Сетевая библиотекаСетевая библиотека

Mersmann DRifts between Visual Culture and image culture

Дата публикации: 20.11.2018
Тип: Текстовые документы PDF
Размер: 230 Кбайт
Идентификатор документа: -170365272_482731443
Файлы этого типа можно открыть с помощью программы:
1. Adobe Acrobat Reader DC - это «стандартная» программа для открытия PDF файлов загрузить с https://get.adobe.com/reader/
2. PDFMaster - Хорошая программа для PDF и других форматов:FB2, EPUB, CHM, DJVU загрузить с https://pdfmaster.ru
Для скачивания файла Вам необходимо подтвердить, что Вы не робот

Предпросмотр документа

Не то что нужно?

Вернуться к поиску
Содержание документа
D/Rifts between Visual Culture onal Study of the Visual Was it just a coincidence when, in independent publications of the year 1994, two visual turns, the iconic turn in Germany and the pictorial turn in the U.S., were concurrently announced? Did this historical synchronicity mark the be-ginning of a new era of transatlantic, even transnational, studies of the visual? Or was it the re-emergence and revaluation of the image that has given way to the transnationalization of the study of culture, which is a more global research perspective? Twenty years after the proclamation of the iconic/pictorial turn, the impact on academia, its research agendas, and institutional frameworks has become perceptible. As an integrative part of a broader cultural turn, the iconic/pictorial turn has not only affected (and infected) the humanities and social sciences but also the natural and technical sciences. For the first time in history, a transna-tional and transdisciplinary study of the visual appears on the horizon, arous-ing great expectations but also confronting us with unforeseen challenges and obstacles. However, as transnational as the cultural study of the visual might look, and as identical (or basically interchangeable) as the iconic and pictorial turn seem to be in their general orientation of expressing the cultural and socie-tal (need to) turn towards images, they stand for different historical and aca-demic traditions, methodological approaches, disciplinary discourses and insti-tutional practices in the treatment of the visual. In the German-speaking aca- In his article Die Wiederkehr der Bilder,Ž the German art historian and philosopher Gottfried Boehm coined the formula of the iconic turn. It was identified as an epochal en-trance of the image as an autonomous, substantial instance into the very core of hermeneutics and philosophizingŽ (Bredekamp 2004: 16). At the same time, W.J.T. Mitchell, a trained literary historian who had just entered the art-historical department at the University of Chicago, observed a pictorial turnwithin the humanities and started to confront this new phenomenon with the conceptual design of a picture theory. The wording study of the visual is used here as the most neutral and general term to ex-press the cultural study of images, vision, and visuality, since the English term visual covers both the visual as picture/image and the visual as sensory modality.
 Birgit Mersmann demic community, the iconic turn has led to the formation of a relatively inde-pendent area of research defined by the term Bildwissenschaft (image studies), whereas in Anglophone academia the pictorial turn has resulted in the for-mation and institutional establishment of visual culture or visual studies. In the aftermath of the iconic/pictorial turn as a historical point of inflexion, one can observe a drift between visual studies and Bildwissenschaft, the study of visual culture(s) and the study of the image as cultural phenomenon, that has, meanwhile, caused a paradoxical split or rift constellation. On one side, visual studies, or visual culture, which originally took shape as preeminently an American movementŽ (Elkins 2003: 2), has since developed more and more into a transnational movement, conquering research agendas and academic institutions in various, albeit selected, regions of the world. By contrast, wissenschaft has developed as a primarily national, or more precisely transna-tional, German movement that has stayed mostly within the boundaries of Ger-man-speaking academia in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland … apart from some German-French and German-Italian border crossings. Another crucial difference in addition to respective national and transnational orientations lies in forms of academic institutionalization. Whereas the German-based Bildwis-senschaft has almost not been academically institutionalized at all in the form of specific study programs and/or related professorships and has remained restricted to research programs and schools, the visual studies/visual culture initiative has led to the design and implementation of new study programs at all levels (BA, MA, and PhD) and even departments on the North American conti-nent and beyond. Only one university department of Bildwissenschaften offering MA programs was established at the Donau Universität Krems in Austria, and only one Virtual Institute for Bildwissenschaft (VIB) was founded, providing an online research platform for creating a General Iconology Allgemeine Bildwissenschaft) as a new autonomous discipline. Only one institute for art history in Germany has renamed itself by adding the component of image studies: the Humboldt Universität zu Berlins art-historical institute is now called Institut für Kunst- und Bildgeschichte This non-institutionalization stands in stark contrast to the variety of introduc-tory literature on how to approach and study images that has been published (see Schulz 2005; Bruhn 2009; Probst and Klenner 2009; Frank and Lange 2010; Burda 2010; Hornuff 2012). Since 2000, the trans-North-American outreach of the visual study movement has become manifest: new academic programs (and departments) in visual studies have been implemented in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Scandinavia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Pakistan. These wanderings of the visual studies movement on the world map make very clear that the spread is dependent on existing tracks of geopolitical dissemination and influence of Anglophone (world) culture, together with English as the lingua franca.
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  The split situation between Anglophone studies of visual culture and the German-based Bildwissenschaft/en is so pronounced that it calls for a profound analysis. The examination performed here will be primarily conducted from the perspective of Bildwissenschaft. Why is it that the transnational study of visual culture has gained almost no ground in the German-speaking visual-research landscape and academic institutions? How is it that the concept (and study programs) of visual culture successfully travels to specific cultural regions and academic places but hits a functional limit when crossing the border of German academia? a German incompati-ble with Anglo-American approaches to visual culture? Is this untranslatability due to different concepts of both the idea of culture and cultural studies/Kultur-wissenschaften as (inter)disciplines? Why has Bildwissenschaft principally re-mained restricted to the scientific community of German-speaking countries and not spread internationally, apart from some exchanges with their neighbor-ing countries France and Italy? l Turn: Transatlantic The Two LettersŽ exchanged between Gottfried Boehm and W.J.T. Mitchell in 2006 in order to intellectually position the emergence of the study of images can serve as a point of access not only to discern shared views on the visual turn in general but also to gain insight into the different orientations and implications  The only institutionalized form of visual studies in Germany is the Institute for Studies in Visual Culture (ISVC) in Cologne. It was founded as a research platform in 2000 by Tom Holert and Mark Terkessidis with the goal … as stated on the German website … to document devel-opments of contemporary visual culture and promote a critical understanding of visual pro-cesses in national globalized media societies. French academia has, so far, been confronted with the same limitation: a lack of academic recognition and, as a result, a lack of institutionalization of visual culture studies. At the London conference Visual Cultural Studies in EuropeŽ (2010), which, for the first time, ex-plored the European terrain of visual culture studies, Lorrain Audric described the state of visual culture studies in France as quite a desolated landscape;Ž what she laments most is the paradox that, despite the unquestionable influence of French critical theory on the formation of Anglophone visual culture studies, the presence of visual culture studies in France re-mained marginal and their legacy stayed outside of the institutional frameworkŽ (Audric 2010). Starting in 2010, the first institutional changes can be observed in French academia: at the University of Lille, the first professorship for visual culture (Culture visuelle) was established.
