Image
Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 7:24 pm
We live in a world dominated by the visual, by the “image”. But how does the man of Style use “image” to convey his message?
The following is a relevant excerpt from a most interesting interview made by Joseph Casals with Massimo Cacciari - philosopher, professor, bookwriter and… mayor of Venice!
The rest of the interview, touching many interesting topics related to philosophy, sociology and city planning may be found here: http://www.barcelonametropolis.cat/en/p ... =21&ui=400
J.C.: You said in Soledad acogedora (Abada Editores, Madrid, 2007) that it is proper to mankind “to convert into image and memory the totality of things”. Now images are being rained down on us, we are subjected to a veritable torrent of images. There are more and more screens in our cities. Everything is screened, somebody said: ‘screened’ in both senses of the word. And, similarly, this has been the object of criticism. But the iconoclasms are “staged images”, for it is the condition of our times. I believe you said this in Dell’inizio and in the passage in Soledad acogedora: “The diverse images may be illusions but the faculty to imagine is no illusion; on the contrary, (…) it is our very reality”.
M.C.:Of course; we live in a civilisation of images to the extent that we even think that the Divine Being made himself man, became historical, touchable… Yes, our civilisation is one of images, ab imis fundamentis. So, what is the problem? Well, that the image, now, seems no longer to re-veal, that is to re-veil… Careful: I am saying re-veal in the sense that the image reveals, that is, it shows, it unveils, but at the same time it re-veils, it places the veil once more over things.
J.C.: The problem is when there is no veil…
M.C.: That’s right. When the image sets out to be pure manifestation, it is obscene. And the obscene is when images do not re-veil. A good image is one that shows while also re-veiling; one which displays while saying “remember, what I am showing you is not all that there is to be shown”.
J.C.: That is what Walter Benjamin says…
M.C.: Exactly; when the image is intended simply to be an unveiling, a laying bare, this is obscene. And the image of today is an obscene, pornographic image, because it has ceased to re-veil. Then, critical philosophy says: be careful, we are a civilisation of images, but of images that re-veil, for in the re-veiling is the game. I show this image but, at the same time, I tell you “this image is of my search for reality, it is not of reality unveiled”. And then I can play with you, because this is my image and you can show me yours. But if I tell you “all truth is here”, I produce an obscene work, and you must remain silent and submit to the imposition of my violence.
J.C.: The image never refers to an essence, for what the image shows is not there.
M.C.: It is an indication, a sign...
Style is dialogical, Style is an incessant conversation (about ourselves?) – with ourselves and with others. Through dress (the “veil”) – not clothes, but dress, the way we choose and wear them – we create an “image”; not of our SELVES, because we are not what shows on the outside, but rather as a symbol, as “an indication, a sign” of who we are. In our every dress choice there is a bit of us, and yet our “image” is never the same as our self.
Style needs this artfully woven “veil” lest our “image” be “pornographic”, vulgar, trying to express bluntly who we are instead of playfully suggesting possible interpretations. The image should be of our search for ourselves, not of our selves revealed - in Cacciari's words.
Dress can be the "veil" of our revealed image, that makes the “conversation” of our Style "re-veiling" and therefore interesting.
The following is a relevant excerpt from a most interesting interview made by Joseph Casals with Massimo Cacciari - philosopher, professor, bookwriter and… mayor of Venice!
The rest of the interview, touching many interesting topics related to philosophy, sociology and city planning may be found here: http://www.barcelonametropolis.cat/en/p ... =21&ui=400
J.C.: You said in Soledad acogedora (Abada Editores, Madrid, 2007) that it is proper to mankind “to convert into image and memory the totality of things”. Now images are being rained down on us, we are subjected to a veritable torrent of images. There are more and more screens in our cities. Everything is screened, somebody said: ‘screened’ in both senses of the word. And, similarly, this has been the object of criticism. But the iconoclasms are “staged images”, for it is the condition of our times. I believe you said this in Dell’inizio and in the passage in Soledad acogedora: “The diverse images may be illusions but the faculty to imagine is no illusion; on the contrary, (…) it is our very reality”.
M.C.:Of course; we live in a civilisation of images to the extent that we even think that the Divine Being made himself man, became historical, touchable… Yes, our civilisation is one of images, ab imis fundamentis. So, what is the problem? Well, that the image, now, seems no longer to re-veal, that is to re-veil… Careful: I am saying re-veal in the sense that the image reveals, that is, it shows, it unveils, but at the same time it re-veils, it places the veil once more over things.
J.C.: The problem is when there is no veil…
M.C.: That’s right. When the image sets out to be pure manifestation, it is obscene. And the obscene is when images do not re-veil. A good image is one that shows while also re-veiling; one which displays while saying “remember, what I am showing you is not all that there is to be shown”.
J.C.: That is what Walter Benjamin says…
M.C.: Exactly; when the image is intended simply to be an unveiling, a laying bare, this is obscene. And the image of today is an obscene, pornographic image, because it has ceased to re-veil. Then, critical philosophy says: be careful, we are a civilisation of images, but of images that re-veil, for in the re-veiling is the game. I show this image but, at the same time, I tell you “this image is of my search for reality, it is not of reality unveiled”. And then I can play with you, because this is my image and you can show me yours. But if I tell you “all truth is here”, I produce an obscene work, and you must remain silent and submit to the imposition of my violence.
J.C.: The image never refers to an essence, for what the image shows is not there.
M.C.: It is an indication, a sign...
Style is dialogical, Style is an incessant conversation (about ourselves?) – with ourselves and with others. Through dress (the “veil”) – not clothes, but dress, the way we choose and wear them – we create an “image”; not of our SELVES, because we are not what shows on the outside, but rather as a symbol, as “an indication, a sign” of who we are. In our every dress choice there is a bit of us, and yet our “image” is never the same as our self.
Style needs this artfully woven “veil” lest our “image” be “pornographic”, vulgar, trying to express bluntly who we are instead of playfully suggesting possible interpretations. The image should be of our search for ourselves, not of our selves revealed - in Cacciari's words.
Dress can be the "veil" of our revealed image, that makes the “conversation” of our Style "re-veiling" and therefore interesting.
