Advertisement

Introduction: Present Images

  • Paolo S. H. Favero
Chapter

Abstract

Introducing readers to the notion of “present image” (the core contribution of the book), this chapter offers insights into the key theoretical tools on which the book builds. Starting with a discussion of the manifold ways in which images creep into everyday human life, the chapter addresses a number of theoretical pillars. It explores the idea of images as being a constitutive part of the lived world of human beings (they are in and of the world); it introduces the need to rethink dichotomic distinctions between the digital and the analog; and finally it looks into the politics of “present images”. The chapter ends with a brief overview of the structure of the book.

Keywords

Present images Digital versus analog Politics of images Presence 

References

  1. Adorno, T.W. 2001. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. 1998. Homo Sacer. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, G. 2005. Photography’s Expanded Field. October Fall: 120–140.Google Scholar
  4. Barbatsis, G., M. Camacho, and L. Jackson. 2004. Does It Speak to Me? Visual Aesthetics and the Digital Divide. Visual Studies 19: 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baudrillard, J. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, H. 1986. Do Photographs Tell the Truth? In Doing Things Together: Selected Papers, 221–272. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Belting, H. 2011. An Anthropology of Images: Picture, Medium, Body. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Benjamin, W. 2015 (1931). A Short History of Photography. http://monoskop.org/images/7/79/Benjamin_Walter_1931_1972_A_Short_History_of_Photography.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2015.
  9. Bourriaud, N. 1998. Relational Aesthetics. Dijon: Les Presses du Reel.Google Scholar
  10. Crary, J. 1990. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cubitt, S. 2016. Aesthetics of the Digital. In A Companion to Digital Art, Christiane Paul. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Debord, G. 1967. The Society of Spectacle. http://www.nothingness.org/SI/debord/index.html
  13. Deleuze, G. 1997. Differenza e ripetizione. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore.Google Scholar
  14. Der Derian, J. 1994. Simulation: The Highest Stage of Capitalism? In Baudrillard: A Critical Reader, ed. D. Kellner. London: Blackwells.Google Scholar
  15. Driscoll, C., and M. Gregg. 2011. Convergence Culture and the Legacy of Feminist Cultural Studies. Cultural Studies 25 (4–5): 566–584.Google Scholar
  16. Edwards, E. 2006. Photographs and the Sound of History. Visual Anthropology Review 1 & 2: 27–46.Google Scholar
  17. Favero, P. 2013. Picturing Life-Worlds in the City: Notes for a Slow, Aimless and Playful Visual Ethnography. Archivio Anthropologico del Mediterraneo. Anno XVI (2013) 15 (2): 69–85.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2015. For a Creative Anthropological Image-Making: Reflections on Aesthetics, Relationality, Spectatorship and Knowledge in the Context of Visual Ethnographic Work in New Delhi, India. In Media Anthropology and Public Engagement, ed. S. Abraham and S. Pink. Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2016. ‘Analogization’: Reflections on Wearable Cameras and the Changing Meaning of Images in a Digital Landscape. In Digital Photography and Everyday Life: Empirical Studies on Material Visual Practices, ed. Z. Gómez Cruz and A. Lehmuskallio, 209–227. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2017a. Curating and Exhibiting Ethnographic Images in a Digital Habitat. In The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography (The ‘Work’), ed. Larissa Hjorth, Heather Horst, Anne Galloway, and Genevieve Bell. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2017b. In Defence of the “Thin”: Reflections on the Intersections Between Interactive Documentaries and Ethnography. In Refiguring Techniques in Digital Visual Research, ed. E. Gómez Cruz et al. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  22. Florensky, P. 1977. Le porte regali. Milano: Adelphi.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1993. Lo spazio e il tempo nell’arte. Milano: Adelhi.Google Scholar
  24. Flusser, V. 2006. Per una filosofia della fotografia. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2009. Into the Universe of Technical Images. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gehl, R. 2009. YouTube as Archive. International Journal of Cultural Studies 12 (1): 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ginsburg, F. 2008. Rethinking the Digital Age. In The Media and Social Theory, ed. D. Hesmondhalgh and J. Toynbee, 127–144. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Gómez-Cruz, E., and A. Lehmuskallio. 2016. Digital Photography and Everyday Life: Empirical Studies on Material Visual Practices. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Hay, J., and N. Couldry. 2011. Rethinking Convergence Culture. Cultural Studies 25 (4–5): 473–486.Google Scholar
  31. Hinkson, M. 2017. On the Edges of the Visual Culture of Exile: A View from South Australia. In Refiguring Techniques in Digital Visual Research, ed. Gomez Cruz et al. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Hoelzl, I., and R. Marie. 2015. Softimage: Towards a New Theory of the Digital Image. London: Intellects.Google Scholar
  33. Ingold, T. 2010. Ways of Mind-Walking: Reading, Writing, Painting. Visual Studies 25 (1): 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jay, M. 1994. Downcast Eyes. The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jay, M. 1988. Scopic Regimes of Modernity. In Vision and Visuality, ed. H. Foster, 3–23. Seattle: Bay Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kandinsky, W. 1989. Lo spirituale nell’arte. Milano: Brossura.Google Scholar
  38. Kellner, D., and G. Kim. 2010. YouTube, Critical Pedagogy and Media Activism. Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies 32: 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kember, S. 1998. Virtual Anxiety. Photography, New Technologies and Subjectivity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Khosravi, S. 2010. ‘Illegal’ Traveller: An Auto-Ethnography of Borders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Mandiberg, M. 2012. In The Social Media Reader, ed. M. Mandiberg, 1–10. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Manovich, L. 1995. The Paradoxes of Digital Photography. In Photography After Photography Exhibition Catalogue. Retrieved from http://manovich.net/content/04-projects/004-paradoxes-of-digital-photography/02_article_1994.pdf
  45. Marciano, A. 2014. Living the VirtuReal: Negotiating Transgender Identity in Cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19: 824–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marcuse, H. 2001 (1964). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Adavcned Industrials Society. Boston: Beacon Press iBook.Google Scholar
  47. McLuhan, M., and Q. Fiore. 1967. The Medium Is the Massage. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  48. McQuire, S. 2013. Photography’s Afterlife: Documentary Images and the Operational Archive. Journal of Material Culture 18 (3): 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. Trans. C. Smith. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  50. Miller, D. 2011. Tales from Facebook. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  51. Mitchell, W.J.T. 1984. What Is an Image? New Literary History 15(3): 503–537 (Image/Imago/Imagination).Google Scholar
  52. ———. 1992. The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-photographic Era. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. ———. 2006. What Do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. ———. 2015. Image Science. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Murray, S. 2008. Digital Images, Photo-Sharing, and Our Shifting Notions of Everyday Aesthetics. Journal of Visual Culture 2008 (7): 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nichols, B. 2001. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Okely, J., and H. Callaway. 1992. Anthropology and Autobiography. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peters, J.D. 1997. Seeing Bifocally: Media, Place, Culture. In Culture, Power and Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, ed. J. Ferguson and A. Gupta, 75–92. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Pinney, C., and N. Thomas, eds. 2001. Beyond Aesthetics. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  60. Ranciere, J. 2008. The Future of the Image. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  61. Ritchin, F. 1990. In Our Own Image: The Coming Revolution in Photography. New York: Aperture.Google Scholar
  62. Rosen, P. 2001. Change Mummified: Cinema Historicity, Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  63. Searle, J. 2015. Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stoller, P. 1984. Eye, Mind and Word in Anthropology. L’Homme 24 (3–4): 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Taussig, M. 2001. Dying Is an Art, Like Everything Else. Critical Inquiry 28 (1): 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taylor, L., ed. 1994. Visualizing Theory. Selected Essays from V.A.R. 1990–1994. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Uricchio, W. 2011. The Algorithmic Turn: Photosynth, Augmented Reality and the Changing Implications of the Image. Visual Studies 26 (1): 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Uricchio, W. 2016. Data, Culture and the Ambivalence of Algorithms. The Datafied Society: Studying Culture Through Data, 125–138. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo S. H. Favero
    • 1
  1. 1.Visual and Digital Cultures Research Center (ViDi)University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations