The ERC project FRAGILE IMAGES (Grant no. 101141247) invites to challenge the dominant notion of understanding images as powerful actor s. Moving away from the prevalent focus on affective\, persuasive\, and i mmersive images\, this project foregrounds the temporal instability\, sema ntic ambiguity\, and ontological self-reflexivity of images. Starting from the gaze as a mediator between image and viewer\, between activity and pa ssivity\, between power and weakness\, the project proposes to intertwine a praxeology of showing with a praxeology of viewing. This radically new a pproach brings together perspectives from Visual Studies and cultural hist ory and applies them to Roman imagery from the 2nd \;century BC to the 4th \;century AD. On the basis of archaeological and written evidence from this period\, ‘fragility’ is explored as a pictorial quality.
\nIn collaboration with eikones - Institute for the Theory and History of the Image - this workshop situates these concepts within a broader fra mework. In three days\, we will test\, refine\, and expand the potential o f “fragility” as an image-theoretical concept by deliberately juxtapos ing contributions on Roman imagery with studies focusing on other historic al periods\, geographical areas\, and disciplinary backgrounds. \;
\n\n\n DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260917 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:news351@eikones.philhist.unibas.ch DTSTAMP;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260826T164645 DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260915T181500 SUMMARY:Naturalism and Camouflage DESCRIPTION:Many Greco-Roman anecdotes about encounters between images and their viewers explore the deceptive powers of naturalism. In Pliny’s fam ous account of the contest between Zeuxis and Parrhasius\, birds attempt t o peck at Zeuxis’s painted grapes\, mistaking the image for what it repr esents (Natural History 35.65-66). This moment of ontological oscillation \, in which the perceived distinction between representation and reality c ollapses\, is usually understood as a demonstration of the painter’s vir tuosity. Yet the anecdote also presupposes that animals possess the percep tual and semiotic capacities required to be deceived by an image.\\r\\nAni mals\, however\, are themselves producers of visual deception. Like the pa inted grapes\, an octopus camouflaging itself as its surroundings presents itself as something it is not. Ancient zoological texts frequently remark upon this capacity\, while vase paintings and mosaics turn animal camoufl age into an object of representation. Read in this context\, Pliny’s ane cdote suggests a continuity between animal and human practices of image-ma king and viewing.\\r\\nAn ethological perspective also complicates convent ional accounts of naturalism. Visual deception does not necessarily lead v iewers to recognize and admire pictorial illusion\, as in trompe-l’œil painting. Modelled on animal camouflage\, it may instead hold the viewer w ithin a state of perceptual ambiguity. Such deception is more than a repre sentational phenomenon: it is a form of adaptive and social behaviour\, em bedded in interactions between agents and observers and\, in the animal wo rld\, directed towards survival.\\r\\nThis lecture therefore considers hum an and animal image-making as part of a spectrum of mimetic behaviour grou nded in perceptual and cognitive capacities shared across species. Buildin g on Philippe Descola’s anthropological account of early modern naturali st painting\, it proposes an ethological foundation for naturalism in the arts.\\r\\nThis public keynote lecture is part of the workshop “Fragile Images [https://eikones.philhist.unibas.ch/en/news/events/event-details/fr agile-images-conceptions-and-configurations-of-the-image/]: Conceptions an d Configurations of the Image”. For the full program\, see here [t3://fi le?uid=750]. X-ALT-DESC:Many Greco-Roman anecdotes about encounters between images an d their viewers explore the deceptive powers of naturalism. In Pliny’s f amous account of the contest between Zeuxis and Parrhasius\, birds attempt to peck at Zeuxis’s painted grapes\, mistaking the image for what it re presents (Natural History \;35.65-66). This moment of ontologic al oscillation\, in which the perceived distinction between representation and reality collapses\, is usually understood as a demonstration of the p ainter’s virtuosity. Yet the anecdote also presupposes that animals poss ess the perceptual and semiotic capacities required to be deceived by an i mage.
\nAnimals\, however\, are themselves producers of visual decep tion. Like the painted grapes\, an octopus camouflaging itself as its surr oundings presents itself as something it is not. Ancient zoological texts frequently remark upon this capacity\, while vase paintings and mosaics tu rn animal camouflage into an object of representation. Read in this contex t\, Pliny’s anecdote suggests a continuity between animal and human prac tices of image-making and viewing.
\nAn ethological perspective also complicates conventional accounts of naturalism. Visual deception does no t necessarily lead viewers to recognize and admire pictorial illusion\, as in trompe-l’œil painting. Modelled on animal camouflage\, it may inste ad hold the viewer within a state of perceptual ambiguity. Such deception is more than a representational phenomenon: it is a form of adaptive and s ocial behaviour\, embedded in interactions between agents and observers an d\, in the animal world\, directed towards survival.
