Non-classical subject of vision. Part I

This article explores a fundamental shift in the humanities called the visual turn. We are talking about the transformation of visuality in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. The difficulty of analyzing this phenomenon is due to the fact that the modern humanities have not yet developed a single subject and method for studying the visual turn. In this article, the turn as a transition from the classical to the non-classical observer is analyzed as a transformation of the very human presence in the world. The change in visuality is primarily associated with a change in the concept of the classical transcendental subject and the transition to understanding the affected and temporal subject of our time. In this article, we analyze the transformation of subjectivity based on the three-part mechanism of the power of distance, the power of gaze, and the power of memory, which was proposed by W. Benjamin. We show that at the beginning of the 20th century there takes place rethinking of a person's presence in the world through the understanding of the destruction of the distance between the subject and the object (the world), a change in the power of gaze and a change in the role of memory in the perception of what is seen. The visible no longer acts as directly given to the subject, but presupposes the power of visual perception and the special role of memory in what is seen. This means that in modern non-classical concepts of visuality, an attempt is made to understand the act of seeing as an event of the formation of a subject. In this three-part mechanism of visual distance, the power of gazing into the visible and the role of memory in what is seen, the act of seeing becomes the very presence of modern man. However, in this case, the presence in the act of seeing eludes the subject of experience himself. Thus, visual experience in the form of a present consciousness of the world that is eternally and always does not correspond to it, is an unconscious atrophy of the most apathetic narcissist of vision. The article concludes that the lack of understanding of this moment of presence of the modern subject results in the fact that both the return of distance within the framework of the concept of the classical observer and the complete destruction of the aura within the concepts of the non-classical observer lead to a theoretical impasse in understanding the very experience of non-classical vision.