Module C
Form and Image in Modernity
Ralph Ubl, Markus Klammer, Malika Maskarinec, Rahel Villinger, Johanna Függer-Vagts, Gabriel Hubmann, Dominique Laleg
Visual studies has recently embraced the concept of form, as topical publications by Gottfried Boehm, Whitney Davis, David Summers, and Lambert Wiesing evidence, as do the foci of the research cluster “Image, Knowledge, Gestaltung” at the Humboldt University in Berlin and the third phase (2013-2017) of the National Research Project eikones. This emphasis in visual studies is closely related to—but also sets itself apart from—the discussions concerning modern concepts of form in sociology, philosophy, art history, and literary studies. The module intends to contribute to this field of research by deepening the historical, theoretical, and methodological understanding of the premises for concepts of form in art history, artistic practices, and Gestaltung, as well as in philosophy, theories of art, and aesthetics since Kant.
The relationship between theories of form, realizations of form, image, and art in modernity encompasses a breadth of subject matter that suggests two complementary lines of inquiry: one that gives attention to the theoretical implications of the diverse modern concepts of form and their semantics, and another historically analyzes concrete artistic positions. Modern theories of form are faced, on the one had, with the methodological problem of pursuing generalizing theses of critical inquiry, while also grasping and referring to specific, concrete objects in their particularity. On the other hand, contemplating, unearthing, and producing artistic and aesthetic forms also has consequences for the way in which we reflect upon them. The term “form” refers as much to a foundation, a form reduced to its essence, as to a concrete, visible form characterized by its nature as process, sensual plenitude, and by being imbedded in cultural and communicative relations. Of interest are the historical consequences of this polarity of form with respect to the scope of its semantics, the emergence of philosophical and aesthetic theories, and artistic creation.
Investigating the semantics of form in modernity cannot ignore the analytical, segmenting function of forms. In areas as diverse as linguistics, Fregean logic, gestalt theory, Cubism, concrete poetry, the twelve-tone technique, and structural film, forms are understood as elements whose integration into a subsuming whole—itself also understood as a “form”—is subject to outcomes with varying degrees of success and failure. The notion of form is thereby inextricably tied to the question of the image. As a totality of appearances, form is subordinated to an internal dynamic of totality and differentiation (a differentiation that refers to form as a singular element). Secondly, form reflects an external dynamism that unfolds between a recursive self-referentiality (to form as a totality) and a plurality of external references. It is thus to be expected that a study of the image promises to profit considerably from an examination of historical specifications of the concept of form.
The relationship between theories of form, realizations of form, image, and art in modernity encompasses a breadth of subject matter that suggests two complementary lines of inquiry: one that gives attention to the theoretical implications of the diverse modern concepts of form and their semantics, and another historically analyzes concrete artistic positions. Modern theories of form are faced, on the one had, with the methodological problem of pursuing generalizing theses of critical inquiry, while also grasping and referring to specific, concrete objects in their particularity. On the other hand, contemplating, unearthing, and producing artistic and aesthetic forms also has consequences for the way in which we reflect upon them. The term “form” refers as much to a foundation, a form reduced to its essence, as to a concrete, visible form characterized by its nature as process, sensual plenitude, and by being imbedded in cultural and communicative relations. Of interest are the historical consequences of this polarity of form with respect to the scope of its semantics, the emergence of philosophical and aesthetic theories, and artistic creation.
Investigating the semantics of form in modernity cannot ignore the analytical, segmenting function of forms. In areas as diverse as linguistics, Fregean logic, gestalt theory, Cubism, concrete poetry, the twelve-tone technique, and structural film, forms are understood as elements whose integration into a subsuming whole—itself also understood as a “form”—is subject to outcomes with varying degrees of success and failure. The notion of form is thereby inextricably tied to the question of the image. As a totality of appearances, form is subordinated to an internal dynamic of totality and differentiation (a differentiation that refers to form as a singular element). Secondly, form reflects an external dynamism that unfolds between a recursive self-referentiality (to form as a totality) and a plurality of external references. It is thus to be expected that a study of the image promises to profit considerably from an examination of historical specifications of the concept of form.