 Birgit Mersmann of the pictorial and iconic turn, as related to the study domains of visual culture Bildwissenschaft. As personal as the correspondence between Boehm and Mitchell had been, it has nonetheless reached representative status, reflected by the fact that the Two LettersŽ have been included in publications that seek to eld of visual studies. The comparative analysis of the iconic versus the pictorial turn will focus on the following common points of discussion: interpretation of the turn towards the visual and its relation to the linguistic turn; methodological and disciplinary approaches to the study of images; definition of the iconic and the pictorial; critical dimensions of the study of images; and the role of image studies as a (trans)discipline. The Turn towards the Iconic/Pictorial Boehm and Mitchell agree that the iconic/pictorial turn expresses both a con-temporary paradigm shift in the sciences and a recurrent trope. For Boehm, the iconic turn signifies a profound cultural turn in that the es upon the foundations of culture and poses quite novel demandsŽ; it implies a different mode of thinking, one that has shown itself capable of clarifying and availing itself of the long-neglected cognitive possibilities that lie in non-verbal representationsŽ (Curtis 2010: 9). Taking the iconic turn seriously as a new par-adigm of scientific thinking would mean establishing a new theory and science of images that transgresses the boundaries between the humanities and the natural sciences. For Mitchell, the significance of the pictorial turn lies in the argument that it has not only initiated a powerful account of visual representa-tion that is dictating the terms of cultural theory,Ž but that it has also become a paradigm, a kind of model or figure of other things (including figuration itself), and as an unsolved problem, perhaps even the object of its own scienceŽ (Mitchell 1994 quoted in Curtis 2010: 20). While the iconic/pictorial turn is often considered to be a novel paradigm shift within the sciences, both Boehm and Mitchell interpret it as a recurrent trope in the sense of a return of images and questions related to images. In his essay Die Wiederkehr der Bilder,Ž in which Boehm (1994) defines the iconic turn for the first time, he actually speaks of an iconic re-turn. How are we to understand this return of images? Is it related to historical paradigm shifts ac-cording to which images/image discourses have been there before, but disap- The English version of the Two LettersŽ is included in Curtis 2010; the German version is found in Belting 2007.
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  peared from view, and finally reappeared? Does it allude to the fact that images return in constantly new forms and via constantly new carrier-media? In Boehms interpretation, the return of images primarily refers to the unique phe-nomenon of images being able to change their form and content yet still remain images. This leads directly to the fundamental question Boehm poses: What and when is an image?Ž Mitchell, on the contrary, describes the popular pictorial turn as a recurrent trope. This definition is referred to as a kind of iconic panic usually accompa-nied by hand-wringing and iconoclastic gesturesŽ (Curtis 2010: 20). In general, it is argued that a pictorial turn does not necessarily depend on new technology but may also be the result of a social movement mobilized by fear of a new im-age, be it a self-image or worldview. In line with this psychological explication, he admits that there has been more than one pictorial turn in history … thus, emphasizing the socio-cultural meaning of the pictorial turn as a recurring fig-ure. The central, seemingly bizarre question Mitchell asks in search of a way to describe the pictorial turn in both cultures … intellectual high culture and popu-lar, mass-media culture … is: What do pictures want?Ž (Mitchell 2004). In com-parison to Boehms ontological question What is an image?Ž (Boehm 1994), this one seems, at first sight, to be the inverse in terms of its de-ontologizing and post-structuralist tendency. Upon closer consideration, however, this impres-sion can be corrected, due to the fact that images are attributed a life, an exist-ence, a will (to power), and a desire of their own. By enquiring into the deep-rooted fear of images as the uncanny, ungraspable Other, Mitchells pictorial-theoretical approach reveals its psychoanalytical foundation. Visual Turn(s) versus Linguistic Turn Regarding the relationship between the iconic/pictorial turn and the linguistic turn, Mitchell and Boehm agree that the iconic/pictorial turn is not just a new turn succeeding and replacing the linguistic turn: it also directly springs from the latter and is, thus, interwoven with it. Whereas Mitchell points to U.S. semi-otics and Derridas grammatology, Boehm refers to German philosophy of lan- Besides semiotics and grammatology, he also names phenomenology, Wittgensteinian philosophy of language, the Frankfurt School, with its analysis of modern mass culture, and Foucaults history and theory of power, which opened a gap between the articulatable and the visible as harbingers of the pictorial turn.
 Birgit Mersmann guage and language critique as a departure point for the pictorial/iconic turn. For Mitchell, Charles Peirces semiotic studies and Nelson Goodmans Languages of Art are agents of the pictorial turn in Anglo-American countries, as both explore the conventions and codes that underlie non-linguistic symbol systems and (more important) do not begin with the assumption that language is paradigmatic for meaningŽ (Mitchell 1994: 12). Also, Derridas Of Gramma-tology is said to have widely contributed to the revision of the phonocentric view of language and directed focus on the visibility and materiality of writing.Boehms reading of the iconic turn confirms this assumption, although his arguments are different. In his view, the linguistic turn consequently leads to the iconic turn, because investigating how much thought and knowledge de-pend on language necessarily leads to its transgression. As a result, the image grows out of and beyond language. Significantly, Boehm does not give up the concept of logos; rather, he tries to redefine it in the beyond of language as an iconic logos. The logos is increased beyond its limited verbality by the power of the iconic and, thus, transformed. Boehm, therefore, distinguishes between linguistic and iconic logos. The latter is eventually transferred to the logic of images and bound to his leading research question: How do images produce meaning? How do they generate sense? (cf. Boehm 2010). Boehms iconic criti-Bildkritik) directly emerges from language criticism (Sprachkritik as it is found in phenomenological, ontological, and language philosophy. Three philosophers are named as enactors of a criticism of language that gave way to the rise of the iconic logos: Husserl, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein, as they were among the first to locate the generation of viewing, processes of existence, and practices of language play. In addition to German (and, in part, French) philosophy, with its specifications in phenomenology, hermeneu-tics, and ontology, modern art, with its iconoclastic tendencies to undermine forms of visual representation and display image presence as a strategy of self-reflection, is seen as a trigger of an iconic turn. Language-critical philosophy  When Mitchell directly relates grammatology to iconology in his book What Do Pictures (2004) by identifyingtheir analogous motivations, he supports the view of the pictorial turn having a family resemblance, to use Wittgensteins phrase, with the linguistic turn. The turn towards the image is a consequence of the turn towards language; it adheres to the insight that [ƒ] reflection on the conditions for knowledge is an indispensable premise of any science that does not wish to subject itself to reproach a lack of intellectual rigour, e.g. to that of a naïve objectivismŽ (Boehm quoted in Curtis 2010: 10).
