Immersive Images

  • Paolo S. H. Favero


This chapter deals with immersive images and addresses the way in which a number of contemporary image-based practices (360-degree video and photography; virtual, augmented, and mixed reality) seek to wrap viewers in the image and to blur the distance between viewer and viewed, self and world. Building on a dialogue between phenomenology and art history, this chapter suggests that immersion is an important modality through which human beings, in different times and places, have engaged with the visual world. The chapter addresses immersive images as a form of resistance against the historical hegemony of geometrical perspective and explores some key theoretical challenges in this field: the frame, projection, movement, and visual truth.


Immersive images Virtual/augmented/mixed reality Geometrical perspective Phenomenology Frame Projection Visual truth 


  1. Argan, G.C. 2008. Storia dell’Arte Italiana: Dall’Anticihita’ al Medioevo. Milano: RCS Libri.Google Scholar
  2. Babb, L.A. 1981. Glancing: Visual Interaction in Hinduism. Journal of Anthropological Research 37 (4): 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baudrillard, J. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  4. Benjamin, W. 2007. Infanzia berlinese. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  5. Buczek, I. 2014. The Immersive Dome Environment (IDE): Old Concept in a New Light or a New Hybrid Medium to Enhance Human Cognitive Faculty? Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research 10 (2 & 3): 247–254.Google Scholar
  6. Clanton, C. 2016. Uncanny Others: Hauntology, Ethnography, Media. PhD thesis, Goldsmiths’ College, University of London, London.Google Scholar
  7. Culler. 2014. The Practice of Light: A Genealogy of Visual Technologies from Prints to Pixels. Cambridge, MA/London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  8. Deleuze, G. 1997 (1968). Differenza e ripetizione. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore.Google Scholar
  9. Dolezal, L. 2009. The Remote Body: The Phenomenology of Telepresence and Re-Embodiment. Human Technology An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments 5 (2): 208–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dundes, A. 1980. Interpreting Folklore. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Easwaran, E. 1978. Meditation: Commonsense Directions from an Uncommon Life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Eck, D. 1998. Darsan: Seeing the Divine Image in India. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eco, U. 1988. Sugli Specchi ed altri Saggi. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, E. 2006. Photographs and the Sound of History. Visual Anthropology Review 1 & 2: 27–46.Google Scholar
  15. Elsaesser, T. 2013. The “Return” of 3-D: On Some of the Logics and Genealogies of the Image in the Twenty-First Century. Critical Inquiry 39 (2): 217–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Favero, P. forthcoming. To Swallow or to Get Swallowed, This Is the Question: On Viewing, Viewers and Frames in the Context of “New” Images. In An Anthropology of Contemporary Art, ed. T. Fillitz. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  17. Florensky, P. 1977. Le porte regali. Milano: Adelphi.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 1993. Lo spazio e il tempo nell’arte. Milano: Adelhi.Google Scholar
  19. Flusser, V. 2006. Per una filosofia della fotografia. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. A. Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  22. Frizot, M. 1997. Un dessein projectif: la photographie. In Projections. Le transport de l'image (catalogue de l'exposition), 73–93. Paris: Tourcoing, Hazan-Le Freznoyy-AFAA.Google Scholar
  23. Gallagher, S., and J. Cole. 1998. Body Image and Body Schema in a Deafferented Subject. In Body and Flesh: A Philosophical Reader, ed. D. Welton, 131–148. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Gennep, Van. 1960. The Rites of Passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gibson, J. 2014 (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Itaha: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  26. Gilardi, A. 2002. Storia della fotografia pornographica. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
  27. Gombrich, E.H. 2006. The Story of Art. London: Phaidon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Grau, I. 1999. Into the Belly of the Image: Historical Aspects of Virtual Reality. Leonardo 32 (5): 365–371. (Seventh New York Digital Salon).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grau, O. 2003. Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hansen, M.B.N. 2004. New Philosophy for New Media. Cambridge, MA/London UK: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hauser, A. 1999 (1951). The Social History of Art: From Prehistoric Times to the Middle Ages, vol. 1. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Heath, S., and T. de Lauretis, eds. 1980. The Cinematic Apparatus. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Heidegger, M. 1977. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  35. Helmreich, S. 2007. An Anthropologist Underwater: Immersive Soundscapes, Submarine Cyborgs, and Transductive Ethnography. American Ethnologist 34: 621–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoelzl, I., and R. Marie. 2015. Softimage: Towards a New Theory of the Digital Image. London: Intellects.Google Scholar
