Evinson Williams, Katryn

Soto Calderón, Andrea

Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert

 9 
 
// DISPLACEMENTS IN THE CONCEPT OF REPRESENTATION 
INTERVIEW WITH HANS BELTING // 
---------------------------------------------------- 
 
ANDREA SOTO CALDERÓN 
UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA, SPAIN 
andreasotocalderon@gmail.com 
 
KATRYN EVINSON WILLIAMS  
UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA, SPAIN 
katrynevinson@gmail.com 
 
 
/// 
KEYWORDS: Image, representation, anthropophagy, Rancière, Flusser, body, medium. 
/// 
 
Hans Belting is an acclaimed German art historian with extensive work centered 
on reconsidering the history of art as an anthropology of the image, while thinking the 
historiographical foundation of art in addition to its methodological approach. Thus 
following the critique of representation, his attempt consists of redefining the image, 
without abandoning the concept of representation, in order to explore the displacements 
that take place within it, while opening the question to multiple perspectives. In this 
regard, Belting‟s reflection understands representation necessarily in connection with 
human existence. Therefore, his particular approach to this matter contributes great 
novelty –insofar as he takes a stance from the majority of the contemporary discourses 
concerned with the analysis of images- since from an anthropological perspective, the 
human being could not be the possessor of its own images. On the contrary, the human 
existence would actually be `the place´ of images. Nonetheless, this would not assign a 
passive role to human existence in relation to the image; in Didi-Huberman‟s words: 
“The act of seeing opens us to a void that looks at us, which concerns us, which 
constitutes us”. 
Hans Belting is a member of the Medieval Academy of the United States of 
America, the American Academy for Arts & Sciences and of the Sciences Academy of 
ISSN 2013-7761 PRIMAVERA 14
REVISTA FORMA VOL 09
ANDREA SOTO | KATRYN EVINSON
ISSN 2013-7761 PRIMAVERA 14
REVISTA FORMA VOL 09
 10 
Berlin (Wissenschaftskolleg). He has been a professor at the University of Hamburg, the 
University of Heidelberg, the University of Munich, Harvard University and Columbia 
University.  
This present interview took place in Barcelona, Spain. Hans Belting was invited 
to deliver the inaugural speech for the opening of the academic course titled: “Migration 
of Images, Aby Warburg reconsidered” at Pompeu Fabra University (UPF).   
 
 
Dispositive of visibility 
 
Andrea Soto Calderón & Katryn Evinson Williams: While contemporary 
discourses assert the `failure of images´, you maintain that images only fail when 
no analogy is to be found with that which precedes them (let along that which 
relates them to the world). From this perspective, in the wake of the of 
representation, would you agree that the renowned failure of images would be 
rather that they are being judged according to a regime to which they no longer 
belong?  
 
Hans Belting: I do not assert the failure of images. This is the critique that Baudrillard 
develops in relation to the contemporary images which is due to the fact that he believes 
that there is no longer an analogy. But I disagree with this. The concept of 
representation changes over time. A common accusation that has been made about 
images is that they are external to human existence, they capture you, and they seduce 
you. For me the problem of this critique is that it understands representation from a 
very specific point of view. It is not so much that images fail to represent, as it is that 
they fail to represent in accordance with the notion of representation from which they 
are being judged.  
 
The question of representation is very extensive and complex. It is currently still an open 
discussion.  
 
S&E: In this context, your proposal of relating images to collective identities, 
meaning an image has more to it than just being a product of perception, could 
be a result of a personal or collective symbolization. Would it be right to say that 
this may be a way to re-think the idea that images are not only a technical device, 
but that they require to be considered according to the visibility mechanism that 
regulates their statute?  
 
H.B: Yes. I would say it is the latter. Which of my publications are you referring to 
exactly?  
 
S&E: An Anthropology of Images: Picture, Medium, Body [Bild-Anthropologie: 
Entwürfe für eine Bildwissenschaft, Múnich, Fink, 2001] 
 
H.B: In this text, what I formulate is an idea of coordination between body, image and 
medium (it is important to clarify that I consider the body to be a medium). However, 
DISPLACEMENTS IN THE CONCEPT OF REPRESENTATION
ISSN 2013-7761 PRIMAVERA 14
REVISTA FORMA VOL 09
 11 
this relationship is in constant change. When the technical media comes into play this 
relation becomes dynamic. In this sense, I would never respond to the question “what is 
an image??” I reject this question. I can talk about the image in its context relating to the 
body or to the medium. It is a triangle. In the classes I instructed at the Collège de 
France ten years ago I introduced a fourth factor which I called the “gaze”. The gaze 
would be the relationship between the body, the medium and the image. The image is 
always in this circulation and therefore not definable on its own. That is what I wanted 
to say before.   
 
