FacultyMemeticsFesterImagesQuestionsContinued
From UoWiki
http://www.mooreed.com.au/products/LEGO%20Furniture/images/9816%20Figures%20&%20Letters.jpg
[edit] Further questions and responses from UncleFester to FacultyForTheInterpretationOfImages
[edit] I'm afraid I'm going to hack at this again. For the sake of clarity the new stuff will be in bold!
[edit] Definitions
Indeed I used dictionary definitions to highlight the difference between Text and Image and this although I specially dislike the reference to those kind of definitions. Here the use of those was deliberately applied so as to off handedly bypass too much theorising which, I thought, would be counter-productive to our Faculty's purpose which is to InterpretImages and not differentiate image from the rest of the world of concepts. However I understand that your interest also was piqued by the Image/Text antagonism which I am currently trying to push into its extreme limits but I have to remind us all that this is a subset of a research of the faculty on the question of the absence of text on the internet, which, thanks to your input I am going to rename and broaden.
- Image
- What characterises an image?
- I would venture to say that it is unfeasible to "characterise an image" abstractly or rather I'd like not do it this way. I am more interested in differentiating an image from something else, at this point. Hence the Image/Text discussion which seems very contemporary: it is becoming rarer and rarer that one can see an image without any alphabetical element in it.
- ' OK.... rephrase the question then. What characteristics enable you to differentiate between image and text?'
- How can we tell if something is an image or not?
- An image, as interpretable by our Faculty, is a 2 dimensional still representation we see with and before our eyes. An image must be visible in approximately the same external conditions by others to be interpreted.
- ' My view is that "image" so defined is a relatively arbitrary and restrictive definition but I am willing to go with it for the time being. I wonder if the French "une image" is what leads you to this definition.'
- Are you only dealing with visual images or do sculptures count as three-dimensional tactile images?
- They don't. and mind images, as they cannot be passed faithfully to someone else do not count either. Only visual, right.
- What about imitated birdsong?
- This is a strict No Way from the Faculty.
- ' Yet it can be passed faithfully as a sound file and is a representation of something rather than a direct recording. Note the word "imitated".'
- Text
- You appear to be referring to graphically recorded words only. Is this a correct understanding or are you also considering a broader meaning of "text" as "a body of work containing ideas"?
- It is a correct understanding of what I meant at the time under those conditions and is valid in our Faculty environment.
- What about MP3 audiobooks - text, image or something else?
- Sound.
[edit] The Image v Text Dichotomy
- You seem to be arguing mostly that a thing is either text or image.
- Not exactly. I was particularily interested in discerning one from the other, this does not mean that the world is divided between either of those but that would be an interesting topic for the FacultyTaxonomy: how deep can one go into tagging the world, when to stop and at can the tagging ultimately become more precise than the minute world itself ?
- ' You've lost me here a little although I think you may be refering to "atoms" (in the old Greek sense) and subatomic taxonomies - i.e. can one take taxonomy below the level of the indivisable? The answer presmuably being "of course not". The question then becoming "at what point must we stop?". Is that what you are driving at?'
- Can a thing perhaps be both text and image?
- perhaps, then how would you call this ? a thing with no name does not exist as far as theory is concerned yet it can be seen, sometimes shown, and only then can one name it.
- And particularly, if text is perceived visually is it not necessarily also image?
- To some point, probably and here I could also divert you to one of my previous forays into that topic. Of course this is the starting point of my current research on Internet only images
- ' That link seems to point to an 'ABC'. I'm not sure exactly how it's relevant except for the arabesque entry. You'll need to explain things to me slowly, carefully and clearly I'm afraid!'
[edit] Text as an image encoding representation according to conventions
- Is it fair to say that text is a sequence of images which can be interpreted according to well-established conventions? If not, why not?
- It is fair enough! but what is the point of this blending of distinguished elements (I ask you this not to confront but to elicit a response) ? here we could also benefit from semantic research and the concept of Sign.
- ' I'm not convinced that they are "distinguished". My view is that "text" is a subset of "image", a type of image. What do you mean by "the concept of Sign"? Semantic research into what? What do you mean by "semantic research" anyway? Please go slow with me!'
- I wonder if one difference is that text is mostly (but not exclusively - think about poetry) linear and thus one dimensional.
- Interesting. Your remark made me think that the opposition perhaps lays in that an image can be grasped immediately as a whole whereas text needs a special process to go thru it, reading, which makes the apprehension of text an ongoing process. Very interesting. A corollary to that thought is that an image cannot be read otherwise it is not an image. Now, we could all go back to the exhibits of WhenDoesTextOnAnImageStopsItFromBeingAnImageAndBeginsToMakeItText and see that I have labelled William Blake's Laocoon as text and the one above it (by Gary Panter) as an Image. It was a difficult choice.
- ' I've edited that page for you with my answers.'
- By comparison image is two- or three-dimensional and the relationships between the parts are thus less tolerant of distortions (e.g. distorted text fields v distorted images in a reformatted web page).
- I don't think that still images are three-dimensional. They are 2D and sometimes wish to emulate 3D but are doomed to fail.
- ' This is just a quibble with my including of sculpture within "image". So, ok, we've accepted "image" as purely 2D and visual for the time being. What you think about the significance of the spatial interrelations of visual elements as compared to text?'
[edit] "On the Internet there is no text, there are only images"
- Is it any less valid to say "there are no images, there is only text"?
- It is less valid! anyway, I'm rephrasing this to "On a Screen there is no text, only images" thanks to our discussion.
- ' OK. But don't forget things like Napster and MP3s. What is on the screen is only a part of what is on the Internet.'
- The images you see are representations reconstructed from a linear stream of digital data (text?).