  37. Husserl, E. 1989 (1952). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: Second Book. Trans. R. Rojcewicz and A. Schuwer. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  38. Ingold, Tim. 2010. Ways of Mind-Walking: Reading, Writing, Painting. Visual Studies 25 (1): 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ingold, T. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Jay, M. 1988. Scopic Regimes of Modernity. In Vision and Visuality, ed. H. Foster, pp. 3–23. Seattle: Bay Press.Google Scholar
  41. Jay, M. 1994. Downcast Eyes. The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kapferer, B. 1991 (1983). A Celebration of Demons: Exorcism and the Aesthetics of Healing in Sri Lanka. Oxford/Washington, DC: Berg/Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kittler, F. 2010. Optical Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  44. Knott, K. 1999. Induismo. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  45. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lippit, A.M. 1999. Three Phantasies of Cinema – Reproduction, Mimesis, Annihilation. Paragraph 22 (November): 213–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marks, L.U. 1998. Video Haptics and Erotics. Screen 39: 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marks, L.U. 2000. A Tactile Epistemology: Mimesis + Haptic Visuality + Haptic Visuality and Cultural Difference. In The Skin of Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment and the Senses, ed. L.U. Marks, 138–145 & 162–170. Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Marks, L. 2002. Touch: Sensuous Theory and Multisensory Media. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  50. Massumi, B. 1987. Realer than Real: The Simulacrum According to Deleuze and Guattari.
  51. McLuhan, M. 1994 (1964). Understanding the Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. McQuire, S. 1998. Visions of Modernity: Representation, Memory, Time and Space in the Age of the Camera. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. Trans. C. Smith. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  54. ———. 1968. The Visible and the Invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  55. ———. 1996 (1964). Eye and Mind. In The Merleau-Ponty Aesthetics Reader, ed. B. M. Smith, 121–149. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Metz, C. 1982. The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Milgram, P., H. Takemura, A. Utsumi, and F. Kishino. 1994. Augmented Reality: A Class of Displays on the Reality-Virtuality Continuum. SPIE 2351: 282–292. Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies.Google Scholar
  58. Mirzoeff, N. 1999. An Introduction to Visual Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Mitchell, W.J.T. 1994. The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Nichols, B. 2001. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Pinney, C. 1997. Camera Indica: The Social Life of Indian Photographs. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  62. ———. 2001. Piercing the Skin of the Idol. In Beyond Aesthetics, ed. C. Pinney and N. Thomas, 157–179. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  63. Sendler, E. 1985. L’Icona: Immagine dell’Invisibile. Milano: Edizioni San Paolo.Google Scholar
  64. Sheikh, G. 1997. The Making of a Visual Language: Thoughts on Mughal Painting. Journal of Arts and Ideas 30-31: 7–32.Google Scholar
  65. Sloterdijk, P. 2011. Bubbles Spheres Volume I: Microspherology. Semiotext(e)/Foreign Agents. Trans. W. Hoban. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Smith, G.M. 2003. Film Structure and the Emotion System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sobchack, V. 1990. The Active Eye: A Phenomenology of Cinematic Vision. Quarterly Review of Film and Video 12: 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taylor, L., ed. 1994. Visualizing Theory. Selected Essays from V.A.R. 1990–1994. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Tucci, G. 1992. Storia della filosofia Indiana. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  70. Turner, V. 1964. Symbols in Ndemdu Ritual. In Closed Systems and Open Minds, ed. M. Gluckman. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  71. ———. 1974. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  72. Van Lier, H. 2007 (1983). Philosophy of Photography. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Visch, V.T., S. Tan, and D. Molenaar. 2010. The Emotional and Cognitive Effect of Immersion in Film Viewing. Cognition & Emotion 24 (8): 1439–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Von Glasenapp, H. 1967. Indiens Religioner. Lund: Studentlitteratur.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