Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2, April
THIS PAPER is concerned with showing a possible way of dealing with represen-
In his volume written together with Harry Prosch, Polanyi distinguishes three
types of integration in tacit knowing.
The first kind is indication. Here subsidiary clues bear upon focal items which
claim our intrinsic interest. In normal cases of this integration the subsidiary
clues are without intrinsic interest. Indication is called 'self-centred' integration
by Polanyi because here the self is never 'carried away' by the focal object.
There is a second type of integration, that of symbolization. Here subsidiaries
stand for or symbolize the focal object. They do not function (as they do
above) merely as indicators, but they are of intrinsic interest to us. In this
second case the subsidiary clues are of greater interest than those of the focal
object.6 They do not merely bear on a focal item but they are embodied in it.
We are 'carried away' by the subsidiary items. Symbolization is called 'self-
giving' integration by Polanyi because in it not only does the symbol become
GABRIELLA UJLAKJ 123
involved in the process, but also the self, which is carried away by the symbol,
becomes involved.
If a symbol embodies a significant thing which is significant by itself, then
the result is a metaphor, the third type of integration. We define 'metaphor' as a
case where both subsidiaries and focals are of intrinsic interest. Here the
subsidiary clues consist of our experiences and these are related to both parts of
a metaphor: the tenor and the vehicle. Therefore, the jrom-to relation is doubled.
We see it in the focal position once again. In spite of the fact that both tenor
and vehicle are equally in the focal position, one of them is subordinated to the
IV. MEANINGS
A problem may arise here. We have already seen that the vital condition of
recognition of a work of art lies in the fact that we have to be subsidiarily
aware of its flat canvas. In this way we are reminded that instead of being part
of reality, paintings are parts of a transnatural s world. Therefore, the integra-
tion of a work of art results in an artificial coherence. Polanyi emphasizes that
there are two kinds of coherences: natural coherences, which we meet in nature,
and artificial ones, which are contrived by man. From this point of view not only
works of art but all other products of man are artificial coherences. But if we
hear of artificial and natural things as two different kinds, we will think that
while the latter by all means has ontological relevance the former-the artificial
coherence-has relevance only in a knower's mind. Polanyi recognized this
connection when he emphasized that we consider works of art as artefacts,
hence as parts of a transnatural world. However, he was also aware of the fact
that other products of man, e.g., those of scientific or religious thought, or
tools, also have ontological relevance in spite of our awareness of them as
products of man. Man acknowledges not only the products of nature as parts
of the real world but also his own products. But if all coherences produced by
man are artificial we will not know how the artificiality of a work of art is
different from that of a tool. If we go further, we will see that although they do
not differ in their original artificiality, they differ in their use.
Thus we have recognized that the same structure of integration may induce
different kinds of meanings. According to Polanyi, artificial coherences are
connected with semantic meanings whereas natural coherences are related to natural
meanings.
'In general it may be said that to be a meaning is, epistemologically speak-
124 THE LOGIC OF REPRESENTATION
because of their symbolic connection with the subsidiary clues. When regarded
from the point of view of indication, aflagis only a piece of cloth, while from
the point of view of symbolization, it is the symbol of our country. In the
former case the self as a centre of acquired information points to this piece of
cloth which is actually a flag. In the latter case the self is already aware of the
essence of the flag and in the process of symbohzation his or her awareness of
theflagbecomes embodied in the focal object, i.e., in the flag. Here we are not
interested in the object of our focal awareness, i.e., in the flag or in its mean-
ing, because we already know it. These are our diffuse experiences which are
But this function has to be wiped out from the relation between a thing
represented and its real counterpart if the painting is meant to belong to the
transnatural field of art. From the fact that formal similarity is a universally
holding relation between reality and the objects represented, it follows that it
can be extended to every possible subject of representation. In contrast to
representation, in symbolization the function connecting the symbol with the
thing symbolized is non-universal but particular. This function can change
from object to object or from person to person, and its change depends on
requirements of everyday life. Our relation to a particular thing depends on its
used as a tool, offers us a possibility to perceive the world related to the picture
in a new way. So we can claim that in contrast to symbolization or factual
information, the meaning of a representational painting can only change the
frame in which we have seen the world before.
1
M. Polanyi, Tacit Knowing: Its Bearing on through which it became a focal object.' in
Some Problems of Philosophy in: Knowing and M. Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning
Being. Essays by Michael Polanyi, ed. by (Chicago and London: the University of
Marjorie Grene (London: Routledge & Chicago Press, 1975), p. 72.
7
KeganPaul, 1969), p. 169. J. W. Stines, 'Vocation Recalled' {The
2
M. H. Pirenne, Optics, Painting and Photo- Polanyi Society fournal, 1984), p. 16.
8
graphy (Cambridge, 1970). E. H. Gombrich, Meditations on a Hobby
3
M. Polanyi, What Is a Painting? (American Horse, and other Essays on the Theory of Art
Scholar, Vol. 39, No. 4, Autumn 1970), p. (London and New York: Phaidon, 1963),
663. pp. 1-12.
4 9
Ibid. Gombrich, op. cit., p. 2.
5 10
E. H. Gombnch, Art and Illusion: A Study in Gombrich, op. cit., p. 4.
11
the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (New M. Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning, op.
York: Bollingen Foundation, i960), p. 279. cit., p.71.
6 12
'The focal object in symbolization, in con- M. Polanyi, What Is a Painting? (American
trast to the focal object in indication, is of Scholar, Autumn 1970), p. 232.
13
interest to us only because of its symbolic Ibid.
connections with the subsidiary clues