Automimesis oder die Idee, dass „jeder Maler sich selbst malt“, war eine Vorstellung, die in der Kunstliteratur der italienischen Renaissance immer wieder formuliert wurde. Zunächst als Makel von Malern interpretiert, der einer exakten Nachahmung der Natur entgegenstand, wurde die körperliche oder geistige Ähnlichkeit eines Künstlers mit seinem Werk jedoch schon bald positiv aufgefasst. Anhand von Künstlerbiografien, Kunsttraktaten und Kunstwerken untersucht diese Studie die Gründe für diesen Paradigmenwechsel und zeichnet nach, wie frühneuzeitliche Ideen unser Verständnis von der Autonomie der Künste bis heute prägen.

The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences (both professional and personal) of the therapist who is visually impaired or blind. This is a post-modernist dissertation contextualised within the ecosystemic-hermeneutical epistemology. These paradigms are two sides of the same coin and emphasize a social constructionist worldview. A descriptive methodology within the domain of language and narrative discourse is utilised in accordance with this worldview. The narratives of two research participants were recounted through the researcher's lens within particular `dimensions of understanding'. These `dimensions of understanding' were interpreted, deconstructed and co-constructed (with the research participants). Thus this dissertation operates simultaneously on a number of different levels which emphasises the social constructionist worldview. This also allowed for the hermeneutic-ecosystemic analysis of these `dimensions of understanding' as method of data analysis. There are also emerging `dimensions of understanding' from the researcher's own perspective and personal experience as a visually impaired therapist in training. / Psychology / M.A. (Clinical Psychology)

The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences (both professional and personal) of the therapist who is visually impaired or blind. This is a post-modernist dissertation contextualised within the ecosystemic-hermeneutical epistemology. These paradigms are two sides of the same coin and emphasize a social constructionist worldview. A descriptive methodology within the domain of language and narrative discourse is utilised in accordance with this worldview. The narratives of two research participants were recounted through the researcher's lens within particular `dimensions of understanding'. These `dimensions of understanding' were interpreted, deconstructed and co-constructed (with the research participants). Thus this dissertation operates simultaneously on a number of different levels which emphasises the social constructionist worldview. This also allowed for the hermeneutic-ecosystemic analysis of these `dimensions of understanding' as method of data analysis. There are also emerging `dimensions of understanding' from the researcher's own perspective and personal experience as a visually impaired therapist in training. / Psychology / M.A. (Clinical Psychology)

This is a postmodernist dissertation contextualised within the new epistemology. The dissertation's descriptive methodology mirrors a personal journey from intrapsychic to ecosystemic psychology which operates within the domain of language and narrative discourse. As such it is founded on the principles of ecosystemic rather than Newtonian thinking. A conversation between various participants constructs the dissertatioi1 through polyphony and academic dialogue. This is then deconstructed through the use of metalogue thereby allowing the dissertation to operate simultaneously on a number of different levels. As it is a postmodernist text, the structure is in a sense an 'anti-structure' in that it is indirect while it is still acknowledged as a construction. In this way it is constructed and deconstructed in terms of its own premises. Expectations in terms of conventional dissertation formulae are challenged without negating academic requirements. / Psychology / M.A. (Clinical Psychology)

This is a postmodernist dissertation contextualised within the new epistemology. The dissertation's descriptive methodology mirrors a personal journey from intrapsychic to ecosystemic psychology which operates within the domain of language and narrative discourse. As such it is founded on the principles of ecosystemic rather than Newtonian thinking. A conversation between various participants constructs the dissertatioi1 through polyphony and academic dialogue. This is then deconstructed through the use of metalogue thereby allowing the dissertation to operate simultaneously on a number of different levels. As it is a postmodernist text, the structure is in a sense an 'anti-structure' in that it is indirect while it is still acknowledged as a construction. In this way it is constructed and deconstructed in terms of its own premises. Expectations in terms of conventional dissertation formulae are challenged without negating academic requirements. / Psychology / M.A. (Clinical Psychology)

L’objectif de la présente recherche est double: il s’agit dans un premier temps de proposer une autre lecture de Mein Jahrhundert de Günter Grass à partir des manuscrits en adoptant une perspective génétique au plus près du texte. À partir d’un corpus d’étude restreint, mais représentatif, recelant des documents sources explicites et montrant les différentes phases rédactionnelles nous avons mis en évidence un certain nombre de procédés caractéristiques de l’écriture grassienne et de phénomènes tant endogénétiques qu’exogénétiques révélant le recours à une intertextualité protéiforme déclarée ou dissimulée. Cette entreprise descriptive et interprétative s’est ensuite doublée d’une démarche herméneutique destinée à vérifier si l’ouvrage satisfait aux ambitions didactiques affichées par l’auteur en matière de transmission de l’Histoire, une transmission à finalité civique visant à prévenir ses bégaiements. En optant pour la polyphonie et le récit par le bas Grass entend également combler les lacunes du discours historiographique officiel. À l’issue d’un travail de recherche des sources avérées ou hypothétiques, nous avons mis en évidence que Grass a essentiellement recours à des sources journalistiques lui permettant d’ancrer le récit dans la réalité historique et d’inscrire son livre dans une veine populaire. La présence d’une matière documentaire implicite souvent dense requiert toutefois un savoir extratextuel de la part du lecteur, ce qui va à l’encontre d’une écriture populaire de l’Histoire, même si plusieurs degrés de lecture sont possibles. Le recours à la polyphonie prétendument garant d’une narration pluriperspective est un leurre en raison du marquage axiologique négatif de certains narrateurs laissant transparaître la position idéologique de l’auteur. Le choix des narrateurs, qu’ils soient empruntés à la réalité historique ou fictifs, comme celui des événements s’inscrit dans un système de valeurs univoque faisant constamment référence au discours épitextuel de l’auteur qui peut faire figure d’intertexte. L’écriture de l’Histoire s’appuie ainsi sur une rhétorique de la répétition polymorphe et transversale qu’elle soit autotextuelle, thématique, picturale ou concerne les procédés narratifs, ce qui accrédite la thèse d’un haut degré d’autoréférentialité de l’ouvrage et d’une perception autocentrique du siècle. / Our research has a dual aim: first to offer a new reading of Mein Jahrhundert by Günter Grass from the manuscripts and from a genetic perspective while remaining as close as possible to the text. Using a restricted but representative corpus of studies with explicit source documents and pointing to various phases of writing, we have highlighted a certain number of procedures which are characteristic of the way Grass wrote, as well as phenomena of both an endogenous and exogenous nature which show his recourse to declared or hidden proteiform intertextuality. This descriptive and interpretative undertaking was then doubled with a hermeneutic approach aimed at establishing whether the work fulfils the didactic ambitions the author asserts regarding the conveying of History with a civic agenda aimed at overcoming the author’s stuttering. By opting for polyphony and a narrative from below, Grass also intends to fill gaps in the discourse of official historiography. After researching proved or hypothetical sources, we were able to demonstrate that Grass essentially uses journalistic sources which allow him to anchor his narrative in historic reality while writing his book in a popular vein. The presence of often dense implicit documentary material nevertheless makes far‐reaching extra‐textual knowledge on the part of the reader necessary, even if various layers of reading are possible.Recourse to the polyphony which is put forward as a guarantee for a narration from differing perspectives is misleading because of the negative value judgements of certain narrators revelatory of the author’s ideological position. The choice of narrators, whether borrowed from historic reality or fictional, just as the choice of the events is part of an unequivocal value hierarchy which constantly refers to the author’s epitextual discourse, which may be read a an inter‐text. The writing of History thus is based upon a rhetoric which consists of polymorphous and transversal repetition, ranging between autotextual, thematic, and pictorial and absorbed by narrative procedures. This corroborates the hypothesis that the work is highly self‐referential and based upon a self‐centred perception of the century.