Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0043120594 = product of:
  0.017248238 = sum of:
    0.010225092 = product of:
      0.030675275 = sum of:
        0.030675275 = weight(_text_:problem in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030675275 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.007023146 = product of:
      0.021069437 = sum of:
        0.021069437 = weight(_text_:29 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021069437 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Seit dem byzantinischen Bilderstreit und dem Bildersturm der Reformation ist nicht mehr in solcher Intensität über Bilder nachgedacht worden wie in den letzten Jahrzehnten. Neben der Archäologie und der Kunstgeschichte haben sich zahlreiche weitere Fächer an Fragestellungen rund um das Bild geradezu festgebissen. Angesichts dessen geht einer der bedeutendsten Kunsthistoriker der Gegenwart der Frage nach, warum Begriff und Geltung sowie Macht und Ohnmacht von Bildern so hartnäckig verfolgte Themen unserer Tage geworden sind. Vordergründig geht dieser Boom auf die nie zuvor dagewesene Dominanz des Visuellen in fast allen Lebensbereichen zurück. Dahinter verbirgt sich jedoch ein tieferliegendes Problem als Paradoxon: Bilder besitzen zwar als von Menschen geschaffene Artefakte kein autonomes Leben, entwickeln aber immer wieder eine Präsenz, die sie mehr sein läßt als nur toter Stoff. Darauf gründet die Erwartung, daß das Nachdenken über sie mehr hervorzubringen vermag als der bloße Blick auf sie. Im Doppelspiel von lebloser Starre und Lebendigkeit liegt die handlungsstiftende Kraft von Bildern. Mit Blick darauf entwirft Bredekamp eine Theorie des Bildakts als Gegenstück zur Lehre vom Sprechakt und verfolgt das Phänomen wirkkräftiger Bilder in drei Bereichen: der künstlichen Lebendigkeit, des Austausches von Bild und Körper und der Eigentätigkeit der Form. Das Buch ist die stark erweiterte Fassung seiner im Jahr 2007 gehaltenen und vielbeachteten Frankfurter Adorno-Vorlesungen - und die Summe jahrzehntelanger Forschungen zur bildaktiven Phänomenologie.

Footnote

Rez. in: Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.298 vom 23.12.2010, S.29 (Scalla, M.: Bilder sehen Dich an).

0.0014898343 = product of:
  0.011918674 = sum of:
    0.011918674 = product of:
      0.03575602 = sum of:
        0.03575602 = weight(_text_:29 in 981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03575602 = score(doc=981,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.3297832 = fieldWeight in 981, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=981)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

26.12.2007 18:29:29

0.0012781365 = product of:
  0.010225092 = sum of:
    0.010225092 = product of:
      0.030675275 = sum of:
        0.030675275 = weight(_text_:problem in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030675275 = score(doc=1089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

For many years, the Web became an important media for the diffusion of multilingual resources. Linguistic differenees still form a major obstacle to scientific, cultural, and educational exchange. Besides this linguistic diversity, a multitude of databases and collections now contain documents in various formats, which may also adversely affect the retrieval process. This paper describes a research project aiming to verify the existing relations between two indexing approaches: traditional image indexing recommending the use of controlled vocabularies or free image indexing using uncontrolled vocabulary, and their respective performance for image retrieval, in a multilingual context. This research also compares image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language; and a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. This research will indicate whether one of these indexing approaches surpasses the other, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of the image searchers. This paper presents the context and the problem statement of the research project. The experiment carried out is also described, as well as the data collection methods

5.2673597E-4 = product of:
  0.0042138877 = sum of:
    0.0042138877 = product of:
      0.012641663 = sum of:
        0.012641663 = weight(_text_:29 in 4047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012641663 = score(doc=4047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.11659596 = fieldWeight in 4047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4047)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.298 vom 23.12.2010, S.29

5.2199763E-4 = product of:
  0.004175981 = sum of:
    0.004175981 = product of:
      0.012527943 = sum of:
        0.012527943 = weight(_text_:22 in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012527943 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

6. 1.2011 11:22:12