Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, Vol. 31 (1996),111-124

VISUAL METAPHORS

HANS SIGGAARD JENSEN Copenhagen Business School

There are many excellent reasons why metaphors are interesting seen from an aesthetic point of view and from the philosophy of language. In recent years they have also been the subject of considerable attention from cognitive re• searchers. Together with Nietzsche, these researchers and deconstructivistic theorists agree that the essence of language and cognition is metaphorical. The term "picture" is often used for the metaphor and metaphorical language is of• ten characterized as "figurative" implying its visual connotations. This is because the metaphor creates a relation between two elements of which one often is concrete or visual. When Shakespeare says about Juliet that she "is the Sun" it obviously has many meanings, but the visual meaning is definitely one of them. In an atmosphere marked by semiotics, especially in art theory and aesthetics, it is almost a matter of fact that relations, which are im• portant in natural languages and their usage, cannot be specific to these. It is therefore obvious to ask whether metaphors exist in other art forms than liter• ature. First of all the question touches upon central problems concerning meaning, the creation of meaning and the perception of meaning. Secondly, it is concerned with central problems regarding the relation between language, signs, meaning and perception, not to speak of the understanding of what a metaphor in itself actually is. Finally, it concerns the interesting and in the his• tory of poetry and aesthetics so momentous problem about the relation between different art forms, especially in the modem sense in which they all one way or the other is to be seen as a language. In the book "Painting as an Art" the British philosopher and art theorist Richard Wollheim attempts to develop a comprehensive theory on the visual creation of meaning. It is first of all based on an analysis of human perception and then on a psychological/psychoanalytical understanding of art generally, especially painting. The crucial factor for Wollheim is the interaction between the experiencing viewer, reader or listener and the work of art together with its creator. As such he is in a way impervious to remarks about the autonomy of the work and its own world or horizon. To him the experience and understand• ing of art are intimately associated with the realization or frustration of the 112 HANS SIGGAARD JENSEN artist' intentions, and what really interests him is the intricate interaction between the effects of the artist and the viewer's repertoire of possible reac• tions, voluntary or involuntary, but in any circumstances guided by the creator through his conscious or unconscious command of his art form. To Wollheim art is both the creation of meaning and insight, not created or done through or• dinary communication but exactly through the use of artifice and artificiality - the technical tricks of an art form - making is possible for the work of art to say and do things which otherwise cannot be said and done. It could be said that Wollheim's perception of art is placing it in relation to the - existential - fact that we as humans also are subjects, that what I experi• ence as, say, a viewer cannot be experienced by others whilst I nevertheless in order to consort and live with others must have some idea of what and how they experience. What is going on, so to speak, inside their minds. To other aestheticists art is the unveiling, disclosure or exposure of Being, or a direct language which expresses otherwise inexpressible internal experiences of al• most cosmic proportion. But to Wollheim it is the interaction between the work of art together with the artist, who uses his effects, and the viewer, who applies conscious or unconscious strategies of experiencing, which is crucial. To some extent this interaction can be said to be communication, but definite• ly not in the language sense. It is rather of perceptual character. In support of his art theory Wollheim develops a perception theory. A main feature is that he differentiates between different forms of perceptions asso• ciated with different kinds of experiences. Whether we look at a landscape or a picture of a landscape we can see what there is in the landscape or in the pic• ture. We look at a picture of a cow on the Isle of Man as a cow on the Isle of Man. We classify and categorize. We see something as something else. We see the paint spots on the canvas as a cow. As an example Wollheim uses the expe• rience of clouds. We look at the meteorologically shaped clouds and read into them faces and figures. It is in a way elementary perception psychology as known from Gestalt psychology. Then to Wollheim the fundamental kind of perception is when we see some• thing as something else. We can use the formula: To see x as y. To look at pho• tographies, to look at perspective drawings, to look at a Rorschach figure are all examples og looking at x as y. But there is another form of perception which has nothing to do with what we see, i.e. classification or categorization of objects within our sight, but rather has to do with the characteristics and at• tributes of the entire sight or picture. It is when we look at a picture - say a