S&E: You maintain that the anthropological perspective centers its attention in 
the praxis of the image. This perspective entails a different understanding of the 
techniques of the image and the history behind them. That which subjects our 
perception to a form is determined by an era, a time. Precisely that circumstance 
is the point where you introduce the participation of the `medial´ focus of 
images. In this sense, which do you think is the praxis of the contemporary 
image? And what would be its main structural feature that could outline its 
specificity? 
 
H.B: The obvious answer is digital media. But I do not think this is a very convincing 
one, since from my perspective digital media is only at one of many stages of the 
technical change of images. For me the important question is whether the history of 
images continues into the digital era or whether there is a rupture. I personally decided 
against rupture. But some writers are in favor of the rupture. That is one of the reasons 
why I could not include digital media in Anthropology of Images.  
 
S&E: In the discussion you maintain with Peter Weibel, you prefer to address the 
issue of the physics of the images in opposition to a metaphysics of the images. 
Would this distinction follow the lines of the critique you formulate on 
philosophical aesthetics, in the sense that it carries out an abstraction of images 
and disregards the discussion about the “media”, as if these two components 
could be dissociated. Would you be so kind to further elaborate on this issue? 
 
H.B: For me the difference between physics and metaphysics does not exist. Because 
metaphysical ideas can be bound in physical images, the physicality of images, per se, has 
no existence. Images need to be physical in order to be visible for human existence. Of 
course I am considering „physical‟ in a very wide sense. In the digital era images are not 
very physical but they are physical insofar as they are technical. Therefore the physicality 
is a characteristic of images, which does not imply –from what I understand- anything 
about its metaphysics. In any case, they are always physical inasmuch as they exist. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
Iconography & Fear  
 
S&E: Would you be so kind to share your opinion with us in regards to the 
perception that your work has had in Brazil? Especially what Norval Baitello 
Junior has dealt with in his book The Age of Iconography and the question on 
the relation among iconography and fear –to devour images while being 
devoured by images at once–? 
 
H.B: You are referring to the notion of anthropophagy?  
 
S&E: Yes  
 
H.B: Yes, I know him very well.  This is very Brazilian way of… I have no problem 
with that. It is interesting to use different languages. For example I would never use the 
term “to devour” or “to be devoured”. But I perfectly understand what Norval Baitello 
Junior means. That is interesting to me. He uses a different language associated to a 
different culture but, still, I understand what he is talking about. Although he is 
positioning himself in a Brazilian tradition whereas I am not forced to do so because I 
do not intend my concerns to be applicable to other contexts.  
 
Intersections 
 
S&E: The intellectual climate tends to think the relation between human 
existence and technology in a relation of opposition. In your work, you 
demonstrate that technology is part of the inner constitution of human kind, 
insofar as we are the ones who construct the technical devices and our technical 
knowledge. This process takes place regardless of a previous form –which would 
involve a determined intention to achieve an explicit result–. Furthermore, it is a 
process in which both parts are reciprocally influenced; it is a product of a 
relation that operates through the available potentialities. From this perspective, 
there is a philosopher you make reference to, Vilém Flusser. The relation seems 
obvious since your theoretical reflections are focused on the technical image and 
its respective function in the post-industrial society, the devices, and the cultural 
means of communication. More specifically, how do the communicatory vehicles 
introduce changes in the cultural and social domain? Especially considering 
their anticipatory capacity in regards to the complexity the new media and the 
revolution represent in terms of the significance of the first images ever created. 
However, it seems to us that your theoretical approach in regards to the fear 
associated with the totalitarian risk that devices may imply is grounded on the 
fact that they are conceived in a very unequal struggle against men.  
 
