## Stephen Monteiro (2014). *Fit to Frame: Image and Edge in Contemporary Interfaces*. : . > [!INFO] > Type:: [[article]] > Title:: Fit to Frame: Image and Edge in Contemporary Interfaces > Author(s): [[Stephen Monteiro]] > Year:: 2014 > Tags:: > DOI:: 10/ghr9x2 > Citekey:: monteiro_fit_2014 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Fit to Frame: Image and Edge in Contemporary Interfaces](zotero://select/items/@monteiro_fit_2014) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-05-19]] ## Citation ```latex [@monteiro_fit_2014] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@monteiro_fit_2014]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - "이미지는 일상 생활에서 다양한 요구 사항과 용도로 사용되지만 대부분은 스크린 기반 디바이스의 디지털 형식이라는 동일한 수단을 통해 전달되고 조회됩니다." (몬테로, 2014, 360쪽) ## Annotation “Images elicit different requirements and uses in everyday life, yet most are conveyed and viewed by the same means: as digital formats on screen-based devices.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 360) “By privileging the screen, the object is reinforced while the image must adapt.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 360) “As tablet users turn and tilt the screen in their hands, the image will spin to match the object’s new orientation, punctuating its” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 360) “deference to the frame as defining form.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 361) “Touchscreen has had a profound effect on the triangulated relationship of user, image and screen.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 361) “As Verhoeff’s evocation of ‘essence’ and ‘need’ demonstrate, the visual experience of the image becomes bound into tactile recognition of the screen, reciprocated by the screen’s recognition of touch.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 361) “With the frequent and indifferent modification of digital images to fit screens, the screen itself may become the message.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 361) “The marketing of screens and screen devices increasingly foregrounds superficiality: Microsoft calls its tablet simply ‘Surface’; Indian electronics manufacturer Micromax names its line of smartphones and tablets ‘Canvas’; Apple equips its iPhones and iPads with ‘Retina’ display, invoking the light-sensitive surface of the inner eye. ‘You’re actually touching your photos, reading a book, playing the piano. Nothing comes between you and what you love’, Apple claims, conveniently negating the retinal reference’s connotations of both surface and mediation.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 362) “In The Interface Effect, Galloway suggests such interfaces reify mediatic difference and convergence, producing ‘an “agitation” or generative friction between different formats’.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 362) “Galloway surmises that ‘all media evoke ... liminal transition moments in which the outside is evoked in order that the inside may take place’.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 362) “The contemporary screen image’s constant adaptation to the frame through expansion and rotation corresponds no better to much of modernist image-making, however, than it does to the model of modern screen imagery just described.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 363) “Yet the contemporary screen image suggests neither an infinite universe beyond the frame nor an inward concentration on the image that would draw attention away from the frame, such as can be found in cubist, abstract expressionist, or colour-field works.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 363) “Instead, it affirms the organizing presence of the screen edge.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 363) “Recent changes in screen form and image display undoubtedly affect our sensibilities and responsibilities.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 364) “Recent changes in screen form and image display undoubtedly affect our sensibilities and responsibilities. The shift in emphasis from image to screen fosters new understandings of the image as part of a larger apparatus, where its screen status is always contingent and provisory.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 364) “parergon” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 372) “The frame serves that function and remains as important to the functioning and understanding of the image-as-image as it does to the visual information the image contains.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 372) “Not only is the screen device’s prevailing austere modernist form far from adornment, but one could point to the image it houses as fulfilling that role.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 372) “In engaging frames of painting and cinema, the differing theoretical perspectives examined here – deconstruction (Derrida), analytical philosophy (Cavell) and modernist formalism ([[Michael Fried|Fried]]) – introduce a corollary pairing of frame and fabric. The veil or drapery as a parergon, the frame as a loom, the image-object as canvas on stretchers – all represent ways of envisioning the relationship between the edge and the surface of the work.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 375) “Understanding the edge as frame tends to flatten representational space into a simple image surface while reinforcing the edge as that surface’s definitive limit.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 376) “‘The parts are few and so subordinate to the unity as not to be parts in an ordinary sense. A painting is nearly an entity, one thing, and not the indefinable sum of a group of entities and references.’” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 377) “More and more, then, the frame and the need to fill its form dictate the terms of viewing. The image, as Sobchack writes, becomes incidental, ‘just there’, fortuitously present for the screen device that contains it.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 377) “As Carla Gottlieb notes, ‘an edge does not possess the same binding power as a frame or line; it is merely a termination’” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 377) “The hard-edge paintings of Stella or Baer create visual correspondences that urge the spectator to comprehend the painting primarily as an object, for example, yet they neither require nor compel physical handling any more than a remote-controlled television.” (Monteiro, 2014, p. 378) ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@monteiro_fit_2014]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```