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  and modern art, as sources and enactors of the iconic turn, are consolidated in order to install the image as a new paradigm of thinking.Iconic versus Pictorial The introduction and definition of the iconic, including the theorems of the iconic logos and iconic difference, follows disciplinary lines and conceptual roots of the iconic turn. Boehm stresses that his conceptualization of the iconic has nothing to do with Peirces semiotic definition (Peirce 1955: 104…105). He even strictly dissociates his theorem of the iconic from any form of semiotic approach, be it U.S.-American or French, not wanting to commit images to a universal sign system. A reason why the concept of the iconic seems appropri-ate to Boehm is that it implies a stronger generalization behind the complexity of image phenomena, the range between picture and image, and also under-lines the claim of images being objects and processes of meaning creation knowledge generation at the same time.As a remedy for all previous … according to Boehm, failed … attempts at finding a satisfying answer to what makes an image and what makes images recurrent, Boehm proposes the theorem of iconic difference. The inspiration for the definition of iconic difference is Heideggers onto Just as Heidegger demands, in a critique of metaphysics, that being as itself must  The academic opening of the image debate in Germany … with Boehms anthology Was ist ein Bild? (2004) that included contributions by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Hans Jonas, Bernhard Waldenfels, Michael Polanyi, and Max Imdahl, among others … made clear that the study of the image and the iconic (turn) took philosophy and modern art theory as constitutive disciplinary approaches, thereby promoting a new philosophy of the image on the basis of modern art studies. Boehms main motivation for implementing an iconic turn was the challenge of protecting images from linguistic heteronomyŽ (Boehm quoted in Curtis 2010: 15). In his view, the semiot-ic approach represents an expansionist form of linguistic imperialism. This discourse function is precisely what distinguishes the iconic turn: [ƒ] although capa-ble of representing meaning, [the image] lacked the ability to function as a medium of dis-course on meaning, i.e. to function as a meta-entity. What is completely new is an emergence of image-generating processes that have led to cognitive processes at the heart of the hard sciences being driven by the iconic, and the fact that the image now plays a role in the day-to-day business of science, which even a generation ago would have been utterly unthinkableŽ (Curtis 2010: 12). Boehm points to this in a footnote explaining the iconic difference in Die Wiederkehr der BilderŽ and in his essay on Das Bild und die hermeneutische Reflexion,Ž where he notes that the turn from the linguistic toward the iconic logos is prefigured in Heidegger.
 Birgit Mersmann be deployed in its difference to beings, Boehm tries to ascertain the image as itself, in its autonomy, and to fathom the iconic logos, which is determined by difference, because it shows something as something. Mitchells choice of the adjective pictorial might not be as intentional as Boehms systematization of the iconic into two related concepts, iconic logos and iconic difference. However, it indicates from which disciplinary approach-es and theories the adjective derives, leading to a picture theory and inquiry into the implications and prospects of the pictorial turn. The title of Mitchells Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation (1994), which also includes the first publication of his essay Pictorial Turn,Ž reveals that comparative studies in visual art and literature … the so-called sister arts … became the points of departure for reflections abouverbal and visual expression and the elaboration of a picture theory by which the peculiarities of visual forms and functions of representation could be cap-tured. This approach makes clear that research on the specificity of pictorial qualities was, from its outset, driven by questions of (inter)mediality. This stands in stark contrast to Boehms iconic approach dedicated to investigating processes of image emergence and recurrence independent of mediality and other contexts. Belting has noticed, with regard to this point, that the English term pictorial, related to the category picture, refers to artifacts and, thus, is rebound to visual media and technologies as enactors/agents of picture produc-tion and proliferation (Belting 2007: 20). This relational focus is confirmed by Mitchells interest in the history and theory of the technical picture and visual technologies in both the natural sciences and the arts, as well as his fascination for media studies as a way to access visual culture(s). Mitchells interpretation of the pictorial turn follows these lines but stresses that the picture-as-artifact is unthinkable and cannot be processed without the image as its counterpart of visual actualization in the beholder. It is the objectification of this relationship that characterizes the pictorial turn. As the picture/image relation is crucial for visual perception, it is seeing, viewing, and observing that gain prominence in the argument for the pictorial turn and the study field of visual culture.  Mitchell also defines the pictorial turn as word/picture relation (Mitchell in Sachs-Hombach 2005: 322).
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  Bildwissenschaft versus Image Science The conclusion to be drawn from the iconic/pictorial turn in the humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences is obvious for Boehm and Mitchell: it is time to build a new, truly transdisciplinary science of the image. Despite the parallels in Boehms and Mitchells evaluations of the emerging field of image studies and the scientific anchorage of the visual turn, their respective concepts also vary. Whereas Boehm envisages a science of the image (Bildwissenschaftas a cognitive science and epistemology of the image, Mitchell projects an im-age science that would also include the hard or experimental sciences … sig-naled by the meaning of the English word science. The turn towards the life sciences that motivated Mitchells theoretical question What do pictures want?Ž, posed in his book of the same title, has also led him to bring the sci-al studies; these include the physical, chemical, biological or, simply put, life sciences of images. These two positions elucidate an enduring cleavage with regard to the spectrum of sciences and disciplinary approaches involved in the design of a new science of images. The rift is to be found between Bildwissenschaft, still dominated by a humanities approach, in particular philosophy and art history, and image science as a true transdiscipline crossing all existing sciences and related disciplines. Criticism: The Factor of The critical approach involved in the study of the visual is the crossroad where the divergences between Mitchells assessment of the pictorial turn and Boehms understanding of the iconic turn become most evident, ultimately leading to different orientations and conceptualizations, as represented by vis-ual culture studies versus Bildwissenschaft, critical iconology versus iconic criticism. As already mentioned in the discussion of the relation between the iconic and linguistic turns, Boehms iconic criticism () is modeled through an analogy with language critique (Sprachkritik) in its philosophical orientation of cognitive criticism and epistemology. It self-reflectively inquires the conditions and potentials of images as generators of knowledge and creators of meaning, thereby envisioning an image theory as a critical theory of cogni-tion. Critique is understood in its original meaning, as the art and practice of discrimination. The theorem of iconic difference reflects this critical faculty of dition for any cognitive process or act by which the
 Birgit Mersmann image is constituted as an autonomous thought-image. Social aspects are basi-cally excluded from Bildkritik by this self-reflective, mind-encapsulating con-ceptualization of the image. This approach stands in firm opposition to Mitchells concept of a critical picture theory or critical iconology, as he has often named his approach an ideology-critical (re)turn to Panofsky. For him, the extension of the pictorial turn to the field of social and political issues is essen-tial. By correlating iconology and ideology, Mitchell aims to reveal how much the notion of ideology is based on and infiltrated with icon(ism)s. It is these socio-political and pictorial entanglements that have led Mitchell to establish not only a critical iconology but also a critique of visual culture. By following the different meanings and interpretations of critique in Boehms theory of iconic criticism and Mitchells model of critical iconology, the transatlantic conceptual rift between visual culture and image philosophy is disclosed. Visual culture is shaped by a predominantly political and social agenda derived from the legacy of Marxism-rooted British cultural studies. It is mostly concerned with popular culture and shows a strong interest in actively engaging political discourse by dismantling ideology and power relations. This politicized orientation distinguishes the study of visual culture from the more philosophical and system-oriented image studies affiliated with the German Kulturwissenschaften (study of culture) and its legacy of cultural philosophy, cultural anthropology, and criticism of culture. Mitchells critical picture theory can be qualified as image sociology, deeply anchored in social psychology with additional elements of visual anthropology. Because of this orientation, it can be productively connected to political and communication sciences, as well as to cultural and media studies. In contrast to this definition, Boehms iconic criticism can be categorized as image phenomenology. With iconic difference as its key concept, it builds upon Gestalt and perception theory. Because of its ontological motivation to determine the autonomous power of the image with-out making extra-iconic or contextual references, it operates as a transhistor-ical, transcultural, and transmedial study of the image. Aiming for the design of a general iconics, it is, per se, defined as a transnational study. In sum, it is more than obvious that Boehm and Mitchells assessments of the pictorial/iconic subscribe to two complementary agendas with regard to the  In his essay Pictorial Turn,Ž this correlation comes in the form of an imaginary encounter between Panofsky and Althusser. The main objective of the project of a general iconics is comparable to that of general linguistics as founded by de Saussure. It must be clearly distinguished from the idea of a gen-eral image science (Allgemeine Bildwissenschaft) as defined by Klaus Sachs-Hombach, since it radically excludes all semiotic and metalinguistic definitions.