- Digital data is neither image nor text (as sound is neither also or the birds and the bees for that matter). Data is a very vague concept which encompasses too much anyway and cannot be compared to image or text. Well, I think I see where you might be pointing but am not sure, do tell: Are you implying that computers are text driven and therefore the GUI is an heresy and the command line is holy ? this would be an interesting development of this topic but I find it a bit OT
- ' I think you're glossing here. "Data is a very vague concept which encompasses too much anyway and cannot be compared to image or text." All concepts are vague until defined. You have defined "image" and "text" according to your understanding of them. Why not "data"? My point is that depending on what you consider important about text, data streams may be very similar or so similar as to be analogous. What happens before images reach your screen has (to my mind) far more in common with text than image. Finally, the command line: No. I hate the CLI with a passion most can only dream of. It's an aside but, for me, usability is key and I am too dumb for the CLI to make life easier. I need widgets.'
[edit] I am not commenting on your interpretations for the moment as they are necessarily subjective. There are some more below for you to consider. The only thing I would take from your reactions to them (for the time being) is the statement: "Nothing is true". In order to be logically consistent that must be false. Otherwise it becomes the exception that breaks the rule. All the best - UncleFester
[edit] Interpret this:
http://www.escualotis.com/unpopperuno/Immagini/magritte.jpg
- Text or image?
- easy: image!
- What does it mean?
- First I find it illusory to expect that an image can mean something universally (not exactly what you say, but its a good opportunity to state what I believe!).
- Anyway, one interpretation of this image (that I have seen so many times but never thought of this one ever which means that the page ContextContextContext must be built indeed) would be that the painter wanted to show the superiority of image over text. The image shows a pipe we all bloody know it's a pipe and subtly it refers also to primary school panels which are used to teach the alphabet "P is for Pipe" but the text here tries to subvert the power of the image, it ridiculously fails of course (the text, not the painting, fails) and as a materialist I find deep empathy with this painting which reinforces my opinion that theory should come after practice like mind does over matter.
- Of course, here text is inside the image, part of it, so the painter is playing a cheap trick on text. it is unfair to text because text is not playing on its own turf here it has been brought into the field of its enemy.
- Going back to the school panel allegorized in this painting, one has to note that such panels use images to teach the use of text. text is an acquired taste to the education of man, image is right there at the beginning and it is somehow puzzling that we have to go, in a way, back to the interpretation of images. It is puzzling yet it reveals that images have been used in evil ways and we need to reclaim control over them.
- Does it make sense?
- Should it ? The world does not make sense, it is humans which try to make sense of it.
- Is it true?
- An image is always true to itself as a System. The relationships of that System to surrounding systems make it, fortunately, go beyond the notion of truth. Just a question: are you looking for truth in images ?
[edit] Now try this one, same questions:
[edit] THIS IS NOT TEXT
- image or text ?
- easy: text!
- not so easy: it's on a screen and you made it bold and capitalized it and the context says you are trying to confuse us.
- what does it mean ?
- Nothing. And this is where text is less powerful than images like Magritte's
- Is it true ?
- Nothing is true. War is Peace, but the images we have of that disprove it.
[edit] More for you to consider/interpret:
http://www.nexus.edu.au/Divisions/Curriculum/units/html/science/lighta/p5-1.gif
http://www.peak.org/~dadaist/Art/poster.gif
[edit] Poster for the play The Bearded Heart (1923)
http://www.booklyn.org/exhibition/Eleven%20spiral%20text.jpg
[edit] From Eleven (Marshall Weber, 2002)
[edit] (The text was presented on a turntable podium - further details are available through the link above.)
http://www.ubu.com/historical/early/early02.jpg
[edit] Wings of Eros in Theocritus (Simias Rhodius, 1516)
[edit] See also Concrete Poetry: A World View (Mary Ellen Solt, 1968) and UBUWEB for broader references like this one from 1987
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/Beauty25b.jpg
[edit] Portrait of Moise (Hilel Braverman, late nineteenth century)
[edit] Look closer....
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/Beauty24b.jpg
[edit] The Book of Deuteronomy written in tiny letters forms this portrait of Moses.
[edit] The artist's own translation in English of the Hebrew and French descriptive statement reads:
PORTRAIT OF MOISE Laws giver of the Israelites and the greatest of the Prophetes ... (Containing the fifth Book) Written in small letters by Hilel Braverman
[edit] More on micrography here and here
http://www.sca.org.au/lochac/artsci/images/scribes/bird.jpg
[edit] Giles de Laval, based on a 16th century Persian example of the Basmallah in the shape of a bird.
[edit] More on Islamic calligraphy (and better examples) here and here
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39368000/jpg/_39368430_dao_203.jpg http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:OdhntUaUn4sJ:http://www.saltspring.com/oldisland/images/247_Tao.gif http://www.uwec.edu/greider/Chinese.Japan/Chinese.Tao.ideogram.sm.jpg
[edit] Dow Jones was successfully sued over copyright in the Chinese calligraphic character on the left.
[edit] On the right are other versions of the same ideogram ("Tao/Dao" meaning "the way").
[edit] And finally....
http://www2.coca-cola.com/presscenter/img/imagebrands/downloads/lg_cokscript_red.jpg
[edit] Story of the mark and one way you can choose to interpret it as an image here
[edit] Some semi-random links (the stuff on iconology here may interest you):
- http://www.glassner.com/andrew/writing/viscult.htm
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconography
- http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/panof.htm
- http://www.newcastle.edu.au/discipline/fine-art/theory/analysis/iconintr.htm
- http://astro.temple.edu/~iversteg/research.html
- Useful for its references/reading list? (See also here and here)
