The lines of investigation of human visual interactions have proposed different analytical and
conceptual models, depending on the theoretical assumptions and specific objectives
consistent with their focus of interest. They also have approached several aspects
concerning production and reception of visual images, focusing the social aspects involved in
the relations between individuals and visual images. The analysis of human visual
interactions, however, also depends on ''expectations'' in reaching objectives when visually
interacting with the environment. Some authors have analyzed theses expectations
highlighting the concept of “intentionality” as to justify a referential property of certain mental
states. They are, however, concerned mostly to human verbal interactions (e.g., verbal
reading and communication) or human non-imagetic interactions (e.g., beliefs, desires,
intentional actions, emotions etc.). On the other hand, the studies of human visual
interactions generally use the concept of intentionality in a superficial manner, lacking an
accurate conceptual treatment. The present paper aimed to evaluate the relevance of the
concept of intentionality in analyzing human visual interactions, specifically, human visual
perception and communication. Our objectives were: (i) to revise and present an alternative
approach for the concept of intentionality; (ii) to describe historically relevant theories of
human visual perception and communication, identifying their main assumptions and critics
towards them; (iii) to analyze visual meaning within these theories, by adopting the
categories “semantic externalism and internalism”; (iv) to analyze human visual perception
and communication from the conceptual model presented in (i). We suggest that
intentionality may be defined as a semantic mode of human interaction functioning that
distinguishes itself from syntactic (structural and causal relations) and pragmatic (functional
relations) modes of human interactions functioning. Therefore, we consider that traditional
approaches of the concept of intentionality are impaired because of their attempt to reduce
intentionality to syntactic and pragmatic levels of occurrence and description, instead of
considering it in terms of semantic occurrence and description. Our intentionalist analysis of
human visual perception distinguishes itself from traditional human visual perception theories
for rejecting that perceptual meaning consists of perceptual objects: (a) apprehended in
perceptual experiences (semantic internalism), or (b) functionally related to perceptual
responses (externalism semantic). Alternatively, we suggest that perceptual meaning
consists of “perceiving [how]”, instead of, “perceiving [what]”, becoming irrelevant to consider
the existence of perceptual objects. For human visual communication, semantic analyses are
impaired for admitting (i) an intrinsic or an acquired meaning to material forms of visual
representation (representational hypothesis), or (ii) an intention to produce perlocutionary
and illocutionary effects on audiences, by producing material forms of visual representation
(communicational hypothesis). Alternatively, we suggest that visual communication means
cultural-determined visual representation conditions, and visual representation means natural
and cultural-determined psychological conditions (including, perceptual ones). In other
words, the difficulties of coping with perceptual and communicational meaning concern of
category mistakes committed by internalist and externalist semantic hypotheses of human
visual perception and communication, when reducing semantic mode (intentionality) of
human visual perception and communication functioning to their syntactic and pragmatic
modes of functioning. An intentionalist perspective, as we have proposed in this paper, has
the merit of allowing us to reconsider, firstly, the relevance of the concept of intentionality in analyzing several categories of human interactions, other than those traditionally defined as
“mental states”; and, secondly, to reconsider the relevance of “meaning” in comprehending
other modes of human visual interaction functioning, other than those traditionally attributed
to sign systems.
|