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  transnational study of culture: a modernist agenda, based on self-reflexivity, universality, and the hermeneutics of immanence; and a postmodernist agenda shaped by the global, contemporary constitution of culture and the notion of society as spectacle. There is a human-science interest in studying the iconic as the conditio sine qua of human perception and cognition … and, therefore, a strong incentive to move the study of the image beyond the framework of cul-tural studies into the direction of a science of the image; there is also a socio-cultural, political, and psychological interest in understanding and deconstruct-ing the ideological power of images and visualization mechanisms, be they media-technical or social. Neg(oti)ating Differences: Visual Studies as a Transnational Contact Zone between Visual CultureBildwissenschaftThe transatlantic exchange of ideas about the status and meaning of the pictori-al/iconic turn has helped raise international awareness of BildwissenschaftGerman-specific visual study approach. In particular, it has familiarized schol-ars in Anglo-American visual (culture) studies with the conceptual differences of Bildwissenschaft. Whereas in the first decade after its emergence, Bildwis-senschaft remained a transnational German phenomenon, almost unperceived and not received by the international visual studies movement, a new tendency to include Bildwissenschaft in global academic discourse on the transnational study of the visual has emerged within recent years. It is best exemplified by Keith Moxeys article Visual Studies and the Iconic TurnŽ (2008) which (1) deliberately chooses the term iconic turn to represent the German turn towards Bildwissenschaft instead of the term pictorial turn, usually identified with the Anglo-American tradition of visual culture; (2) discusses, for the first time in full breadth, German approaches to Bildwissenschaft in comparison to visual stud-ies approaches; and (3) was published in the Journal of Visual Culture, a promi-nent organ for cutting-edge research in North American and international visual culture studies. Two different readings of this article are possible. Firstly, because the An-glo-American visual studies movement has global reach, as the establishment of new, international study programs evidences, one might interpret the analysis of how visual studies and the iconic turn are connected as an attempt to incor-porate the GermanBildwissenschaft into the scientific program of
 Birgit Mersmann visual studies and, thus, eliminate conceptual differences in approaching the visual. Secondly, one could read the article as a subtle interpretation of where, and at which points, the pictorial and iconic turns join and how they might produce research synergies. The most remarkable aspect of the discussion of visual studies and the iconic turn is that the author does not set the Anglo-American approach of visual culture/visual studies against German- and French-based image studies. Rather, he identifies a rift between visual stud-Bildwissenschaft and visual culture. Moxey acknowledges a difference be-tween the phenomenological concern for the power of the image to determine its own receptionŽ (Moxey 2008: 131) and the visual culture approach that em-phasizes political implications of a culture and society dominated by the power of images. Despite these differences in the conception of the visual as powerful (self-)presentation or reflective presentation, the author is convinced that the ontological and semiotic perspective on visual objects might in fact be reconcil-ableŽ (Moxey 2008: 142). As convincing as the argument for the transatlantic translatability and alli-ance between visual studies and Bildwissenschaft is, the object giving name to these study approaches is not further problematized. Taking this perspective into account, it might become questionable whether visual studies are identifi-able with image studies, if not explicitly equivalent, as Elkins once suggested (Elkins 2003: 7). Whereas visual culture has long since bid farewell to the con-cept of image, especially to the integrity and historicity of the single picture, Bildwissenschaft is focused on the notion of the image as formational force. The French film theoretician Serge Daney was one of the first to point out the differ-ence between the image and visuality. Images do not just render something one has seen but rather the act of seeing. The visual is, for Daney, the optical oper-ation of the proceedings of powers (technological, political, military, or in ad-vertising) that solely intend to evoke the comment: Its all understood!Ž (Daney 1997: 610). The visual belongs to the optic nerve, but this does not immediately generate an image. The image cuts across the stream of the visual; it forms itself by stopping, resisting, cutting, and condensing this stream. It forces its way to the surface of the visual information stream and into the depths of time of hu-s the image an ally to anthropology … while the visual, on the other hand, is a fellow traveler of technologythese reflections, the question is hovisualstudies and image studies are, especially considering that image studies are often subsumed under the umbrella of visual studies.
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  249The Power of Academic and Disciplinary Traditions: Untranslatabilities between the Study of Visual Culture and Kulturwissenschaft Both scientific approaches to the study of the visual were developed in the course of the cultural turn in the humanities. Remarkably, the inter- and cross-disciplinary constellations from which the two visual studies approaches emerged were relatively identical: they arose from a convergence in art history, literary studies, media studies (with a particular focus on film studies), and cultural studies. Only later did the social and natural sciences join the visual studies project. The enormous pressure placed on the humanities in crisis led to different developments and solutions in terms of academic change and institu-tional restructuring in the U.S. and Germany. In her book Visual Culture: The Study of the Visual after the Cultural Turn (2005), Margaret Dikovitskaya has shown that, in the U.S., the emergence of visual studies as a university subject and, later on, autonomous study program was part of the culture wars of the 1980s, the conflict between high art and American mainstream culture, as well as the financial crisis of the 1990s. The institutionalization of visual studies was fostered by two changes: (1) a profound transformation of student population and demands … in the form of resistance to traditional European, elite culture and canonicity combined with increased interest in mass media culture and consumerism; and (2) the new economic need to run universities in a consumer-friendly and business-efficient way. Decreases in funding, which threatened the existence of major study programs and faculty, were countered by cross-disci-plinary visual studies. The establishment of departments for Kulturwissenschaft(en) at German universities followed the same pragmatic survival logic in the face of the poten-tial elimination of programs or even entire institutes. In contrast to the Amer-ican situation, this form of cultural studies turn did not result in exclusively visual culture study programs. For the most part, art history continued on its historical humanities path, thus, driving a wedge between visual art studies and visual culture studies. Bildwissenschaften, which included the historical tradi-tion of art history and a new field of historical and contemporaneous image cultures, performed its own cultural turn from 1995 onwards, in the form of what might be classified as a (German) . Significantly, the influence of Anglo-American cultural studies was only heralded from afar; it functioned
 Birgit Mersmann as an actuator for rediscovering Kulturwissenschaften and, thus, reoriented art history towards BildwissenschaftGerman philosophy and anthropology of culture, in particular Ernst Cassirers theory of symbolic forms, played large roles in turning art history into a cultural study of images. Today, there is agreement among leading German image researchers that the Hamburgian art historian Aby Warburg, famous for being a fanatic collector and organizer of images of all kinds, including non-artistic images of popular and technical culture, had initiated a far-reaching paradigm shift in art history towards Bildwissenschaft that has only been recog-nized almost a century later … that is, since the iconic turn seized German aca-demia in the mid-1990s. From todays scholarly perspective, Aby Warburg is considered a Bildwissenschaftler avant la lettre. The interesting fact is that the German term Bildwissenschaft, now covering a new research field in German science, appears early on in his writings. Thomas Hensel has revealed that Aby Warburg defined himself as an image historian, not art historian,Ž and that, in a letter from 1925, he speaks of methodological attempts to proceed from art history to the study of the image (Wissenschaft vom Bilde)Ž (Warburg quoted in Hensel 2007: 131). By drawing on Aby Warburg and his creation of the Bilderatlas MnemosyneHensel explains the cultural-historical roots of the German project of Bildwis-senschaft: Warburgs art history became a study of the image not only by the extension of its study objects to non-artistic images, to image and word sources of all qualitative levels and medial forms, to life styles, rituals or habitual pat-terns. The thesis is that it rather developed into a study of the image because in its structure it was essentially coined by visualizing technologies and technical imagesŽ (Hensel 2007: 132). This last statement acknowledges the media-theoretical and media-critical dimensions of Warburgs historical Wissenschaft vom Bilde. It refers to electronic techniques of image transmission, such as im-age telegraphy, that shaped Warburgs cultural theory of the image, his notion of images as cultural engrams, and his interest in following the migration of images through different media, historical epochs and cultures. Already in this early stage, the project of Bildwissenschaft is riddled by conflicting connota-tions: the fascination for new visual technology as a transmitter of culture, and the fear that anthropological traditions and values of human culture could be overruled and destroyed by the increased use of visual media technologies.  Diary entry of February 17, 1917 (cf. Hensel 2007: 131). English translation by the author.
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  Warburgs turn towards the study of images, born out of the scientific tradi-tions of philosophy and anthropology of culture, prefigured future projects and branches of German BildwissenschaftBildwissenschaft has now evolved into four main approaches: (1) image history (Historische Bildwissenschaft) as an extension and transgression of art history; (2) image anthropology; (3) image philosophy; and (4) media studies of the image. All of these sprang from the disciplinary context and scholarship of art history. Due to these roots, image history has developed into a kind of convergence point where different ap-proaches … usually informed by the concepts of renowned German art historians such as Hans Belting, Horst Bredekamp, and Gottfried Boehm, and also Martin Warnke and Martin Kemp … potentially meet and fuse. Bredekamps approach most directly connects with the Warburgian (and Panofskian) legacy of image history and its extension into media-critical art history. Endeavors to integrate the various German approaches to the study of im-ages … that is, to form and institutionalize a Bildwissenschaft in German aca-demia … have been undertaken. Two volumes edited by Klaus Sachs-Hombach document this joint project and provide evidence of efforts toward the unifica-tion of Bildwissenschaft. Whereas the first volume proposes launching an inter-disciplinary project, inquiring into contributing disciplines, methods, and top-ics (Sachs-Hombach 2005), the second volume explores the cultural and anthropological foundations upon which a general Bildwissenschaftbuilt (Sachs-Hombach 2009). As ambitious as these two projects have been, they did not result in the transdisciplinary formation and academic institution-alization of the cultural study of the image (see also Bachmann-Medick 2008: 12). The project of unifying and integrating various Bildwissenschaften into one overarching Bildwissenschaft has failed … in part due to the fact that the diversi-ty of image studies approaches resisted the uniform, semiotic-based framework of a General Image Science (Allgemeine Bildwissenschaft). Todays situation of transnational German Bildwissenschaften is characterized by the paradox that the iconic turn promised to break up disciplinary, scientific-cultural barriers and implement transdisciplinarity as trans-science but ended up renewing and reviving existing (multi)disciplinary structures of science. It is a fact that wissenschaft was absorbed as a new and challenging research topic by a rich  For a detailed discussion of the main positions of Bildwissenschaft, see Bachmann-Medick 2010: 334…352. I deliberately avoid the common English term visual media studies, since it would be misleading.
 Birgit Mersmann variety of disciplines from the humanities through to the social sciences and life sciences; this process has, meanwhile, turned it into a kind of subdiscipline. With regard to the initial uneasy relation between Bildwissenschaft and art history, it can be stated that, today, Bildwissenschaft has become a constituent part of and companion to art history and that it has … in a positive sense … re-shaped art-historical studies into culture- and media-critical studies. Due to the etymological relatedness between (image) and Bildung (education/form-ation), Bildwissenschaft also had a strong impact sign. This has given rise to the proclamation and theorization of visual compe-tence as a highly relevant skill for coping with the visual overkill of todays digital media society in both practical and theoretical terms. James Elkins lec-ture Farewell to Visual StudiesŽ points in the same direction just mentioned: the enforced integration of the visual studies perspective into the framework of existing disciplines, as well as the incorporation of the study of the visual into new multisensory and hypermodal research. It remains to be seen how this turn might affect the international distribution of study programs in visual culture on a global scale. Transcultural Image Studies: The Emergence of Global Art History and World Art Studies As transnational as the study of the visual has been, a focalization of visu-al/image studies on inter- and transculturation processes as core elements and main effects of the visual-cultural turn is still largely underrepresented. In both Anglo-American visual culture studies and German Bildwissenschaftentual approaches to and case studies of visual transculturality can be found (Mirzoeff 2002; Belting 2001; Mersmann 2004, 2008, 2013). Until now, they re-mained marginal, representing only one visual study-track among various oth-ers. This might have to do with the fact that transculturation is regarded as a natural ingredient of the visual-cultural turn. As a consequence, visual studies have concentrated on acting under the theoretical umbrella of global studies, postcolonial studies, and/or translation studies but have not specifically prob-lematized or theorized visual or iconic transculturality in order to build a prom-inent branch of transcultural visual/image studies. For the difference between studies in visual transculture and transcultural visual studies, see Mersmann 2004.