\nThis lecture therefore considers human and animal image-making as part of a spectrum of mimetic behaviour grounded in perceptual and cognitive capacities shared across species. Building on Philippe Descola’s anthropological account o f early modern naturalist painting\, it proposes an ethological foundation for naturalism in the arts.
\nThis public keynote lecture is part o f the workshop “Fragile Images: Conceptions and Configurations of the Image”. Fo r the full program\, see here. \;
\ n\n DTEND;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260915T193000 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:news357@eikones.philhist.unibas.ch DTSTAMP;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260905T091006 DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260916T181500 SUMMARY:What We See Looks Back at Us: Gaze Relations in Pompeian Wall Paint ing DESCRIPTION:What role do gazes play in the relation between image and viewe r? Drawing on Ovid’s Narcissus and selected Pompeian wall paintings\, th is lecture explores how pictured figures direct\, return\, evade\, or susp end the viewer’s gaze. \\r\\nThe case of Mars and Venus demonstrates t hat gaze\, bodily posture\, and facial expression do not necessarily produ ce a coherent emotional narrative. Rather\, they create ambiguities and i nterpretative gaps that activate the viewer’s own judgement. Looking at images thus emerges as an unstable relation between seeing\, being seen\ , and being addressed—one shaped not only by the image itself\, but also by its spatial and cultural setting. X-ALT-DESC:What role do gazes play in the relation between image and vie wer? Drawing on Ovid’s Narcissus and selected Pompeian wall paintings\, this lecture explores how pictured figures direct\, return\, evade\, or su spend \;the viewer’s gaze. \;
\nThe case of Mars and Venus demonstrates that gaze\, bodily posture\, and facial expression do not ne cessarily produce a \;coherent emotional narrative. Rather\, they crea te ambiguities and interpretative gaps that activate the viewer’s own ju dgement. Looking at \;images thus emerges as an unstable relation betw een seeing\, being seen\, and being addressed—one shaped not only by the image itself\, but also by its spatial and cultural setting.
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260916T193000 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:news352@eikones.philhist.unibas.ch DTSTAMP;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260910T210053 DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260928T181500 SUMMARY:Ecological Encounters: Skin\, Cognition and Technology DESCRIPTION:Human skin delineates the outer appearance of the individual\, separating the body from its surroundings. In cultural and literary discou rse\, the modern individual is defined by its demarcation of self and non- self. Contemporary philosophy and theories of mind\, by contrast\, have re cently introduced the term “skin bag” to critique the confinement of h umans to their body proper. They argue that the human mind\, especially\, extends naturally to include artificial technologies. While both positions may propagate different visions of human nature (and its future)\, they s hare a common misconception of the skin. Neither a boundary walling off th e organism from its environments\, nor an interface for technological appe ndices\, the skin is a living\, ecological host\, enabling life by sustain ing the life of other organisms\, and weaving the individual into the coll ective.\\r\\nIn my lecture\, I will discuss contemporary insights of micro biome research into the vulnerable surfaces of our bodies\, how inside and outside become convoluted\, and how the ecological conception of skin tra nsforms dualist imaginaries of mind and body\, nature and culture\, indivi dual and collective. X-ALT-DESC:Human skin delineates the outer appearance of the individual\ , separating the body from its surroundings. In cultural and literary disc ourse\, the modern individual is defined by its demarcation of self and no n-self. Contemporary philosophy and theories of mind\, by contrast\, have recently introduced the term “skin bag” to critique the confinement of humans to their body proper. They argue that the human mind\, especially\ , extends naturally to include artificial technologies. While both positio ns may propagate different visions of human nature (and its future)\, they share a common misconception of the skin. Neither a boundary walling off the organism from its environments\, nor an interface for technological ap pendices\, the skin is a living\, ecological host\, enabling life by susta ining the life of other organisms\, and weaving the individual into the co llective.
\nIn my lecture\, I will discuss contemporary insights of microbiome research into the vulnerable surfaces of our bodies\, how insid e and outside become convoluted\, and how the ecological conception of ski n transforms dualist imaginaries of mind and body\, nature and culture\, i ndividual and collective.
