Item Details

Image Ecologies, Spiritual Polytropy, and the Anthropocene

Issue: Vol 13 No. 4 (2019) Popular Culture, Religion, and the Anthropocene

Journal: Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture

Subject Areas: Religious Studies

DOI: 10.1558/jsrnc.39183

Abstract:

This article advances a four-fold contribution to theorizing the relationship between images, religion, and the Anthropocene. First, it proposes a ‘process-semiotic’ definition of the image as a sensorially perceptible form that mediates agential relations both between humans and between humans and the larger world. Second, it argues for a conception of religion and of spirituality that sees the world as varying on a scale between the ‘polytropic’ and the ‘monotropic’, where ‘tropism’ refers to the ‘turning’ toward sources of sustenance, relief, hope, authority, and the like. This turning is commonly, if not universally, accomplished with the aid of images. Bringing these ideas together, it then advances a typology of ‘image regimes’, each of which establishes relationships between understandings of images and of reality, relationships which can be traced across diverse religious and cultural contexts. Finally, it proposes a set of questions by which to bring ecocritical analysis to expressions of these image regimes in the emerging ‘image-world’ of digital culture, a culture that is coterminous, if not causally linked with, the growing recognition of the Anthropocene. It ends with a brief application of these questions to the Anthropocene Project, an art exhibition, film, and book project by Edward Burtunsky, Jennifer Baichwal, and Nicholas De Pencier.

Author: Adrian Ivakhiv

View Original Web Page

References :

Albanese, Catherine. 1996. ‘Religion and American Popular Culture: An Introductory Essay’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64.4: 733-42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/LXIV.4.733.

Asad, Talal. 1993. Genealogies of Religion: Disciplines and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).

Baichwal, Jennifer. 2018. ‘Our Embedded Signal’, in Burtynsky, Baichwal, and De Pencier 2018: 197-203.

Bailey, Edward I. 1983. ‘The Implicit Religion of Contemporary Society: An Orientation and a Plea for Its Study’, Religion 13: 69-83. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-721X(83)90006-4.

Bakewell, Liza. 1998. ‘Image Acts’, American Anthropologist 100.1: 22-32. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1998.100.1.22.

Bal, Mieke. 2001. Looking In: The Art of Viewing (Amsterdam: G+B Arts International).

Beller, Jonathan. 2006. The Cinematic Mode of Production: Attention Economy and the Society of the Spectacle (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England).

Belting, Hans. 1994. Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Belting, Hans. 2005. ‘Image, Medium, Body: A New Approach to Iconology’, Critical Inquiry 31.2: 302-19. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/430962.

Belting, Hans. 2011. An Anthropology of Images: Picture, Medium, Body (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

Bender, Coutrney, and Omar McRoberts. 2012. ‘Mapping a Field: Why and How to Study Spirituality’, SSRS Working Papers. Online: https://tif.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Why-and-How-to-Study-Spirtuality.pdf.

Boehm, Gottfried. 1994. Was ist ein Bild? (Munich: Fink).

Boehm, Gottfried, and W.J.T. Mitchell. 2009. ‘Pictorial Versus Iconic Turn: Two Letters’, Culture, Theory and Critique 50.2-3: 103-21. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/
14735780903240075.

Bredekamp, Horst. 2003. ‘A Neglected Tradition? Art History as Bildwissenschaft’, Critical Inquiry 29.3: 418-28. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/376303.

Bruce, Steve (ed.) 2002. Religion and Modernization: Sociologists and Historians Debate the Secularization Thesis (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Bryant, Jennings, and Mary Beth Oliver (eds.). 2009. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (New York: Routledge, 3rd edn).

Burke, Peter. 2001. Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).

Burtynsky, Edward, Jennifer Baichwal, and Nicholas De Pencier (eds.). 2018. Anthropocene (Gottingen: Steidl).

Cammaer, Gerda. 2009. ‘Edward Burtynsky’s Manufactured Landscapes: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Creating Moving Still Images and Stilling Moving Images of Ecological Disasters’, Environmental Communication 3.1: 121-30. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030802700599.

Carrithers, Michael. 2000. ‘On Polytropy: Or the Natural Condition of Spiritual Cosmopolitanism in India: The Digambar Jain Case’, Modern Asian Studies 34.4: 831-61. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X00003991.

Casetti, Francesco. 2008. Eye of the Century: Film, Experience, Modernity (trans. Erin Larkin and Jennifer Pranolo; New York: Columbia University Press).

Chidester, David. 1996. ‘The Church of Baseball, the Fetish of Coca-Cola, and the Potlatch of Rock ‘n’ Roll: Theoretical Models for the Study of Religion in American Popular Culture’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64.4: 743-65. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/LXIV.4.743.

Chidester, David. 2005. Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press).

Christiansen, Steen. n.d. ‘The Morph-Image: Five Theses on Post-Cinema’, Steen Christiansen. Online: http://www.dissemination.dk/papers/the-morph-image/.

Crary, Jonathan. 1990. On Vision and Modernity: Techniques of the Observer in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Crist, Eileen. 2013. ‘On the Poverty of Our Nomenclature’, Environmental Humanities 3: 129-47. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3611266.

Davis, Heather, and Etienne Turpin. 2015. Art in the Anthropocene: Encounters among Aesthetics, Politics, Environments and Epistemologies (Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press). Doi: https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_560010.

Davis, Richard H. 1997. Lives of Indian Images (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

de Vries, Hent (ed.). 2009. Religion: Beyond a Concept (New York: Fordham University Press).

de Vries, Hent, and Lawrence E. Sullivan (eds.). 2006. Political Theologies: Public Religions in a Post-Secular World (New York: Fordham University Press).

