستاری در جایگاهِ مخاطب در رویکردِ دومینیک مَک آیوِر لوپِس. , 1402; 28(2): 19-26. doi: 10.22059/jfava.2023.353919.667040

از کلاسیک به فراکلاسیک:جستاری در جایگاهِ مخاطب در رویکردِ دومینیک مَک آیوِر لوپِس

نشریه هنرهای زیبا: هنرهای تجسمی
مقاله 2، دوره 28، شماره 2، تیر 1402، صفحه 19-26    اصل مقاله (416.35 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jfava.2023.353919.667040
نویسندگان
حامد زمانی گندمانی* 1؛ محمد ستاری2؛ حسن بلخاری قهی3
1دانشجوی دکتری هنرهای تجسمی، گروه مطالعات عالی هنر، دانشکدة هنرهای تجسمی، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2دانشیار گروه ارتباط تصویری و عکاسی، دانشکده هنرهای تجسمی، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
3استاد گروه مطالعات عالی هنر، دانشکده هنرهای تجسمی، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
در جستارِ حاضرْ دو بعد از ابعادِ چندگانه‌ی مخاطب در رویکردِ دومینیک مَک­آیوِر لوپِسْ استخراج و معرفی شده‌اند. این دو بعد که به‌منزله‌ی دو نوع مخاطبِ تصویریِ متمایز و هم‌زمان درهم‌تنیده معرفی می‌شوندْ نشان می‌دهند که سیرِ مواجهه‌ی کلاسیک به ‌مواجهه‌ی فراکلاسیک، و درنتیجه مخاطبِ کلاسیک به مخاطبِ فراکلاسیک، یک طیفِ تبدیلیِ ملایم است که از مؤلفه‌های ادراکی آغاز می‌شود، به‌تدریج حاملِ مؤلفه‌های درکیِ بیشتر می‌شود، و تا آستانه‌ی سیستم‌های تصویری پیش می‌رود. نگارشِ جستارِ حاضر ازاین‌رو ضرورت داشت که فلسفه‌ی آنگلوآمریکایی به شکلِ کلی، و جایگاهِ هنرهای تصویری و تصاویرِ غیرهنری در آن به شکلِ جزئی، در کشورمان تقریباً ناشناخته است. روشِ پژوهشمان یک روشِ مرتبه­اولِ مؤلف­محور است که پیروِ آنْ تمامیِ آثارِ لوپِس مطالعه شده و بخشی از الگویی که آرای تصویری­اش را منسجم می‌کند در قالبِ بخش‌بندی‌های جستارِ حاضر صورت‌بندی شده‌ است؛ یعنی جستارمان با نگاهی به جایگاهِ تام‌وتمامِ تصویر در نگاهِ لوپِس نگاشته شده است. نتایجِ حاصل‌شده نشان می‌دهد مخاطبِ کلاسیکْ از توانمندی‌های ادراکی‌اش استفاده و توانمندی‌های درکیِ ابتدایی‌اش را بر آن‌ها بار می‌کند، اما مخاطبِ فراکلاسیکْ از توانمندی‌های ادراکی‌اش استفاده و توانمندی‌های درکیِ ابتدایی و نیز پیشرفته‌اش را بر آن‌ها بار می‌کند. لذا بااینکه هردو مخاطبینی منفردند، مخاطبِ فراکلاسیک، مخاطبی است دارای حالاتِ ذهنیِ پیچیده­ تر.
کلیدواژه‌ها
مخاطبِ کلاسیک؛ مخاطبِ فراکلاسیک؛ دیدن-در؛ بازشناسی؛ بازنمایی؛ سوژه
عنوان مقاله [English]
From Classic to Extra-classic: An Essay in the Audience Status in Dominic McIver lopes’s Approach
نویسندگان [English]
Hamed Zamani Gandomani1؛ Mohammad Sattari2؛ Hasan Bolkhari Ghehi3
1PhD Candidate of Visual Arts, Department of Advanced Studies in Art, School of Visual Arts, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2Associate Professor, Department of Visual Communication and Photography, School of Visual Arts, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3Professor, Department of Advanced Studies in Art, School of Visual Arts, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]
Dominic Lopes is a leading figure in art theorizing, especially as to pictorial arts, as well as nonart pictures, who sometimes directly theorizes about pictures, other times structuring theoretical frameworks applicable to pictures as well as other items. One can think that he’s fond of the audience rather than the creator of a picture, and as to this, one isn’t wide of truth so much. Fairly the only dispute wherein he sees the creator in due terms is where he’s speaking of photographic pictures. We can think of a structural model in which all of his picture-oriented theories can be encapsulated, consistent, and make sense. We speculate that such a sui generis model can be extracted, the whole writing of his being surveyed, and it can be said that the audience is its dominant character who plays a significant role in characterizing the other pictorial agents present in the pictorial practices the agents living in which compromise on some aesthetic profile which in itself characterize the whole such and such practice in dispute. For all that, the present essay hones in on two facets of a multifaceted beast named audience called classic and extra-classic audiences. Having tilted at perceptual, recognitional, and modal aspects of appreciation, we’d define how seeing the subject in the picture-a process which Lopes following Wollheim calls seeing-in- can be the basis of audience appreciation upon which are built the other stages of appreciation. Lopesian seeing-in is a more flexible, diverse, spectral appreciative process relative to Wollheimian one, though. Anyway, seeing-in being the basic characteristic of both the classic and extra-classic encounters is defined regarding an audience encountered with representational, figurative, non-abstract pictures which their being art is a contingent fact. Recognition, the other basic property of classic and also extra-classic, is explainable with an eye to seeing-in, and in our terms is realized by a phenomenon called four-layer seeing including the picture surface, the picture design, the depicted subject, and the real subject. With regard to the pictorial meaning for the audience, one can say that the final meaning is a possible, nonpositive one found by the audience speculating with a possible consideration of the creator's intentions. In fine, the spectrum of classic encounter shades into the extra-classic one with a gentle slope and more and more appreciative elements being burdened on perceptual ones. This shading includes more complex interpretive, emotional, evaluative, epistemic, moral, and especially aesthetic, empirical elements-all of which present at the extra-classic level with a more punch-being saddled on modalities. Putting the point another way, the extra-classic audience in comparison to its classic counterpart has a more emphatic eye, reacts more emotionally to picture, is more affected by seeing-in, and more importantly experiences some intellectual evaluative interactions their ingredients being aesthetic, moral, and epistemic ones. Moreover, the extra-classic audience can be sensate-sensible, and perch on the brink of pictorial systems, then being converted to a systemic, pictorial agent. She’s fully aware of her pictorial experience, thence a selective audience as to aforesaid conversion.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
classic audience, extra-classic audience, seeing-in, recognition, representation, subject
مراجع
