caa a22 4500 463165594 CHVBK 20180406164800.0 cr unu---uuuuu 170326e20070601xx s 000 0 eng 10.1007/s11007-007-9049-2 doi (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s11007-007-9049-2 Lotz Christian Philosophy Department, Michigan State University, 503 South Kedzie Hall, 48824, East Lansing, MI, USA aut Depiction and plastic perception. A critique of Husserl's theory of picture consciousness [Elektronische Daten] [Christian Lotz] In this paper, I will present an argument against Husserl's analysis of picture consciousness. Husserl's analysis of picture consciousness (as it can be found primarily in the recently translated volume Husserliana 23) moves from a theory of depiction in general to a theory of perceptual imagination. Though, I think that Husserl's thesis that picture consciousness is different from depictive and linguistic consciousness is legitimate, and that Husserl's phenomenology avoids the errors of linguistic theories, such as Goodman's, I submit that his overall theory is unacceptable, especially when it is applied to works of art. Regarding art, the main problem of Husserl's theory is the assumption that pictures are constituted primarily as a conflict between perception/physical picture thing and imagination/picture object. Against this mentalist claim, I maintain, from a hermeneutic point of view, that pictures are the result of perceptual formations [Bildungen]. I then claim that Husserl's theory fails, since it does not take into account what I call "plastic perception” [Bildliches Sehen], which plays a prominent role not only within the German tradition of art education but also within German art itself. In this connection, "plastic thinking” [Bildliches Denken] was prominent especially in Klee, in Kandinsky, and in Beuys, as well as in the overall doctrine of the Bauhaus. Ultimately, I argue that Husserl's notion of picture consciousness and general perceptive imaginary consciousness must be replaced with a more dynamic model of the perception of pictures and art work that takes into account (a) the constructive and plastic moment, (b) the social dimension and (c) the genetic dimension of what it means to see something in something (Wollheim). Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., 2007 Edmund Husserl nationallicence Roland Barthes nationallicence Hans-Georg Gadamer nationallicence Richard Wollheim nationallicence Paul Klee nationallicence Phenomenology nationallicence Semiotics nationallicence Culturalism nationallicence Seeing-in nationallicence Image nationallicence Picture nationallicence Depiction nationallicence Picture Consciousness nationallicence Perception nationallicence Plastic Perception nationallicence Mentalism nationallicence Gestalt nationallicence Gebilde nationallicence Formation nationallicence Shaping Power nationallicence Vision nationallicence Visibility nationallicence Feuerquelle nationallicence Spring of Fire nationallicence Continental Philosophy Review Kluwer Academic Publishers 40/2(2007-06-01), 171-185 1387-2842 40:2<171 2007 40 11007 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-007-9049-2 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-007-9049-2 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Lotz Christian Philosophy Department, Michigan State University, 503 South Kedzie Hall, 48824, East Lansing, MI, USA aut NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Continental Philosophy Review Kluwer Academic Publishers 40/2(2007-06-01), 171-185 1387-2842 40:2<171 2007 40 11007 Metadata rights reserved Springer special CC-BY-NC licence nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-springer