Tiempo y posfotografía

Una investigación 'pratice-led' acerca de la duración





Duración, Postfotografía, Investigación dirigida por la práctica, Tiempo, Duregraph


Este artículo presenta un proyecto de investigación practice-led (guiado por la práctica) que indaga acerca de cómo se puede percibir el tiempo experimentado a través de imágenes fotográficas manipuladas. La investigación se realiza mediante una serie de imágenes digitales, cuyo contenido se renegocia en el tiempo, mientras el sujeto de la fotografía permanece dentro del encuadre. La obra de arte evidencia un espacio inestable entre una composición fotográfica y una imagen en movimiento empleada para cuestionar las convenciones de poder en la visualización y ampliar la forma en que podemos concebir el tiempo como en las imágenes fotográficas digitales. Este trabajo contribuye al discurso sobre metodologías practice-led en el campo de la práctica como una forma de investigación a través de un comentario acerca de la práctica del diseño.



Não há dados estatísticos.

Biografias Autor

David van Vliet, Auckland University of Technology

David van Vliet is a lecturer in Communication Design at Auckland University of Technology (AUT), where he also completed a Master's in Design with the project entitled Duregraph. This practice-led study explored how experienced time can be articulated through manipulated photographic images. His research is related to the potential of emerging technologies and how it can change the way we treat images in photography and design.

Marcos Mortensen Steagall, Auckland University of Technology

Marcos Mortensen Steagall is a senior lecturer and Programme Leader of the Communication Design course from the Auckland University of Technology - AUT, based at their South Campus. He holds a Master (2000) and PhD (2006) in Communication and Semiotics acquired in The Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and a PhD in Art and Designed granted by Auckland University of Technology in 2019. His research interests are connected to visual semiotics; practice-oriented research methodologies in Art, Design and Technology; Lens-based image-making and indigenous epistemologies.


Baker, G. (2005). Photography's expanded field. October, 120–140.

Barthes, R. (1977). The photographic message. In (Ed.). Image Music Text. London: Fontana Press, 15–31.

_____ (1981). Camera lucida: Reflections on photography. Macmillan.

Bazin, A. and Gray, H. (1960). The ontology of the photographic image. Film Quarterly, 13 (4), 4–9.

Benjamin, W. (2006). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In J. Morra y M. Smith (Eds.). Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture: Routledge, 4, 114–137.

Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: Penguin Books.

_____ (2003). Drawn to that moment. In G. Dyer (Ed.), John Berger: selected essays (pp. 419–423). United States of America: Pantheon Books.

Bergson, H. (1957). Time and free will. Edinburgh: George Allen & Unwin LTD.

Brubaker, D. (1993). Andre Bazin on automatically made images. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51(1), 59–67.

Candy, L. (2006). Practice based research: A guide. CCS report, 1(2).

Fredericks, D. C. (1993). Coping with transience: Ecclesiastes on brevity in life. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press.

Hamilton, J., & Jaaniste, L. (2010). A connective model for the practice-led research exegesis: An analysis of content and structure. Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, 3(1), 31–44.

Hunt, R. and McDaniel, M. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 421–445.

Husserl, E. (1964). The Phenomenology of internal time-consciousness. Indiana University Press.

Jarret, C. (2019). Why meeting another’s gaze is so powerful. Disponible en: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190108-why-meeting-anothers-gaze-is-so-powerful.

Kesner, L., Grygarová, D., Fajnerová, I., Lukavský, J., Nekovářová, T., Tintěra, J., & Horáček, J. (2018). Perception of direct vs. averted gaze in portrait paintings: An fMRI and eye-tracking study. Brain and cognition, 125, 88–99.

Mortensen Steagall, M. (2019). The process of immersive photography: Beyond the cognitive and the physical (Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology).

Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), p. 6–18.

Nassar, I. (2007). On photographs and returning the gaze. Journal of Palastine Studies 31, 3–5.

Ritchin, F. (2010). After Photography. W. W. Norton & Company.

Rorty, Richard (1982). Consequences of pragmatism (essays 1972–1980). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rowse, D. (2020). Where is Your Subject Looking and Why Does it Matter?, n.d. Disponible en: https://digital-photography-school.com/where-is-your-subject-looking-and-why-does-it-matter/

Sartre, J.-P. (1956). Being and nothingness. Philosophical Library.

Sontag, S. (1977). On Photography. United States of America: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Steagall, M. M. & Ings, W. (2018). Pesquisa de doutorado practice-led e a natureza dos métodos imersivos. DAT Journal, 3(2), 392–423.




Como Citar

van Vliet, D., & Mortensen Steagall, M. (2021). Tiempo y posfotografía: Una investigación ’pratice-led’ acerca de la duración. Revista 2i: Estudos De Identidade E Intermedialidade, 3(4), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.21814/2i.3434