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260928T200000 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:news350@eikones.philhist.unibas.ch DTSTAMP;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260910T165321 DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20261002 SUMMARY:Ecologies of Mind in the Cold War DESCRIPTION:Amid today’s geopolitical turmoil\, armed violence\, and info rmation warfare\, parallels could be drawn to the charged global tension a nd ideological polarization of the Cold War. Since the advent of the nucle ar age\, militarized nationalist and (neo-)colonial regimes have rarely re lied on ideological agitation alone. Rather\, they are characterized by th e use of data processing and communication technologies for mobilizing\, e xtracting\, analyzing\, and manipulating information and collective affect s: a form of subjectivation dependent on complex media environments that a re neither exclusively civil or military\, commercial or public\, epistemi c or governmental. This interdisciplinary conference seeks to explore such “ecologies of mind” and their shaping of the psychologized self durin g the Cold War. \\r\\nResponding to the moment of charged geopolitical te nsions\, ideological polarization\, and technocratic rationalities\, psych ologist and anthropologist Gregory Bateson coined the notion of “ecology of mind” to account for a distributed subjectivity that resists a mecha nistic understanding. Drawing on the transdisciplinary language of cyberne tics\, as well as from anthropology\, psychology\, evolutionary biology\, and information theory\, Bateson described cognitive and psychic processes as embedded within—and in constant feedback with —the broader social systems of information exchange. In his 1972 anthology Steps to an Ecolog y of Mind\, he remarked:\\r\\n“Freudian psychology expanded the concept of mind inwards to include the whole communication system within the body —the automatic\, the habitual\, and the vast range of unconscious proces s. What I am saying expands mind outwards. And both of these changes reduc e the scope of the conscious self.”\\r\\nAccording to this vision\, the organic and inorganic worlds\, the tangible and the discursive\, the socia l and the political\, as well as the technological and the aesthetic const itute an environment intertwined with the self that expands the mind and d ecenters the subject. This recursive epistemology foregrounds context inst ead of atomization\, feedback instead of linear causalities.\\r\\nUpsettin g the limited focus on Bateson’s immediate sphere of activity\, we welco me research on parallel and intersecting projects across disciplines and p olitical boundaries that share a common orientation toward the subjectivit y as distributed\, relational\, and ecological. Rather than casting Bateso n as an anomaly within Cold War rationality\, this conference asks how his ecological approach was itself situated within a broader discursive\, pol itical\, social\, and techno-scientific environments. In this way\, it inv ites to decenter Bateson’s inquiry through various related and simultane ous investigations into the environments of the self––namely\, the eco logies of mind––in the Cold War.\\r\\nSpeakers:Ole Bogner\, David Buch eli\, Orit Halpern\, Ute Holl\, Olexii Kuchanskyi\, Occitane Lacurie\, Svi tlana Matviyenko\, Marie Rebecchi\, Magnus Rust\, Kamila Smagulova\, Elena Vogman.\\r\\nProgram and abstracts here [t3://file?uid=765]. X-ALT-DESC:Amid today’s geopolitical turmoil\, armed violenc e\, and information warfare\, parallels could be drawn to the charged glob al tension and ideological polarization of the Cold War. Since the advent of the nuclear age\, militarized nationalist and (neo-)colonial regimes ha ve rarely relied on ideological agitation alone. Rather\, they are charact erized by the use of data processing and communication technologies for mo bilizing\, extracting\, analyzing\, and manipulating information and colle ctive affects: a form of subjectivation dependent on complex media environ ments that are neither exclusively civil or military\, commercial or publi c\, epistemic or governmental. This interdisciplinary conference seeks to explore such “ecologies of mind” and their shaping of the psychologize d self during the Cold War. \;
\nResponding to the mom ent of charged geopolitical tensions\, ideological polarization\, and tech nocratic rationalities\, psychologist and anthropologist Gregory Bateson c oined the notion of “ecology of mind” to account for a distributed sub jectivity that resists a mechanistic understanding. Drawing on the transdi sciplinary language of cybernetics\, as well as from anthropology\, psycho logy\, evolutionary biology\, and information theory\, Bateson described c ognitive and psychic processes as embedded within—and in constant feedba ck with —the broader social systems of information exchange. In his 1972 anthology \;Steps to an Ecology of Mind\, he remarked:
\n“Freudian psychology expanded the concept of mind inwards to include the whole communication system within the body—the automatic\ , the habitual\, and the vast range of unconscious process. What I am sayi ng expands mind outwards. And both of these changes reduce the scope of th e conscious self.”
\nAccording to this vision\, the organic and inorganic worlds\, the tangible and the discursive\, the socia l and the political\, as well as the technological and the aesthetic const itute an environment intertwined with the self that expands the mind and d ecenters the subject. This recursive epistemology foregrounds context inst ead of atomization\, feedback instead of linear causalities.
\nUpsetting the limited focus on Bateson’s immediate sphere of activi ty\, we welcome research on parallel and intersecting projects across disc iplines and political boundaries that share a common orientation toward th e subjectivity as distributed\, relational\, and ecological. Rather than c asting Bateson as an anomaly within Cold War rationality\, this conference asks how his ecological approach was itself situated within a broader dis cursive\, political\, social\, and techno-scientific environments. In this way\, it invites to decenter Bateson’s inquiry through various related and simultaneous investigations into the environments of the self––nam ely\, the ecologies of mind––in the Cold War.
\nSpeake
rs:
Ole Bogner\, David Bucheli\, Orit Halpern\, Ute Holl\, Olexii Kuc
hanskyi\, Occitane Lacurie\, Svitlana Matviyenko\, Marie Rebecchi\, Magnus
Rust\, Kamila Smagulova\, Elena Vogman.
Program and abs tracts here.
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20261003 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR