Cover not available
Part of
Operationalizing Iconicity
Edited by Pamela Perniss, Olga Fischer and Christina Ljungberg
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 17] 2020
► pp. 231–244

In the kingdom of shadows

Towards a cognitive definition of photographic media

| Dublin Business School
The essay identifies some of the cognitive processes underlying the appeal of photography and film. Unlike painting or drawing, the photographic media are primarily indexical, with the implied physical connection between object and image. Like painting however, photographic media are also iconic, in the sense of perceived resemblance between object and its representation. Also, the restricted angle of vision caused by the photographic/cinematic frame privileges the observer, creating composition and semantic tensions between objects within the frame. These properties of the photographic media are cognitively supported by human instinctive alertness to indexical signs and moving objects, by the assumption of identity between objects that happen to be similar, and by innate preferences for viewpoints that allow the observer the advantage of seeing without being seen. It is the evolutionary stability of these cognitive dispositions that gives photography and film their universal appeal.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Shadows on the screen
  • 3.The indexicality of photographic media
  • 4.Animated photography
  • 5.The iconicity of photographic media
  • 6.The photographic frame
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.17.14sad
References (30)
References
Alberti, L. B. 1956. On Painting, trans. J. R. Spencer. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. A. 1998. A Grammar of Iconism. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
Arnheim, R. 1960. Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
1982. The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bazin, A. 2005. Cinematic realism. In The Philosophy of Film: Introductory Text and Readings, T. E. Wartenberg and A. Curran (eds), 59–69. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Briggs, A. and Burke, P. 2005. A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, N. 1995. Towards an ontology of the moving image. In Philosophy and Film, C. A. Freeland and T. E. Wartenberg (eds), 68–88. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dutton, D. 2009. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frazer, J. 2002 [1922]. The Golden Bough: A Study in Religion and Magic. Mineola, NY: Dover Publication.Google Scholar
Gaut, B. 2010. A Philosophy of Cinematic Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gombrich, E. H. 1995. Shadows. The Depiction of Cast Shadows in Western Art. London: National Gallery.Google Scholar
Goudge, T. A. 1965. Peirce’s index. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 1(2): 52–70.Google Scholar
Harding, C. and Popple, S. 1996. In the Kingdom of Shadows: A Companion to Early Cinema. London: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
Homer. 1980. The Odyssey, trans. W. Shewring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jappy, T. 2013. Introduction to Peircean Visual Semiotics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Jarvie, I. 1987. Philosophy of the Film: Epistemology, Ontology, Aesthetics. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. 1992. Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. In The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (eds), 581–598. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Orians, G. H., and Heerwagen, J. H. 1992. Evolved responses to landscapes. In The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (eds), 555–579. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ovid. 2002. Metamorphoses, trans. A. Golding. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1998. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds). Vol. II. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, F. R. and Rogers, M. A. 1986. Painting and Poetry: Form, Metaphor, and the Language of Literature. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
2018. The Semiotics of Light and Shadows: Modern Visual Arts and Weimar Cinema. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Schiffman, H. R. 1996. Sensation and Perception: An Integrated Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Solso, R. L. 1997. Cognition and the Visual Arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sontag, S. 1978. On Photography. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Stoichita, V. I. 1997. A Short History of the Shadow. London: Reaktion.Google Scholar
Thompson, K, and Bordwell, D. 2003. Film History: An Introduction. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Trachtenberg, A. (ed). 1980. Classic Essays on Photography. New Haven, CT: Leete’s Island Books.Google Scholar
Walton, K. L. 2005. Film, photography, and transparency. In The Philosophy of Film: Introductory Text and Readings, T. E. Wartenberg and A. Curran (eds), 70–76. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar