Flusser Interview
6
Intersubjectivit y: media metaphor s, p lay & provocation 6th international Vilém Flusser symposium & event series march 15-19 1997 budapest hungary Vilém Flusser interviewed by Miklós Peternák - I. (1988, unpublished) Miklós Peternák: Is it possible to define an image? Vilém Flusser : Yes, I think I can. An image is a meaningful surface. I will try to analyse this a bit further. When I say meaningful, I mean that it is a surface which contains symbols which are organised in a code, and which therefore permit the receiver to decide for them. When I say surface, I mean that the information which is contained in an image is spread out. It is synchronic, and I who decipher it diachronize this synchronicity . Now, the motion of the eye which deciphers the surface of the image may be called a scanning. The eye follows specific paths. Some of the paths which the eye follows are intended by the producer of the image. But the eye has a certain autonomy, and it may follow its own path. It is for this reason that the message contained in an image is necessarily connotative . An image can be interpreted by every receiver in their own way. This, of course, has the advantage that the message becomes full of meaning, but the disadvantage is that the message is never clear and distinct. It is always, to some extent, confused. Now, the path which the eye follows on the surface is a false path. The eye can return to any element of the image at any time. Thus, the diachronization of the synchronicity of the image is a circular one. There can be no linear explanation of an image. It cannot be explained via cause and effect. You cannot decipher an image in a linear way; for example, you cannot say that the cock crows because the sun has risen, or that the sun rises because the cock has crowed. Both explanations are good, which is typcial of mythical thinking. The image is a mythical medium. And it is so by its very structure. Now, this ( ) is what I would call an image. But there are two types of images, if you look at the structure of the image. One is a solid surface. Even if under analysis it may be shown that an image, like any other object, is composed of particles. This is only a theoretical explanation of the image. In fact, traditional images are considered to be solid surfaces. They are visions, two-dimensional visions of the four-dimensional world in which we live. Thus, that imagination may be referred to as a
Transcript of Flusser Interview
7/27/2019 Flusser Interview
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/flusser-interview 1/6
Intersubjectivity: media metaphors, play & provocation
6th international Vilém Flusser symposium& event series
march 15-19 1997 budapest hungary
Vilém Flusser interviewed by Miklós Peternák - I. (1988, unpublished)Miklós Peternák: Is it possible to define an image?Vilém Flusser : Yes, I think I can. An image is a meaningful surface.I will try to analyse this a bit further. When I say meaningful, I mean
that it is a surface which contains symbols which are organised in acode, and which therefore permit the receiver to decide for them.When I say surface, I mean that the information which is contained inan image is spread out. It is synchronic, and I who decipher itdiachronize this synchronicity. Now, the motion of the eye whichdeciphers the surface of the image may be called a scanning. The eyefollows specific paths. Some of the paths which the eye follows areintended by the producer of the image. But the eye has a certainautonomy, and it may follow its own path. It is for this reason that themessage contained in an image is necessarily connotative. An imagecan be interpreted by every receiver in their own way. This, of course,has the advantage that the message becomes full of meaning, but thedisadvantage is that the message is never clear and distinct. It isalways, to some extent, confused. Now, the path which the eye followson the surface is a false path. The eye can return to any element of theimage at any time. Thus, the diachronization of the synchronicity of theimage is a circular one.There can be no linear explanation of an image. It cannot be explainedvia cause and effect. You cannot decipher an image in a linear way; for
example, you cannot say that the cock crows because the sun hasrisen, or that the sun rises because the cock has crowed. Bothexplanations are good, which is typcial of mythical thinking. The imageis a mythical medium. And it is so by its very structure. Now, this ( ) iswhat I would call an image. But there are two types of images, if youlook at the structure of the image. One is a solid surface. Even if under analysis it may be shown that an image, like any other object, iscomposed of particles. This is only a theoretical explanation of theimage. In fact, traditional images are considered to be solid surfaces.They are visions, two-dimensional visions of the four-dimensionalworld in which we live. Thus, that imagination may be referred to as a
7/27/2019 Flusser Interview
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/flusser-interview 2/6
7/27/2019 Flusser Interview
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/flusser-interview 3/6
7/27/2019 Flusser Interview
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/flusser-interview 4/6
After having read some of your books, and hearing your recentlecture, I have a very strange impression, about which you havenot spoken much: sometimes you conclude your discourse withthe question of death. And I feel that all your hypotheses, and
your whole way of thinking, starts from a basic point which iswriting and image, or rather the word and the image – and it has avery strange link with the Bible. In fact, not only the Bible itself,but the topic of the prohibition of images, which was declared byMoses in Genesis... And so I wonder whether or not mysupposition is true... Vilém Flusser: My feeling is that the basicdifference between Judaism and Christianity is not the fact that for theChristians, the Messiah has already arrived, and for the Jews, he willcome; this is a rather uninteresting question for me, but thefundamental thing is that for the Christians, there is something in man:
a spirit, a soul, or whatever you want to call it – which will survivedeath. And for the Jews, the thing is much more immaterial. The ideais that we shall survive in the memory of others. Now, if my reading iscorrect, and it may not be, because Christianity has of course beatenback on Judaism, and there are many Jews who are Jews and stillbelieve in the soul and in the immortality of the soul, but I do not thinkthat’s so Jewish. I think the fundamental Jewish idea is that myimmortality depends on the other person, that it is the other personwho is responsible for my immortality, and I am responsible for his.This may be why Jews say of a dead person: "Let his memory be ablessing." Which may mean: "I am responsible for him."... May I continue to be a Jew for this interview – something which isnot usual for me? I don’t use my Judaism very often – but you provokeme.