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  A relatively recent phenomenon is that art history alone, the traditional dis-cipline of visual/image study, has leapt into the void left by visual/image stud-ies as cultural studies, filling it with new inter- and transcultural conceptualiza-tions. Academic asynchronies and asymmetries, described earlier, are empha-sized by the fact that the postcolonial turn has left almost no mark on art history, in particular German art history, as a constituent part of the cultural turn (Schmidt-Linsenhoff 2002). Currently, art history as a discipline of West-ern/European academic origin and coinage is undergoing an extensive and profound transnational turn that partially involves a postcolonial turn with regard to the self-reflection of its own history as a discipline, i.e. the colonial history of art history. Two models of art history with global perspectives have emerged as trans-national extensions of the classical art-historical scope and canon: world art studies and global art history. Both art-historical reorientations are motivated by the global challenge to surmount the cultural and academic split between Western art history and non-Western art histories, including regional art histo-ries; however, their conceptualizations of how this could and should happen differ tremendously. We are not confronted with a rift between an Anglo-American and German model of art-historical reformation, as in the case of visual culture studies and Bildwissenschaft, but rather a split between discipli-nary approaches and scientific traditions in addressing and categorizing art-(ifacts) from all over the world. In a nutshell, this rift is determined by a split between art and anthropology/ethnology, traditionally preoccupied with the study of foreign … that is, non-European … artifacts, including the preservation of this visual cultural heritage, on the one hand, and art history as shaped his-torically and methodologically by the aesthetic analysis of Western-European high art, on the other hand. As its title signals, world art studies adopts the historical concept of world art that was predominant in Europe around 1900 and tries to redefine it in light of the current globalization of art and the need to globalize art history. The re-vival of the study of world art was initiated by John Onions, who published the Atlas of World Art in 2004. Kitty Zijlmans and Wilfried van Damme (2008) con-tinued to conceptualize world art studies as a new, comprehensive approach to visual art. Based on a critique of West-centrism in traditional art history, world art studies aims to expand the research scope and framework of visual art by including artistic forms of expression from all over the world and throughout the ages. To explore world art as the heritage of mankind, different disciplinary approaches and methods from the fields of anthropology, evolutionary biology, and neurosciences are applied. Kitty Zijlmans emphasizes intercultural perspec-tives as counter-discourses to Western models and methods in art history. The
 Birgit Mersmann intercultural approach is intended to apply to both art and art history, thus, allowing for critical assessment of Western art historiography. Zijlmans intercultural conceptualization of art (history) is productive to the extent that it seeks … despite its adherence to the somewhat problematic notion of interculturality … to escape binary oppositions of appropriation and othering, inclusion and exclusion, centre and periphery, by stressing the dynamic ex-change and circulation involved in intercultural interactions. Zijlmans under-lines the fluctuating relationships between center and periphery, Western and non-Western art, by which fixed positions are constantly shifted and cultural syncretisms produced. She, accordingly, discards the idea of a fixed canon of art. As important and pressing as the intercultural perspectivization of world art studies is, it remains questionable to what extent the notion of art is adequate and resilient within this framework. One might ask whether this perspective is not too strongly loaded with values and definitional sovereignties to apply it to works of world art, or, more neutrally formulated, visual artifacts produced worldwide. To come to terms with this inconsistency, an inter- and transcultural critique of art, its diverse concepts, aesthetics and practices in visual cultures around the globe is required. Global art history, as a newly emerging field of study in both North America and Germany, is shaped by a different orientation. It does not envisage an ex-pansion in terms of global objects of study, as pursued by world art studies. Rather, it projects a global perspective onto art history as an academic disci-pline and method. While world art studies confronts universalist claims, he-gemonies of material culture, and the past and presence of colonial heritage, global art history faces Western disciplinary hegemony … its theories, methods, and historical self-conception. James Elkins roundtable discussion Is Art … later published as a book under the same title (2007) … was a testing ground for inquiring into the legitimacy and suitability of global art history. It debated the conditions and prerequisites for art history to become a global discipline. The discussion participants all, to greater or lesser extents, agreed that global art history could and should be determined by common re-search methods and theories. This, however, engenders a dilemma: the una-voidable nature of art historys Western socialization asIndependent of the global nature of the art-historical field, applied methods and theories usually belong to a West-centered art-historical discourse. Due to the  From this split situation, Elkins draws the conclusion that a global art history can only be united by a Western model. This view is hegemonic, as it imposes the (still) dominant Western knowledge and science system onto non-European art and art history.
