Evidence of Images: History and Aesthetics

Kolleg-Forschergruppe（KFG）继续工作的前提是，图像证据的生成作为一个基本的美学范畴，包括现实的表现过程，以及它产生了一个真正的视觉存在，是无法识别的图像领域之外。第一阶段资助的术语和系统基础证实了这样的主张，即图像的中心意义和功能只能在这两种模式的辩证调解中得到充分描述。与此同时，在干涉现象的意义上，对现实的引用与其指定和展览叠加和交织，这种调制的图像证据的轮廓，在这种调解的不同历史事件中进行了调查，并在示例性和具体的案例研究中进行了分析。由此，“Evidenz”这一术语范畴的初步提出，获得了可操作性的简洁性、理论基础和历史区分。在第二个资助阶段，KFG的目标是继续这项研究，这将导致广泛的构思和理论基础专著。在第一个网站似乎站在明确的异于图像证据的边缘美学现象也是未来研究计划的核心兴趣：特别是抽象形式;装饰;“非代表性”以及摄影和电影的中间配置;图像和声音或绘画和图像;与此同时，非图像和非表面的证据的美学复杂性，甚至本身不明显。因此，音乐因其不可见性、非物质性和短暂性而固有的先天不可表现性呈现出一种矛盾的现象。如何界定和区分图像证据的中间基础与图像的纯粹物质构成及其结构、形态特征之间的关系？换句话说：在当代研究中，“媒介性”和“物质性”这两个范畴往往被忽视和同义使用。什么贡献的调查Bildevidenz承诺为他们的系统确定和分化？

The Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG) continues to work on the premise that the generation of pictorial evidence as a fundamental aesthetic category encompasses processes of representation of reality as well as it generates a genuine visual presence that is not identifiable outside the realms of images. The terminological and systematic foundation within the first phase of funding substantiated the claim that the central meaning and function of images can only be described adequately in a dialectical mediation of these two modalities. Concurrently, this modulative profile of pictorial evidence in the sense of a phenomenon of interference, in which the reference to reality is superimposed and interlaced with its designation and exhibition, was investigated in distinct historic occurrences of this mediation and analysed in the context of exemplary and materially specific case studies. Thereby the terminological category of 'Evidenz' initially proposed heuristically, gained a workable conciseness, a theoretical foundation, as well as an historical differentiation. Within the second funding phase the KFG aims to continue this research that will lead to broadly conceived and theoretically foundational monographs. Liminal aesthetic phenomena that at first site appear to stand in categorical alterity to pictorial evidence are also of central interest for the future research program: specifically forms of abstraction; ornament; the 'non-representational' as well as intermedial configurations of photography and film; of image and sound or painting and image; and in conjunction, the aesthetic complexities of an evidence of the non-pictorial and non-ostensible, and even the per se nonevident. As such, the a priori unrepresentability inherent to music by virtue of its invisibility, immateriality, and temporal transience presents a paradoxical phenomenon of evidence par excellence. How can the relation between the medial foundation of pictorial evidence and the purely material constitution of the image and its textural, morphological qualities be defined and differentiated? To put it another way: the categories of 'mediality' and 'materiality' are often under-deliberated and used synonymously in contemporary research. What contribution does the investigation of Bildevidenz promise for their systematic determination and differentiation?