by Jean Marie Carey | 25 Sep 2008 | Art History
“Enraged by Tea,” one of my all-time photophone favorites, from 2005.
The three essays discussed in this response paper relate to contemporary concepts around the analysis of visual culture through the interpretation of the philosophies of history, commodification, and language as refracted by The Man’s capitalistic hijacking of the involuntary human practice of looking.
While Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels use the terminology typically associated with the social proposals of communism including the expected references to the “proletariat” and the “bourgeois,” these selections from German Ideology constitute less a political manifesto than an intellectual proposal for the active reconfiguring of the recording and interpretation of history. Marx and Engels (and, for the consideration of these works, Barthes) are not particularly known for easily comprehensible prose styles. German Ideology capitalizes, so to speak, on the even more opaque writing of the greatest German ideologue of the time, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Marx and Engels propose that while there is some fundamental correctness to the Hegelian principle of the dialectic – ascertaining an absolute truth through logical dissection and argument – historians and philosophers following Hegel had simply got everything wrong. Rather than intangible evolved yearnings for “immanence” and “transcendence,” humanity is a material manifestation controlled by economics. This definition of “historical materialism” is preceded by “dialectic materialism,” which establishes both the sole existence of the physical (as opposed to ephemeral) world, and, more significantly in connection to visual culture studies, the establishment of the thesis/antithesis paradigm which eventually becomes known as “binary opposition.” (Marx – more Marx than Engels – also takes exception to other “Hegel deconstruction” scholars such as Ludwig Feuerbach and Max Stirner). In a certain titular and textual respect, these selections undercut some of the assumptions endemic to the concepts of alterity politics and false constructions of Otherness raised during the heights of Post-Modernism simply by presuming that such a thing as an ideology based not upon colonial dynamics or Western European cultural dominance but on the national identity of Germans.
(more…)
by Jean Marie Carey | 11 May 2007 | Art History
“White Privilege and Looking Relations: Race and Gender in Feminist Film Theory” by Jane Gaines and “Sexuality in the Field of Vision” by Jacqueline Rose reprinted in Visual Culture: The Reader edited by Jessica Evans and Stuart Hall, (Sage Publications, London, 2006).
Five hundred years after his death Leonardo continues to be a subject of fascination and a certain sort of “fan fiction†as evinced by Dan Brown’z improbably popular The Da Vinci Code and that one of the master’s works, the painting called the Mona Lisa, attracts dissertations and research (some revealing – it is now known with near certainty who the model for the painting actually was). Something of Leonardo’s nature can be found in the writings in his notebook accompanying his sketches.
Pregnant cow
Pregnant cow. Polk County, Florida
Leonardo asked again and again in his margins “Is anything ever finished?†It is clear from his devotion to studies culled from observing autopsies and his inventions of warfare that Leonardo was interested in applied science and process. It is impossible to know for sure but one might deduce from Leonardo’s exhibited nature and the strong awareness the artists filtering through the Medici court of their own provincial and individual identities that Leonardo probably would not have had interest in nor patience with the notions of repression and gender anxiety brought forth from Austria and Germany of the early Twentieth Century.
This obvious logic is of little significance to English professor and Palestinian sympathizer Jacqueline Rose. In her essay “Sexuality in the Field of Vision†Rose notes Sigmund Freud’s simultaneous fascination and repulsion reactions to Leonardo’s sketches of laughing women and couples in coitus. Writing in 1986, Rose says these sketches have become a lost part of Leonardo’s oeuvre (in fact the intervening two decades have seen a great resurgence in interest in these drawings).
In any case Rose is only tangentially commenting on Leonardo. Her main points are actually tepid restatements of what in 1986 were familiar tenets of feminist philosophy in regard to gaze, possession, and viewing. Fundamentally, Roses says, “women are meant to look perfect,†a charity that in turn releases the male viewer, so to speak, not to feel anxiety lack and castration phobias. Yet Rose believes that any fixed and secure concept held by the individual of her or particularly his sexual identity is an illusion and a fantasy, waiting to be disrupted lapses or breaks in the maintained projection of the ideal.
This awakening from the dream of human life is in fact a positive development and indeed a goal of contemporary art – that is, “art which today addresses the presence of the sexual in representation – to expose … the fantasy and in the same gesture, to trouble, break up, or rupture the visual field before our eyes.â€
Jane Gaines, a feminist theorist at Duke University who must be quite busy these days, adds conceptualization about race to Rose’s ideations about gender and gaze. In fact Gaines slightly manipulates both reality and the real to expound on some highly specious points she wishes to make using as an example, of all things, the 1975 Diana Ross vehicle Mahogany.
(more…)