Allow me to say that there is a prohibition of image for the followingreason: The idea of Judaism is that God is completely different. Totallydifferent! (Hebrew text) Which means that you cannot conceive of Himand you cannot imagine Him. It is completely unthinkable andunimaginable, and therefore theology is not possible; you cannot
speak about God, but only to God. Now, if that is a fact, there is onlyone image -- which is the face of the other person. Because God mademan in His image. And the only way I can imagine God is to look at theother person. This is to say that only through the love of my neighbour can I love God. So, if the image of the only permitted image is theimage – is the face we’re given. That synthetic image – computer-image -- is the other person. Because through the computer-image, Icna talk to the other person: he sends me an image, I work on it andsend it back to him – so this is the Jewish image. This is not an idol.This is not paganism. It is a way to love my neighbour, and by lovingmy neighbour, to love God. I am not a good Talmudist, but I would say
7/27/2019 Flusser Interview
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/flusser-interview 5/6
that from a Talmud point of view, the synthetic computer-image isperfectly Jewish.Perhaps this will sound like a joke, but I would like to ask, if we donot mention the name of the God, is there any solution – a verbal
solution, a synthetic solution...?Vilém Flusser: The name of God cannot be pronounced – and again, Iam interpreting in Judaism, and I do not know whether I am right – thename of God cannot be pronounced, not for any medical reason, butbecause the word "Jehovah," J.H.V.H., is un portemanteau of three(Hebrew) words: I was, I am, I shall be. Now, you cannot pronouncethese three words in one. This is why you cannot pronounce"Jehovah." But it just means he who was, is and will be. There’snothing mystical about it – it’s un portemanteau....You will find it in none of my books, but in the back of my head, there
is this idea. So far, we have felt subjects of objects, and especiallysubjects to God. And now, with the new techniques, we can projectourselves. And project ourselves in the face of God. I would say thatprojective – I would rather explain that better, but we don’t have thetime – the idea is that we have, we ourselves, gone back from God –the whole existence of mankind is a step, a stepping back from God.First we have left a four-dimensional Lebenswelt, and we stepped intoculture, which produces manufactured objects in three-dimensions.Then we stepped back into the imagination, to make images of objects.Then we stepped back from imagination into contextual texts, and textsare to images what images are to objects. Then we stepped back fromdescription and culture and conception into calculation. Into zero-dimension. And I think that numbers are to texts what texts are toimages, and what images are to objects. So that we have come toabsolute abstraction: nothing is describable any longer, nothing isconcept, cna be conceptive, nothing can be imagined. And now we cantake the numbers, we can take the bytes, and we can compute themand project them back and make alternative roads. And in this way, our opposition to the face of God changes. We are no longer subjects of
God – we are projects for God....But as I get old, and as I reflect on all these problems that we call theinformation revolution, the more I am reminded of my roots, which Ihave completely forgotten.
Intersubjectivity: media metaphors, play & provocationAdvisory Committee:László Beke, director, Mûcsarnok;Wolfgang Meissner, director, Goethe-Institut Budapest;Matthias Müller-Wieferig, Goethe-Institut Budapest;Miklós Peternák , chair of the board, C3;Zoltán Sebôk, theoretician; J.A.Tillmann, theoretician;Organizers:Suzanne Mészöly, program director C3
Ágnes Veronika Kovács , program coordinator C3Adele Eisenstein, program coordinátor C3
7/27/2019 Flusser Interview
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/flusser-interview 6/6
See the Goethe-Institute Budapest website on the Flusser Symposium: http://www.goethe.de/ms/bud/depsymp.htm
![a word about design - vilem flusser [final]](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/568c0f1c1a28ab955a92ec3d/a-word-about-design-vilem-flusser-final.jpg)
![,ilUl[[tlru[[[ilil tllfiftuÍ[ - theorytuesdays.comtheorytuesdays.com/.../01/Vampyroteuthis-Infernalis-Flusser-Bec.pdf · Flusser, Vilém, rgzo-r99r. lVampyroteuthis infernalis. English]](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5c419f7893f3c338be303175/ilultlruilil-tllfiftui-flusser-vilem-rgzo-r99r-lvampyroteuthis.jpg)