Debray, Regis. 1995. ‘The Three Ages of Looking’ (trans. E. Rauth), Critical Inquiry 21.3: 529-55. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/448763.

Deleuze, Gilles. 1986. Cinema 1: The Movement Image (trans. H. Tomlinson and B. Habberjam; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

Deleuze, Gilles. 1989. Cinema 2: The Time Image (trans. H. Tomlinson and R. Galeta; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

Demos, T.J. 2017. Against the Anthropocene: Visual Culture and Environment Today (Berlin: Sternberg).

Denson, Shane, and Julia Leyda (eds.). 2016. Post-Cinema: Theorizing 21st-Century Film (Falmer, UK: REFRAME).

Diehl, Carol. 2006. ‘The Toxic Sublime (Edward Burtynsky)’, Art in America, 26 February: 118-23.

Elkins, James. 1997. The Object Stares Back: On the Nature of Seeing (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Elkins, James. 1998. On Pictures and the Words that Fail Them (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Elkins, James. 1999. The Domain of Images (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).

Elkins, James. 2001. Pictures and Tears: A History of People Who Have Cried in Front of Paintings (New York: Routledge).

Elkins, James. 2003. Visual Studies: A Sceptical Introduction (New York: Routledge).

Elkins, James, and Maja Naef (eds.). 2011. What is an Image? (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press).

Emmeche, Claus, and Kalevi Kull (eds.). 2011. Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs (London: Imperial College Press). Doi: https://doi.org/
10.1142/p771.

Evans, Jessica, and Stuart Hall (eds.). 1999. Visual Culture: The Reader (London: Sage).

Favareau, Donald (ed.). 2010. Essential Readings in Biosemiotics: Anthology and Commentary (Berlin: Springer). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9650-1.

Fitzgerald, Timothy (ed.). 2007. Religion and the Secular: Historical and Colonial Formations (London: Equinox).

Foltz, Richard. 2007. ‘The Religion of the Market: Reflections on a Decade of Discus­sion’, Worldviews 11.2: 135-54. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853507X204914.

Foster, Hal (ed.). 1988. Vision and Visuality (New York: Dia Art Foundation).

Fox, Roy F. 1994. Images in Language, Media, and Mind (Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English).

Freedberg, David. 1989. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Doi: https://doi.org/10.7208/
chicago/9780226259031.001.0001.

Fuller, Matthew. 2005. Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Gibson, James J. 1978. ‘The Ecological Approach to the Visual Perception of Pictures’, Leonardo 11: 227-35. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1574154.

Gill, Carolyn Bailey (ed.). 2000. Time and the Image (Manchester: Manchester University Press).

Gombrich, Ernst Hans. 1960. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2nd edn).

Gombrich, Ernst Hans. 1982. The Image and the Eye: Further Studies in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (New York: Phaidon Press).

Gorski, Philip, David Kyuman Kim, John Torpey, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen (eds.). 2012. The Post-Secular in Question: Religion in Contemporary Society (New York: New York University Press). Doi: https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/
9780814738726.001.0001.

Gottlieb, Roger S. 2006. A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future (New York: Oxford University Press). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/
acprof:oso/9780195176483.003.0003.

Grau, Oliver, with Thomas Veigl. 2011. Imagery in the 21st Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Doi: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262015721.001.0001.

Gruzinski, Serge. 2001. Images at War: Mexico from Columbus to Blade Runner (1492–2019) (Durham, NC: Duke University Press). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/
9780822383116.

Guattari, Felix. 2000. The Three Ecologies (trans. I. Pindar and P. Sutton; London: Athlone).

Gullion, Jessica Smartt. 2018. Diffractive Ethnography: Social Sciences and the Ontological Turn (New York: Routledge). Doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351044998.

Harman, Graham. 2018. Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (London: Routledge). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.997.

Heidegger, Martin. 1977. ‘The Age of the World Picture’, in The Question Concerning Technology (trans. and ed. W. Lovitt; New York: Harper & Row): 115-54.

Hillman, James. 1989. ‘Back to Beyond: On Cosmology’, in D.R. Griffin (ed.), Archetypal Process: Self and Divine in Whitehead, Jung, and Hillman (Evanston: Northwestern University Press): 213-32.

Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 1996. Signs of Meaning in the Universe (trans. B. Haveland; Bloomington: Indiana University Press).

Holbraad, Martin, and Morten Axel Pedersen. 2017. The Ontological Turn: An Anthropological Exposition (New York: Cambridge University Press). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316218907.

Holzl, Ingrid, and Remi Marie. 2015. Softimage: Towards a New Theory of the Digital Image (Bristol, UK: Intellect).

Hopkins, Robert. 1998. Picture, Image, and Experience: A Philosophical Inquiry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Howes, Graham. 2007. The Art of the Sacred: An Introduction to the Aesthetics of Art and Belief (London: I.B. Tauris). Doi: https://doi.org/10.5040/9780755604388.

Huss, Boaz. 2014. ‘Spirituality: The Emergence of a New Cultural Category and Its Challenge to the Religious and the Secular’, Journal of Contemporary Religion 29.1: 47-60. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2014.864803.

Ingold, Tim. 1992. ‘Culture and the Perception of the Environment’, in E. Croll and D. Parkin (eds.), Bush Base: Forest Farm: Culture, Environment and Development (London: Routledge): 39-56.

Ivakhiv, Adrian J. 2001. Claiming Sacred Ground: Pilgrims and Politics at Glastonbury and Sedona (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).

Ivakhiv, Adrian J. 2006. ‘Toward a Geography of “Religion”: On the Spatial Dimension of Significance’,