Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
As a mental activity, imagination is widely regarded as the capacity to
represent what is not immediately present to perception. This is often
analysed in terms of four closely related aspects spontaneity,
Correspondence:
Paul Crowther, Philosophy, School of Humanities, National University of Ireland,
Galway, Ireland.
Email: paul.crowther@nuigalway.ie
[1] This overview presents criteria addressed in varying degrees by all the most important
(specifically) philosophical approaches. I have found McGinn (2004) to be the most use-
ful discussion. He rightly emphasizes the quasi-sensory aspect of imagination, and offers
the fullest logic and phenomenology of it. Other important studies are Sartre (2004);
Casey (2000); and Husserl (2005). See also Crowther (2013b).
[2] It should be emphasized that McGinn goes on to explain the point in my quotation from
him on lines differing from the one I take in this paper. In effect, I emphasize the images
schematic character a factor that McGinn does not make central. Most of the differ-
ences between his approach and mine stem from this issue.
HOW IMAGES CREATE US 103
and accessible all aspects of shape and other perceptual qualities (such
as color and texture), as well as spatial relations (ibid., p. 14).
Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013
freedom of empirical humans in the midst of the world. He does not, however, explain
why this is the case, or the role played by imagination in knowledge and perception.
McGinn (2004) explores all these themes in much fuller terms, as does Thomass website.
Neither of these thinkers, however, emphasize the factors that are central to the present
paper namely the unifying existential significance of the schematic and stylistic aspects
of imaginations quasi-sensory basis. It may be, however, that this can help clarify more
specific issues in McGinns and Thomass approaches (such as the latters concept of
schemata).
[6] See, for example, Pylyshyn (2002).
HOW IMAGES CREATE US 105
as perception does not warrant the further inference that mental imag-
ery must be intrinsically depictive in character. The Kosslyn group
assume that if such imagery is interpreted as depictive, then this is
enough to explain its quasi-sensory character. However, to depict
something (in the usual sense of the term) involves making a likeness
of that somethings selected aspects on the basis of learned conven-
tions of artifice, and a publically accessible medium. True, the mental
image also involves selective interpretation of its object, but it is psy-
chologically generated. There is nothing of the made and enduring
nature of the picture.7 Indeed, as I will argue later, it is the felt lack of
this, vis--vis mental imagery, that is implicated in our making and
enjoyment of pictures.
For personal use only -- not for reproduction
[7] McGinn (2004, pp. 6173) offers a very effective critique of The Picture Theory of
Images that makes similar points to mine and more besides. Thomas likewise deploys
useful critical material in the Picture Theory section of an extended web-only version of
his Encyclopedia of Consciousness article Visual Imagery and Consciousness
(http://www.imagery-imagination.com/viac.htm#pic) [accessed 8 May 2013].
106 P. CROWTHER
cognitive fundamentality.
Imagination in its visual mode plays a key role in this. I will,
Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013
accordingly, focus on it (though many of the points argued can also fit
imaginings based on other sense modalities).
First, then, in terms of its psychological generation imagination
involves deliberative activity. It is something we can both choose to
do, and, when appropriate, do thoughtfully either through visualiz-
ing some described state of affairs, or through paying close attention
to what we are imagining. Imagining can also happen involuntarily. In
this case, imagery intrudes upon our consciousness without any obvi-
ous explanation as to what occasioned it.
Now, as noted in the Introduction, whether a phenomenon can be
perceived or not involves factors beyond our control. To be perceived,
the object must be physically available to perception.8 In this sense it
is independent of the will. In contrast to this, an object can be imag-
ined irrespective of whether or not it is physically available to us. In
fact, we can even and often do imagine things that do not actu-
ally exist. The objects availability to imagination, in other words, is
determined by the will alone.
[8] It might be asked how the distinction between perception and imagination fares in relation
to hallucinations and other delusional states. The answer is that the very recognition that
there are such states presupposes a context of rationality where the distinction between
what is perceived and what is imagined can be justified in publically accessible terms
through the mediation of language. At the ontogenetic level, matters are more complex.
There is a case for arguing that pre-cognitive experience, at least, involves a sense of real-
ity which does not make a clear distinction between perception and imagination.
OConnor and Aardema (2005) propose, for example, that (in pre-cognitive terms) per-
ception and imagination are absorbed in explorations of what is possible and not possible.
The argument is extremely viable. But, of course, this absorption does not last. Developed
rationality involves (at least in part) becoming aware that objects exist independently of
our will, and do so even when they are not being perceived. This entails that we can distin-
guish explicitly between what is perceived and what is imagined.
HOW IMAGES CREATE US 107
stant flux.
To imagine something now, and to imagine the same thing next
Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013
Part Two
In order to understand the importance of imagination for self-knowl-
edge it is important to consider first its relation to memory. The pos-
session of language allows us to recollect facts about our past the
110 P. CROWTHER
can just as easily encompass our past experiences as it can the projec-
tion of possibilities as such. In so far, accordingly, as imagination cov-
ers both of these, we have no need to invent some further mode of
visualizing that is distinctive to memory. Episodic memory, in other
words, can be regarded as factual memory realized through the
occurent exercise of imagination.
Memory of this kind actually has an epistemologically privileged
status. Without it, we would have no criterion for distinguishing
between mere knowledge about our past, and actually remembering it.
