推究影像所涉及的意涵，一般會從柏拉圖的四層存有說入手，而直接將影像視為對於存有(ousia)的摹倣。若從這一觀點入手探討藝術中的影像問題，影像將始終附屬於本質，並且以其分有真理，但卻成不了真理為遺憾。因而一旦創作者或評論者從要求、嚮往本質與真理的向度出發，進行創作或者分析作品，此掛吊於真理的體系之下的影像思維，將使得影像在附屬於以真理為中心所構建的結構中，顯示為邊緣化的殘餘。而以此藝術家或評論家已然意識地接受，或無意識的援用的理論背景為基礎，所鋪展開的「追尋永遠也回不去的烏托邦」的創作，所營造出的影像間的關係，瀰漫著濃濃地懷鄉情韻(die Stimmung)，但所懷之鄉為何？所遺憾的為何？家鄉與他方之間的糾葛關係所涉及的層面，是否影響著對於在地與本土意涵的詮釋？對於所屬之「地」的詮釋，除了使其得以被「看」「見」，因而將所在之「地」從世界地圖上標舉所進行的切割之外，或許還須關注那內在於創作者或分析者之「觀點」內部，那使其把某物(quelque chose)看成如是這般的，雙眼在頭顱之內匯集的聚焦點的影像之「核」。除了對於這一核心的關注外，本論文也嘗試從影像變異性的論點，進一步分析歷史(l’histoire)與歷史性(l’historicité)差異；並藉著對於歷史性意涵的釐清，說明不同於影像本體論(l’ontologie de l’image)影像倫理(l’éthique de l’image)的意涵。

To explore the connotation of image, many would begin with Plato’s theory, and immediately perceive image as the imitation of Being(ousia). However, if we discuss image from this perspective, it would always be confined to the concept of essence. What’s more pitiful is that image would be seen as a subdivision of truth but can never be truth itself. Thus, once artists and critics set out their work demanding and aspiring for essence and truth, then image, which was dangled in the system of truth, will be marginalized. This theory—whether consciously taken or not, will drive the artists to search for “a never returned utopia,” which creates a strong sense of mood(die Stimmung) of homeland nostalgia in the image. But what is this homeland? Where does the pity come from? Will the perplexing relation strangled between homeland and the other worlds impact the interpretation of the local land? As for the interpretation of the local “land” besides demarcating it on the world map to make it visible, we should focus more on analyzing the “core” of the eyes that permeates the condition of how artists and critics see something as such. The paper further analyzes the distinction between history and historicity from the perspective of transformation of image. By clarifying the concept of historicity, the paper attempts to reveal the connotation of image ethic, differing from the often-discussed ontology of image.