Sentences with phrase «between subject and object»

Indeed, this conversion can repeat the forms of violence it seeks to redress, as it can sustain the distinction between the subject and object of feeling.»

Ranging from the Light and Space Movement of the late 1960s, to works by contemporary artists like Dominique Gonzalez - Foerster and Cyprien Gaillard, and performances and workshops, this exhibition spans a panorama, featuring a great variety of immersive practices which dissolve categories of viewer and work and diminish the distance between subject and object.

Structures attempt to balance the slippage between subject and object.

Turning the spatial and temporal architectures of exhibition - making upside down, cabaret provides a narrative framework in which to rearrange hierarchies between subject and object and performance.

I am interested in field and minimalist painting, utilizing color partnerships and conducting an equal exchange between subject and object.

In these new works, she instead employs shapes such as spheres, wedges and cubes in an effort to blur the boundaries between subject and object.

Ranging from the Light and Space Movement of the late 1960s, to works by contemporary artists like Dominique Gonzalez - Foerster and Cyprien Gaillard, and performances and workshops, this exhibition spans a panorama, featuring a great variety of immersive practices which dissolve categories of viewer and work and diminish the distance between subject and object.

Where is the boundary between subject and object, and how authoritatively can such boundaries be defined?

In these paintings, Colen has collapsed the distance between subject and object, the represented and the representative — the image of the flower, made by the flower — in his ongoing quest for what lies at the heart of the act of artistic transformation.

She examines relationships between subject and object, figuration and abstraction, color and form, and humor and pathos.

Blurring the boundaries between presence and absence, past and future, nature and civilisation, cyclical movements and inevitable transformations, the exhibition test the viewer's perceptive capacities, and demand that the dichotomy between the subject and the object is set aside.

Taking this jutting, architectural approach to figuration, the artist's work poses intriguing questions of how humanity recreates its own inherent forms, and the dissonances that occasionally enter the dialogue between subject and object.

As both actors and victims of ecological alterations, human agency is now so embedded within nature that the distinction between subject and object becomes obsolete.

Like Louise Bourgeois, Eva Hesse and Carolee Schneemann, Street creates work of such confusing sensuality that it can be difficult to look at and hard to process, particularly as a viewer tries to parse the various distinctions between subject and object.

Between the subject and the object.

Here, Place the Lever is the abject, conceptualizing a difficult commons between subject and object populated by semiocapital, networked identity, digital culture and other symptoms of modernity.

In this fugue state, the relationship between subject and object is particularly unstable: here, possession and possessor leave traces of themselves on one another, rendering their edges uncertain, shifting like the weather.

The work operates in the space between the subject and the object, between photography and painting, in a tradition now well - established by forerunners such as the frequently - referenced Gerhard Richter.

One difficulty lies in the fact that there is no clear demarcation between subject and object, between learner and learned.

Some key features of the transformed functional role which Whitehead gives to feeling emerge in the context of his treatment of the distinction between subject and object, knower and known.

These internal relationships, these new subject - object wholes — which blur the distinction between subject and object — are for Merleau - Ponty Gestalt - structured, since one feature of a Gestalt is that each part bears to others as well as to the whole interdependent rather than independent relations.

There is no sense here, either felt or known, of an ultimate dichotomy between subject and object, because no subject appears here which is only subject, and no object which is only object.

As Whitehead allowed cognition to be grounded in real prehensions, which occur between a subject and its object world, so also it was for Piaget: the «epistemic» subject, as an organism, previously an «open system» which simply lives in interaction with its environment, acts — and finally, thinks (BC 477).

Mutual interaction between subject and object, knower and known, is the context for the rise of knowledge rather than that context being in the object or subject alone.

Such analysis yields distinctions like those between subject and object, fact and interpretation.

For the Hegelians, there must be an Absolute, to transcend the complete gulf that lies between subject and object in our experience.

However, in microcosm, the internal relations taking place between the two enduring objects occur between subject and object.

I believe that similar insights are conveyed by Whitehead when he argues against understanding the relationship between subject and object as only that between knower and known in a Cartesian conceptualism (Al 117ff.).

Love requires some distinction between the subject and the object.

There are differences, finally, as to the relation between subject and object: whether the object is known through dialectical or analytical reasoning, scientific method, phenomenological insight into essence, or some form of direct intuition.

(Cf. Between Man and Man, «Dialogue,» p. 14 f. 170) This does not mean, however, any monistic or mystical presupposition of unity between subject and object.

The relationship between subject and object is no longer that relationship of knowing postulated by classical idealism, wherein the object always seems the construction of the subject, but a relationship of being in which, paradoxically, the subject is his body, his world, his situation, by a sort of exchange.

A precise statement of what the correspondence or the clash might be is not easy to produce and is not necessary here, since our main purpose in these remarks is merely to emphasize the point that value experiences depend for their character upon the kinds of relationships that exist between subject and object.

It represents a harmony, complex in nature but simply perceived, between subject and object.

Only the dualistic form of the modern Western consciousness, which is grounded in an absolute distinction between the subject and the object of consciousness, instills us with the seemingly irrevocable sense that the world or reality stands wholly outside of consciousness itself.

In the electronic media, a radically altered relationship between subject and object emerges with which the old critical concepts can not deal.

Iconic symbols, he writes, «are nonobjective symbols that express the feelings, values, and hopes of subjects, or that organize and regulate the flow of interaction between subjects and objects or even point to the context or ground of that whole.

Symbols not only express the feelings and attitudes of subjects but «organize and regulate the flow of interaction between subjects and objects».

Not exact matches

In this structure of knowing there is a fundamental split between the subject of knowing and the known object.

Here Lindblom quotes with strong approval Harold Knight, The Hebrew Prophetic Consciousness (London: Lutterworth Press, 1948), p. 96: «Here we have a state of the highest integration, for the attention is wholly focused upon a single object which gradually fills the consciousness until the connexion between the subject and the outside world is broken.»

One can see here the connection between the internal relation between eternal objects, and the fact that from the standpoint of the prehending occasion, its datum, as a logical subject placed within a functional context, is internally related to it.

There's a big difference between a puppet and a person, an object and a subject.

In the opposite case, negative value or the experience of the ugly represents a clash or incongruity between object and subject.

Spiegelberg observes that one of the essential differences between Brentano and Husserl is that Husserlian consciousness means a «creative achievement» and not the object's immanence in a passive Aristotelian subject (PM I 115).

There are similarities between the two accounts of perception, as we have already indicated: perception has as its object an individual; it introduces the object within the percipient; it comes about through the causal efficacy of the object; and it presupposes the transmission of form from object to subject.

Its methods of abstracting from the concrete actuality and of largely ignoring the inevitable difference between observers reduce the I in so far as possible to the abstract knowing subject and the It in so far as possible to the passive and abstract object of thought.

Subject - object, or I - It, knowledge is ultimately nothing other than the socially objectivized and elaborated product of the real meeting which takes place between man and his Thou in the realms of nature, social relations, and art.

It is important to recognize the distinction between objects and subjects.

Descartes drew the line between human minds which are subjects and the rest of the world made of objects.

Soelle has suggested that the traditional distinction between God and the world is captured in a set of «godly» / «worldly» dualisms — Creator / Created, Lord / Servant, Maker / Made, Artist / Artifact, Will or form / Stuff or matter, Cause / Effect, Subject / Object.