There are many things we know about what happened to us but which
are beyond our power of recall. We can frame such facts through first-
person descriptions, e.g. It was my first day at school, and I went in
through the main entrance. But unless we can generate a sequence of
imagery consistent with this, then there is no way of distinguishing
between factual knowledge about our past and actually remembering
the event. The role of imagination allows us to, as it were, own our
memories from the inside.
Now, it might be objected that this is not a sufficient criterion of
actual remembering. Is it not possible, for example, to generate
sequences of imagery consistent with the factual content of the things
we experienced, but whose quasi-sensory character has little or no
resemblance to what the experiences in question were actually like?
This is true, and the further we get from the present to the time of what
we are trying to remember, or the more mundane the experiences in
[10] A good philosophical treatment of ideas relevant to episodic memory can be found in
Wollheim (1984, pp. 62161). The burden of Wollheims account falls on the different
subject positions available within memory and imagination, rather than on the phenomen-
ology of the image itself.
HOW IMAGES CREATE US 111
our present context, but, even more importantly, the present comes to
bear on memory through those spontaneous origins of the images
Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013
content (in the conditions of the will) that I described in part one. How
the image appears is mainly spontaneous and determined by factors
that are constantly changing. The imagination does not simply repro-
duce that which is an image of; rather it offers a schematic and unsta-
ble stylized interpretation of it. Each time we imagine it, it will have
some difference or other determined by our situation, intentions,
and interests at the moment of interpretation.
Now, in the case of episodic and projective memory, this interpreta-
tive dimension means that the remembered past experience is partially
constituted by our present orientation. The features we imagine in
relation to it embody who we are now (as much if not more than they
embody who we were in the past). Imagination allows us to possess
the memory to inhabit it as something living rather as a mere fact
about our past. In this way, the past comes to matter to us. It becomes a
motivating force in the present precisely because imagination allows
us to access it and give it content on the basis of the current state of our
will.
I turn now to the existential significance of imagination in the field
of objective knowledge.
Part Three
At the heart of our knowledge of the objective world is what I earlier
called projection the capacity to imagine what possible items and
states of affairs other than those presently perceived might be like. As
we saw, this can be applied to memory, but its main application is
rather more general. It is sometimes based on expectations of how the
future might be, or how things might have turned out if things in the
HOW IMAGES CREATE US 113
is. However, there are also more fundamental relations involved, that
are intrinsic to imagining as such (on the lines described in part one).
Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013
For whilst the objective world exists independently of the will, pro-
jective imagination presents possible items, events, or state of affairs
as in effect adapted to our personal experiential perspective. The
imagined objects embody our style. Whether we imagine ourselves in
active relation to what we imagine or merely behold it neutrally in the
minds eye is neither here nor there. The world as imagined is consti-
tuted through our style. It answers to the form of the object being
imagined but also makes that form answer to our individual experi-
ence of the world. This means that just as imagination allows us to
inhabit and posses our past through episodic memory its projective
variant allows us to create possible items, events, and state of affairs
wherein the world has been adapted to our own being. No matter what
we imagine be it the back of the computer, or a small planet at the
edge of the universe the imagining of it makes reality amenable to
us even when it extends beyond what is immediately perceptible.
Even in imagining a wholly hostile environment, we frame the
character of its hostility on our terms. Imagination allows us to model
anywhere or anywhen that we want. There are potentially no gaps in
reality. Given any possible state of affairs past, present, future,
counterfactual, or hypothetical we can imagine them and be there,
on the basis of that decisive interface between the deliberative and the
spontaneous which I described earlier.
Imagination provides an atmosphere of alternative possibilities
through which our sense of the present breathes, and extends itself.
And this involves far more than the sustaining of knowledge alone. It
extends into practical reason in so far as there is a conceptual connec-
tion between freedom and possibility. A being cannot make free
choices unless it knows the possible outcomes of its actions. Such
HOW IMAGES CREATE US 115
might have been, and other places where we cant be all coexistent
alongside the place where we are just now. They project possible are-
Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013
memory. If the artist has not had personal acquaintance with the sub-
ject matter, then he or she can still create a picture which is consistent
Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013
stable final state that is chosen by the artist. In this way it achieves an
autonomy that images qua mental can never achieve.
The fact that this is done through a publically accessible medium
means that the picturers imaginative style can be made accessible to
others, and be compared and contrasted with the work of other artists.
The character of its uniqueness or otherwise is thus made available in
concrete terms. We can determine what is distinctive to the artist, and
what has been based simply on generally available rules and tech-
niques. Now, in many cultures, what is important are traditional idi-
oms of picture making rather than personal articulations. But even so,
in such contexts it is often possible to identify the individual style of
specific geographical or cultural ensembles. It becomes possible, in
For personal use only -- not for reproduction
other words, for the artist to share a style with a group of other such
agents.
Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013
ative state has issued in a picture, then we have the testimony of the
work itself. Whatever an artists intentions might be in creating a
Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013
[12] See, for example, Wolheim (1987, pp. 868). Wollheims position is criticized in detail in
Chapter 1 of Crowther (2013a, pp. 928).
120 P. CROWTHER
Conclusion
I have argued, then, the following basic case. Imagination is not only a
formal condition of self-consciousness and objective knowledge, it is
intrinsic to how we inhabit memory, and to how we inhabit the objec-
tive world. Through its mix of deliberative and spontaneous features
imagination blends its object with the style of the imaginer (through
[13] Dufrenne (1973) explores the relation between gesture and the emergence of the pictorial
whole very effectively. See especially pp. 27780. He does not, however, pick up on the
holistic aspect that I am emphasizing.
122 P. CROWTHER