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  255fact that art history originated as a Western/European academic discipline, we face a disciplinary and institutional vacuum in non-European and non-North-American countries. How to accommodate these imbalances? German academia is among the forerunners in forming art history as a dis-cipline of global scope. The topic of global art and its relation to art history was first introduced by the German art historian Hans Belting. It was defined from a specific focal point, namely, the relation between Global Art and the Muse-um.Ž According to Beltings interpretation, global art is a recent contemporary phenomenon, produced by international art festivals and their curators ambi-tions. Based on this observation, he argues that global art, due to its inherent contemporaneousness, determinedly forms a counter-concept to modern art … in particular its universal ideals. The introduction of the concept of the global contemporary takes this newness into account. Global art is not only critical in political termsŽ but also in terms of art categories defined by inclusion or exclusion. New art often blurs any kind of border between mainstream art, on the one side, and popular art, on the other, and thus abolishes the old dualism between Western art and ethnographic practice by using indigenous traditions as referenceŽ (Belting and Buddensieg 2009: 40). Based on the notion that glob-al art, as global contemporary art, only came into being twenty years ago, global art history does not encompass the history of global art but is rather a global extension of todays art history as a method and academic disciplineŽ (Belting and Buddensieg 2009: 45). One of the main problems is the conflict between the pronounced contem-porary definition of global art and the historical dimension of art history as an academic discipline. The approach to global art history pursued by Monica Juneja is laid out to reconcile these differences. On the one hand, she objects to global art historys definition as history of art from around the world, clearly marking it off from world art history/world art studies and their universalistic claim to compile the history of art comprehensively around the globe or even in one single time frameŽ (Juneja 2012: 6). By defining global art history as transcultural art history, she not only emphasizes the self-critical revision of art historys Eurocentric methods, theories and subjects but also encourages the transhistorical study of the globalization of art and art history. In this concep- See his research project of the same title located at the Centre for Art and Media Technology(ZKM) in Karlsruhe, Germany (cf. Belting et al 2013). Monica Juneja holds a professorship for Global Art History at the Cluster of Excellence Asia and Europe in a Global Contextat the Universität Heidelberg, Germany. Globale Verflechtungsprozesse lassen sich durch fast alle Zeiten hindurch untersuchen … selbstverständlich haben sie je nach historischem Kontext einen anderen Charakter als die
 Birgit Mersmann tion, deconstruction plays a key role in inducing the de-westernization (and also decolonization) of art history. It is targeted at debunking the classical binarism between Western and non-Western art (and art history) and the ten-dency to essentialize identities and indigenize alterities. Fixed art-historical categorizations, be they national, regional or religious, are problematized and questioned by transculturations as processes of entangled art histories. This also involves an art-historical analysis of how the term and idea of art was shaped historically in different regional contexts. A transculturally designed art history is the conceptual framework for the first study program in global art history in Germany. At the Freie Universität zu Berlin, the MA program Art History in a Global Context (Kunstgeschichte im globalen Kontext) was launched in the academic year 2008/2009. It represents the innovative merging of art history and regional studies, among them Asian and African studies, under the departmental roof of History and Cultural Stud-ies. Art history can be studied with a focus on either Europe and America, East Asia, South Asia, or Africa. While the classical continental/regional mapping of cultural studies persists in these specializations, the theoretical program aims at surpassing these allocations, searching for new models and methodologies that surmount regional focuses: Die Forschergruppe untersucht künstlerische Arte-fakte als Agenten innerhalb eines transkulturellen Verhandlungsraumes, der sich im Agieren und Interagieren von und mit ihnen erst formiert. In den Teil-projekten soll daher untersucht werden, wie sich künstlerische Artefakte und Praktiken als Reflexionsmedien kultureller Verhandlungsprozesse herausgebil-det habenŽ (Stemmrich 2012: 98). The transcultural approach proves to be a connective model in German ac-ademia that shapes global art history asline and a method-ology. This might be ascribed to the fact that transculturality was most promi-nently theorized by the German philosopher Wolfgang Welsch (1994) and has, since its framing, seen vital reconceptualizations in academic discourses on the globalization of culture. As challenging and promising as it seems to utilize the concept of transculturality for global art history, it should be made clear that it is taken seriously as a model that transgresses inter- and multicultural construc-tions of visual art and culture. If global art history as transcultural art history is  moderne Globalisierung. Es gilt also für jeden Bereich und für jeden Zeitraum, nach weiträu-migen Beziehungen zwischen Kulturen zu fragen und sie ans Lokale zurückzubinden. Eine transkulturell ausgerichtete Kunstgeschichte hat das Ziel, die vielfältigen Prozesse der Aneig-nung, Abgrenzung, Rekonfigurierung und Übersetzung in neuen Zusammenhängen herauszu-arbeiten, um nach der konstitutiven Rückwirkung dieser Prozesse auf alle daran beteiligten Agenten und visuellen Systeme zu fragenŽ (Juneja 2012: 7).
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  not able to exceed the traditional modern framework of writing art history as a history of mutual influences and relations, if it becomes stranded as compara-tive art history, then it will not fulfill its global claim. What are the consequences of this global perspectivization and transcul-tural turn in art-historical studies, from global art history to world art studies? What are its effects on the transnational study of culture, including the study of visual culture and Bildwissenschaft? As a matter of factstudies cannot avoid growing into transnational transdisciplines. In order to successfully navigate, negotiate, and translate between different notions, mod-els, and histories of art, as well as bridge the interdisciplinary gap between art history and cultural/regional studies as main scientific actors, they will undergo this transformation process naturally. The fierce battle over which new art-historical approach, world art studies or global art history, is better suited to transnationalize art and art history is of secondary importance. It marks the line of conflict that runs between two distinct fields of interest and worldviews pushed to the forefront by globalization: culture-anthropological versus art-theoretical approach; a historical (including prehistorical and transhistorical) perspective with a focus on human civilization versus a contemporary perspec-tive with an emphasis on the art system, its conceptual and institutional frame-work. By turning attention to differences, assimilations, and fusions between Western and non-Western art forms and functions in a global context, idiosyn-crasies are laid bare. What surfaces with vivid urgency is the question of the relationship be-tween cultural perception and symbolic form with regard to the sensorial and representational modes of seeing and visualizing. Under these circumstances, the research agenda of visual studies gains top priority for the field of global art studies; if globally oriented art studies aspire to develop into transnational stud-ies of high world impact, they cannot circumvent dealing with the cultural and social construction of vision, the gaze, and visuality. They must, indeed, deal with techniques of seeing and practices of displaying while also exploring their neuroscientific underpinnings. Because the entanglement of the visual in sys-tems of power is highly concentrated in the global art world, globally oriented art studies are obliged to act as a critical iconology in the sense of Mitchell. Image studies could assume an important role in mediating art studies, vis-ual studies, anthropological studies, and cultural studies to form a new branch of transcultural visual studies. The various approaches and theories put forward by German , such as Beltings Image Anthropology, Boehms Iconic Criticism, and Bredekamps Theory of Image Act, have the potential to move in this direction, since they (1) do not operate with a fixed notion of art but rather with an open image concept that also includes non-artistic images and
 Birgit Mersmann visual practices; (2) are characterized less by object access rather than by meth-odological and theoretical orientations; (3) proceed inter- and transdisciplin-arily, thus, facilitating new conceptual syntheses; (4) draw upon forms and functions of seeing, perceiving, and representing and, thereby, (5) help discern cultural differences and transculturations in the fluctuation zone between visu-al culture, cultural images, and visual art. Due to the fact that they have been (until now) historically and politically unburdened, aesthetically neutral, and approach-oriented, image studies could not only help translate between West-ern/European and non-European art histories, but they could also facilitate the academic transition from global art studies to transnational cultural studies. By acting as science brokers, image studies might considerably contribute to the development of a new set of methodological tools and theories in the service of shaping global art studies as transcultural studies. In order to be successfully implemented, the transnational study of the visual will also have to integrate non-European concepts and approaches, including indigenous methods. Reassessing the effects of the iconic turn, it might seem paradoxical that, among the traditional disciplines of the humanities, it is art history alone … one of the most vehement opponents to the visual culture studies movement … that has found new ways to expand and transform itself into transnational cultural studies. Bildwissenschaft, until now a German Sonderweg, could surf on art historys wave of globalization and potentially grow into a transnational transdiscipline: visual studies. References Audric, Lorrain. Visual Cultural Studies in France.Ž http://culturevisuelle.org/imago/archives/13, 2010 (22 July 2013). Bachmann-Medick, Doris. Gegen Worte … Was heißt Iconic/Visual Turn?Ž Gegenworte. Hefte für den Disput über Wissen 20 (2008): 10…15. Bachmann-Medick, Doris. Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaftenedition. Reinbek: Rowohlt, 2010 2006Belting, Hans. Bild-Anthropologie. Entwürfe für eine Bildwissenschaft. Munich: Fink, 2001. Belting, Hans. ed. Bilderfragen. Die Bildwissenschaften im Aufbruch. Munich: Fink, 2007. Belting, Hans, and Andrea Buddensieg, eds. The Global Art World: Audiences, Markets, and Museums. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2009. Belting, Hans, Andrea Buddensieg, and Peter Weibel, eds. The Global Contemporary and the Rise of New Art Worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013. Boehm, Gottfried. Die Wiederkehr der Bilder.Ž Was ist ein Bild? Ed. Gottfried Boehm. Munich: Fink, 1994. 11…38.