  1. Allen, Richard (1993), Representation, Illusion, and the Cinema, Cinema Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 21-48.
  2. Atencia-Linares, Paloma (2012), Fiction, Nonfiction, and Deceptive Photographic Representation, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 19-30.
  3. 3. Benovsky, Jiri (2011), Three Kinds of Realism About Photographs, The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 375-395.
  4. 4. Bergeron, Vincent, and Dominic McIver Lopes (2012), Aesthetic Theory and Aesthetic Science: Prospects for Integration, Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, ed. Arthur Shimamura and Steven Palmer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 63-79.
  5. 5. Brubaker, David (1993), Andre Bazin on Automatically Made Images, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art, Vol. 51, No. 11, pp. 59-67.
  6. 6. Casey, Edward S. (1971), Imagination: Imagining and the Image, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 475-490.‏ 7.
  7. Dilworth, John (2002), Varieties of Visual Representation, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 183-205.‏ 8.
  8. Gabriel, F. Giralt (2010), Realism and Realistic Representation in the Digital Age, Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 3-16.
  9. 9. Hopkins, Robert (2008), What Do We See in Film?, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 149-159.‏ 10.
  10. Kenney, Keith (2004), Representation Theory, Handbook of Visual Communication, ed. Ken Smith, Sandra Moriarty, Gretchen Barbatsis, and Keith Kenney, Mahwah, Routledge, pp. 121-138.‏ 11.
  11. Lopes, Dominic McIver (1996), Understanding Pictures, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  12. 12. Lopes, Dominic McIver (1997), Art Media and the Sense Modalities: Tactile Pictures, Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 189, pp. 425-440.
  13. 13. Lopes, Dominic McIver (1998), Imagination, Illusion and Experience in Film, Philosophical Studies ,Vol. 89, No. 2-3, pp. 343-353.
  14. 14. Lopes, Dominic McIver (1999), Pictorial Color: Aesthetics and Cognitive Science, Philosophical Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 415-428.
  15. 15. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2000a), From Languages of Art to Art in Mind, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 227-231.
  16. 16. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2000b), What Is It Like to See with Your Ears? The Representational Theory of Mind, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 439-453.
  17. 17. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2002), Vision, Touch, and the Value of Pictures, British Journal of Aesthetics ,Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 191-201.
  18. 18. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2003a), Pictures and the Representational Mind, The Monist ,Vol.86, No. 4, pp. 632-652. 19. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2003b), The Aesthetics of Photographic Transparency, Mind , Vol. 112, No. 447, pp. 434-448.
  19. 20. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2004), Directive Pictures, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 189-196.
  20. 21. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2005a), Sight and Sensibility: Evaluating Pictures, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  21. 22. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2005b), The Domain of Depiction, Contemporary Debates in Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art, ed. Matthew Kieran, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 160-175.
  22. 23. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2010), Picture This: Image-Based Demonstratives, Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction, ed. Catharine Abell and Katerina Bantinaki, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 52-80.
  23. 24. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2011), An Empathic Eye, Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives, ed. Amy Coplan and Peter Goldie, Oxford, Oxford Univerity Press, pp. 118-133.
  24. 25. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2015), Perception and Art, Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Perception, ed. Mohan Matthen, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 871-884.
  25. 26. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2016a), Four Arts of Photography: An Essay in Philosophy, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.
  26. 27.
  27. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2016b), In the Eye of the Beholder, Art, Mind, and Narrative: Themes from the Work of Peter Goldie, ed. Julian Dodd, Oxford, Oxford University, pp. 223-240.
  28. 28. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2018a), Aesthetics on the Edge: Where Philosophy Meets the Human Sciences, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  29. 29. Lopes, Dominic McIver (2018b), Being for Beauty: Aesthetic Agency and Value, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 30. Martin, Edwin (1986), On seeing Walton's Great-grandfather, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 796-800.‏
  30. 31.
  31. Nanay, Bence (2010), Perception and Imagination: Amodal Perception as Mental Imagery, Philosophical Studies, Vol. 150, No. 2, pp. 239-254.‏ 32.
  32. Novitz, David (1975), Picturing, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism Vol.34, No. 2, pp. 145-155.‏ 33.
  33. Savedoff, Barbara E. (1992), Transforming Images: Photographs of Representations, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 93-106.‏ 34.
  34. Schellenberg, Susanna (2013), Belief and Desire in Imagination and Immersion, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 110, No. 9, pp. 497-517.‏ 35.
  35. Walton, Kendall L. (1973), Pictures and Make-believe, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 283-319.
  36. 36. Walton, Kendall (2002), Depiction, Perception, and Imagination: Responses to Richard Wollheim, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 60, No.1, pp. 27-35.‏
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 349
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 160


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب