روایت شناسی دیداری: تحلیل روایت های ایستا و متوالی در تصاویر بر پایۀ روش «گینگر هوروت»

اختلاف بر سر روایت های دیداری بویژه روایت پردازی در تصاویر ایستا، تا سال 1980م مانع از رشد روایت شناسی دیداری شده بود. روایت شناسان زبانی بر مبنای 2 شاخصۀ مهم روایت زبانی: تکرار عناصر در توالی زمان و نظم علّی رویدادها، هرگونه تفسیر ایجابی از روایت را نفی می کردند. مورخین هنر با رویکردی ایجابی و تاکید بر تمایز بنیادین روایت زبانی و تصویری، نشان دادند، روایت های زبانی در تجزیه زمانی (روایت متوالی) و روایت های دیداری در تلفیق زمانی(روایت ایستا) بهتر عمل می کند. این مقاله ضمن بررسی مطالعات گونه شناختی روایت در تاریخ هنر، با هدف بررسی انواع روایت های دیداری در هنر غیراروپایی؛ 3 نمونۀ مطالعاتی از دیوارنگاره های ارامنۀ جلفای اصفهان مورد بررسی قرار می دهد: تا اولاً بوسیلۀ شاخص های تجربی دخیل در معنای روایت(« اپیزودها» و «رفرنس ها») در روش «تحلیل ارجاعی گینگر هوروت»، روایت های دیداری ایستا و متوالی در نمونه های مطالعاتی مورد تحلیل قرار گیرد. سپس علاوه بر شاخص های بصری سازندۀ معنای روایت در روش هوروت، شاخص های پیشنهادی نیز مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج پژوهش نشان می دهد شاخص های «گفتگوگری» و «نگاه» را می توان بعنوان علائم ارجاعی به شاخص های تشخیصی درجدول رفرنس ها افزود.

visual narratology: analysis of static and consecutive narratives in images based on the gyongyver horvath method.

disagreements on visual narratives, especially still narratives, had hindered the development of visual narratology until the 1980s. linguistic narratologists rejected any positive interpretation of the narrative based on two important characteristics of linguistic narrative: the repetition of elements in the sequence of time and the causal order of events. art historians, with a positive approach and emphasizing the fundamental distinction between linguistic and visual narrative, have shown that linguistic narratives work better in temporal analysis (sequential narrative) and visual narratives in temporal integration (static narrative). this article examines the typological studies of narrative in the history of art, with the aim of examining the types of visual narratives in non european art; examines 3 examples of studies of armenian murals in isfahan julfa: first, by experimental indicators involved in the meaning of the narrative (&episodes& and &references&) in the method of & gyongyver horvath`s reference analysis&, static and sequential visual narratives to be analyzed in study samples. then, in addition to the visual indicators that make up the meaning of the narrative in the horvath method, the proposed indicators were also examined. the results show that the indicators of &conversation& and &gaze& can be added to the diagnostic indicators in the reference table as “reference signs”.disagreements on visual narratives, especially still narratives, had hindered the development of visual narratology until the 1980s. linguistic narratologists rejected any positive interpretation of the narrative based on two important characteristics of linguistic narrative: the repetition of elements in the sequence of time and the causal order of events. art historians, with a positive approach and emphasizing the fundamental distinction between linguistic and visual narrative, have shown that linguistic narratives work better in temporal analysis (sequential narrative) and visual narratives in temporal integration (static narrative). this article examines the typological studies of narrative in the history of art, with the aim of examining the types of visual narratives in non european art; examines 3 examples of studies of armenian murals in isfahan julfa: first, by experimental indicators involved in the meaning of the narrative (&episodes& and &references&) in the method of & gyongyver horvath`s reference analysis&, static and sequential visual narratives to be analyzed in study samples. then, in addition to the visual indicators that make up the meaning of the narrative in the horvath method, the proposed indicators were also examined. the results show that the indicators of &conversation& and &gaze& can be added to the diagnostic indicators in the reference table as “reference signs”.disagreements on visual narratives, especially still narratives, had hindered the development of visual narratology until the 1980s. linguistic narratologists rejected any positive interpretation of the narrative based on two important characteristics of linguistic narrative: the repetition of elements in the sequence of time and the causal order of events. art historians, with a positive approach and emphasizing the fundamental distinction between linguistic and visual narrative, have shown that linguistic narratives work better in temporal analysis (sequential narrative) and visual narratives in temporal integration (static narrative).