D/Rifts between Visual Culture and Image Culture  Boehm, Gottfried. Wie Bilder Sinn erzeugen. Die Macht des Zeigens. Berlin: Berlin University Press, 2007. Boehm, Gottfried, ed. Was ist ein Bild? Munich: Fink, 2004. Boehm, Gottfried, and W.J.T. Mitchell. Pictorial versus Iconic Turn: Two Letters.Ž The Pictorial . Ed. Neal Curtis. New York: Routledge, 2010. 8…26. Bredekamp, Horst. Drehmomente … Merkmale und Ansprüche des iconic turn.Ž Iconic Turn. Die neue Macht der Bilder. Eds. Christa Maar and Hubert Burda. Cologne: DuMont, 2004. 15…26. Bredekamp, Horst. Theorie des BildaktsÜber das Lebensrecht des Bildes, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2011. Bruhn, Matthias. Das Bild. Theorie … Geschichte … Praxis. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2009. Burda, Hubert, ed. In medias res. Zehn Kapitel zum Iconic Turn. Munich, Fink, 2010. Cassirer, Ernst. Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, vol. 1. Darmstadt: WBG, 1964. Curtis, Neal, ed. The Pictorial Turn. London: Routledge, 2010. Daney, Serge. Vor und nach dem Bild.Ž Politics-Poetics. Das Buch zur documenta X. Ed. Catherine David. Osterfildern: Hatje Cantz, 1997. Dikovitskaya, Margaret. Visual Culture: The Study of the Visual after the Cultural Turnbridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. Elkins, James. Visual Studies: A Skeptical Introduction. New York/London: Routledge, 2003. Elkins, James. Is Art History Global? New York: Routledge, 2007. Faßler, Manfred. Bildlichkeit. Vienna/Cologne/Weimar: Böhlau, 2002. Frank, Gustav, and Barbara Lange, eds. Einführung in die Bildwissenschaft. Bilder in der visuel-len Kultur. Darmstadt: WBG, 2010. Hensel, Thomas. Von der Kunstgeschichte zur Wissenschaft vom Bilde (Aby Warburg) oder von der Geburt der Bildwissenschaft aus Sendetrommeln, Karoluszellen und Strom-schwankungen.Ž Carte Blanche. Mediale Formate in der Kunst der Moderne. Ed. Silke Walther. Berlin: Kadmos, 2007. Hornuff, Daniel. Bildwissenschaft im Widerstreit. Belting, Boehm, Bredekamp, Burda. Munich: Fink, 2012. Imdahl, Max. Giotto. Arenafresken:Ikonographie-Ikonologie-Ikonik. Munich: Fink, 1988. Juneja, Monica. Kunstgeschichte und kulturelle Differenz. Eine Einleitung.Ž Kritische Berichte 2 (2012): 6…12. Mersmann, Birgit. Bildkulturwissenschaft als KulturBildwissenschaft? Von der Notwendigkeit eines inter- und transkulturellen Iconic Turn.Ž Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 49.1 (2004): 91…109. Mersmann, Birgit. (Fern-)Verkehr der Bilder.Mediologie als methodischer Brückenschlag zwischen Bild- und Übersetzungswissenschaft.Ž Mediologie als Methode. Eds. Birgit Mersmann and Thomas Weber. Berlin: Avinus, 2008. 149…167. Mersmann, Birgit. Global Routes: Transmediation and Transculturation as Key Concepts of Translation Studies.Ž Transmediality and Transculturality. Eds. Nadja Gernalzick and Gabriele Pisarz-Ramirez. Heidelberg: Winter, 2013. 405…423. Mirzoeff, Nicholas. Visual Colonialism/Visual Transculture.Ž The Visual Culture Reader. Ed. Nicholas Mirzoeff. New York: Routledge, 2002. 473…482. Mitchell, W.J.T. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: Universi-ty of Chicago Press, 1994. Mitchell, W.J.T. What do Pictures Want? Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Moxey, Keith. Visual Studies and the Iconic Turn.Ž Journal of Visual Culture 7 (2008): 131…145.
 Birgit Mersmann Peirce, Charles Sanders. The Philosophy of Peirce: Selected Writings. Ed. Justus Buchler. New York: Dover, 1955. Probst, Jörg, and Jost Philipp Klenner, eds. Ideengeschichte der Bildwissenschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2009. Sachs-Hombach, Klaus. Bildtheorien. Anthropologische und kulturelle Grundlagen des Visualistic Turn. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2009. Sachs-Hombach, Klaus, ed. Bildwissenschaft. Disziplinen, Themen, Methoden. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2005. Schmidt-Linsenhoff, Viktoria. Warum hat die kritische Kunstgeschichte in Deutschland den postcolonial turn ausgelassen?Ž Kunst und Politik. Jahrbuch der Guernica Gesellschaft(2002): 7…16. Schulz, Martin. Ordnungen der Bilder. Einführung in die Bildwissenschaft. Munich: Fink, 2005. Stemmrich, Gregor. Zur Einrichtung der Forschergruppe Transkulturelle Verhandlungsräume von Kunst. Komparatistische Perspektiven auf historische Kontexte und aktuelle Konstel-lationen (FOR 1703) am Kunsthistorischen Institut der Freien Universität Berlin.Ž Kritische Berichte 2 (2012): 97…101. Welsch, Wolfgang. Transkulturalität … die veränderte Verfassung heutiger Kulturen.Ž Sicht-weisen. Die Vielheit in der Einheit. Ed. Freimut Duve. Weimar: Stiftung Weimarer Klassik, 1994. 83…122. Zijlmans, Kitty, and Wilfried van Damme, eds. World Art Studies: Exploring Concepts and Ap-proaches. Amsterdam: Valiz, 2008.