H.B: For me there is no clear-cut opposition between technology and human existence. 
However, if men invent images as power tools, the result can easily be that men end up 
being dominated by them -even when that was not an intended outcome-. See, for me 
Flusser postulates very vast ideas, which I think are not historical. He is thinking in 
terms of rupture and opposition between technology and human existence and I do not 
ANDREA SOTO | KATRYN EVINSON
ISSN 2013-7761 PRIMAVERA 14
REVISTA FORMA VOL 09
 13 
share this. I think there is no war. There is history. But these formulations are not new 
in the history of images. They have actually been a constant problem.  
I do not share the reception that has related me to the tradition of this 
opposition. I take a stance for the idea of a relation between human existence and 
technology.  
I met Flusser very few times in my life but we always reached harsh discussions. 
We did not easily talk about these issues because… how should I say this? … I guess he 
was too political, and I am more historical.  
In Anthropology of Images I establish a relation between body and medium 
considering the body as a living medium.  In this sense I think that without first having 
the notion of the body as medium, no other media can be invented. Artifacts are 
extended tools of the body. Regardless of the terms in which they are considered, their 
purpose was always to be extended tools of the body. Of course there is an iconic 
difference, but in Anthropology of Images I was interested in the relation of what the 
English call images as opposed to what they call pictures; between mental images and 
material images. W.J.T. Mitchell wrote a passage about Anthropology of Images where he 
points out that this difference is a distinctive trait in my book. And I reject that 
interpretation because I deny such a clear-cut between mental and material. In German 
we can always use “blind” for both image and picture, while the English are very 
pragmatic and therefore distinguish between pictures and images, which I think is very 
good.  
In my book Florence and Baghdad: Renaissance Art and Arab Science (2011), I discuss 
the Arabic postulation that affirms images are only in the brain; that images cannot be 
material. This is a very interesting position that is not true, of course, but then for their 
culture it is true. There are no pictures in Arab society, yet images do exist.  
 
S&E: Within the framework of the discussion in regards to the medium, you 
seem to resist addressing the question of materiality when searching for new 
conceptual content in support of the creation of images? 
 
H.B: No. I do not resist addressing the question of materiality. In my work I develop a 
very important notion that has been present from the Stone Age until present day: 
medium. Everything is technology, materiality.  
 
S&E: Lastly, are you familiar with Rancière’s conceptualization of the image?  
 
H.B: Yes, I had discussions with him that were useless for me. Rancière is very rigid. He 
compartmentalizes everything. I believe philosophers tend to make this mistake. They 
fall constantly into abstractions. I think everything is more fluid.   
 
S&E: We disagree. We think Rancière is not rigid. In fact he dialogues –for 
example– with the field of cultural studies, visual studies, as well as many artists, 
and among other disciplines in general. Rancière –while not in a systemic 
fashion– attributes a special emphasis to materiality in his reflections on images. 
While doing so, he questions the traditional understanding of the concept of 
materiality. The specific feature of this materiality to which Rancière refers, is 
DISPLACEMENTS IN THE CONCEPT OF REPRESENTATION
ISSN 2013-7761 PRIMAVERA 14
REVISTA FORMA VOL 09
 14 
that human existence is not facing the imposition of the action of thought 
against the passivity of material –this mindset would correspond to the 
representative regime–. On the contrary, the `details´ would be that non-index 
trace –which is not the mark or sign of thought inscribed in the bodies–, but 
rather the way in which thought both unfolds and articulates itself on the basis of 
this materiality. To express this deployment of thought from the materiality of an 
image of Rancière you pick the expression: `thoughtful images´. In this sense, 
considering that we are not dealing with the notion of materiality in terms of the 
traditional opposition material-form, do you think that this position could be 
close to your conceptualization of “medium”, especially in regards to your 
reflections against the discourses asserting the increasing disembodiment of the 
image (to which you argue we are facing a new type of corporeal experience)? 
 
H.B: No. Images cannot think. For me the progressive loss of the corporality of images 
is a minor matter. In order for images to be visible, they need to be physical. There is no 
way out.  For me the varying degree of physicality is not important. For me what is most 
important is the relation between “making them visible”, and “what is made visible”. 
Iconoclasts destroy media, but the images in people‟s heads continue. I prefer complex 
ideas not simplistic formulations.  
 
S&E: Thank you very much for your time.  
 
H.B: Thank you for your questions, I think I need to reflect on them because they 
arouse very complex matters.  
 
 
///BIBLIOGRAPHY/// 
 
BELTING, H. An Anthropology of Images: Picture, Medium, Body. Princeton: Princeton 
University Press, 2011; Bild-Anthropologie: Entwürfe für eine Bildwissenschaft. Múnich, 
Fink, 2001. 
BELTING, H. Florence and Baghdad: Renaissance Art and Arab Science. Cambridge: Belknap 
Press of Harvard University Press, 2011; Florenz und Bagdad. Eine westöstliche 
Geschichte des Blicks. Múnich: C. H. Beck, 2008. 
BAITELLO, N. La Era de la Iconofagia. Sevilla: Arcibeles, 2008; A Era da Iconofagia. Esaios de 
Comunicação e Cultura. São Paulo: Hacker Editores, 2006. 
 
 
 
ANDREA SOTO | KATRYN EVINSON
ISSN 2013-7761 PRIMAVERA 14
REVISTA FORMA VOL 09


Displacements in the concept of representation. Interview with Hans Belting

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert