Agamben, the Image and the Human
Agamben, the Image and the Human
What is the precise relation of Agamben's and Guy Debord's notion of the image? But, even more, what is an image and how does it relate to the human? These are the guiding questions of this chapter. It is shown that the image is ubiquitous in today's society, but that there is little appreciation of the exact nature of the image. Agamben himself is ambivalent: at one point, he sees the image in Debord as the revelation of mediality; at another, he appears to support the transparency of the image when referring to the Muselmann of the camps. More generally, the image can be understood in pragmatic terms as: 1) Forensic (used as evidence); 2) as an icon (synecdoche, or part standing for the whole); 3) metonymy (celebrities linked to refugees by association). Each is important, but it is necessary to go beyond these, if the link is to be grasped between the image and the human. In this context, ultimately, an image is not an object, nor is the human. The chapter looks, in addition, at the image and violence, Agamben's analysis of the Muselmann and the image and the political.
Keywords: Debord, gesture, human, image, mediality, Muselmann, violence, society of the spectacle
Edinburgh Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.
