Images are also factors in the power relations between human subjects and individuals/institutions.
What is important to remember is also the way in which we view images. Rarely do view an image while we are in total seclusion and isolation. Sometimes the room may be cold or the hustle and bustle of other tourists distracting. The concept of spectatorship allows us to talk about the full scope of viewing.
Modernity is a term that scholars use to refer to the historical, cultural, political and economic conditions related to the Enlightenment: the rise of the industrial society and scientific rationalism; and to the idea of controlling nature through technology, science and nationalism.
The concepts of gaze and spectatorship remain important cornerstones of visual studies because they provide a set of terms and methods through which to consider some aspects of looking practices that the concepts of the viewer does not really allow us to consider in depth. These are:
1) the roles of the unconscious and desire in viewing practices
2) the role of looking in the formation of the human subject as such; and
3) the way that looking is always a relational activity and not simply a mental activity engaged in by someone who forms internal mental representations that stand for a passive image object ‘out there.’
One of my favorite sections of the entire chapter was definitely the idea of power and discourse. As I mentioned back in chapter one, many of the theories reminded me of the ideas of Foucault and Panopticism. Luckily for me this topic came up again later.
Panopticism is the idea that the onlooker can assert power on the subjects they are looking/gazing upon without having to directly interact. There is a power struggle and imbalance this way between the commanding figure (viewer) and lesser figure (viewee).
The concept of Panopticism can often be best described in the idea of a prison. In the middle the high tower looks down upon the cells. There is a bright spotlight that shines towards the inmates cells as well. The cells themselves are of a concave nature, making it difficult to see and interact with the cell next to you. The inmates then are under constant surveillance. Or so they think, anyway. In reality, the inmates are lead to believe that because the panopticon (the tower in the center of the room) is constantly present, they are constantly under watch. In reality, however, the inmates have no idea when they are actually being watched, since they cannot see or interact with others.
This gives the power to the viewer.
Topics for Discussion:
1. What is the best way, in your mind, to view art and other images? If the setting plays a difference in the way viewers see images, should the setting be tailored to the type of art viewed, or should everything be viewed in isolation?
2. What other modern day examples of Foucault’s theory of Panopticism can you think of? How does this assert power between the viewer and viewee and how could the roles be changed or reversed?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Birth of an Avatar
I've forgotten how to get an image of my avatar (as well as how to buy free things like hair) but I thought I would blog a bit about the creation of my avatar in second life.
My avatar's name is Eve Denver. Fairly generic I thought, with a little bit of flair (I've always loved the name Eve). I chose the original style of girl next door, which I quickly modified. Instead of brown haired with a pony tail, she now has long blond hair that's unbound (at least for now). She's fair skinned, like me, with blueish eyes, again like me. I tried to make her as close to my own image as possible, but considering I'm not as well versed in second life as I would like to be, that's still up to be debated. In fact, in order to make Eve's hair color correct, I kept hitting the randomize button until I got something somewhat close and then started tweaking with the slider bars. Seemed to work fairly well.
My avatar's name is Eve Denver. Fairly generic I thought, with a little bit of flair (I've always loved the name Eve). I chose the original style of girl next door, which I quickly modified. Instead of brown haired with a pony tail, she now has long blond hair that's unbound (at least for now). She's fair skinned, like me, with blueish eyes, again like me. I tried to make her as close to my own image as possible, but considering I'm not as well versed in second life as I would like to be, that's still up to be debated. In fact, in order to make Eve's hair color correct, I kept hitting the randomize button until I got something somewhat close and then started tweaking with the slider bars. Seemed to work fairly well.
After a bit of fiddling, I tweaked her a bit:
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Chapter Two: Viewers Make Meaning
Images generate meanings, but the meanings to not necessarily like in the work itself. The meaning instead are produced through complex negotiations that make up the social process and practices through with we interpret meanings. In laymen’s terms, we bring our own interpretation to the work.
Three elements besides the image itself and its producer:
1) the codes and conventions that structure the image and that cannot be separated from the content of the image
2) the viewers and how they interpret or experience the image
3) the context in which the image is being viewed
There is a difference between viewer and audience. A viewer is the one that looks. An audience is the collection of lookers. To interpolate something would be when an image “calls out to” a viewer or catches their attention. For the viewer to be able to interpolate something though, the viewer must consider themselves as part of the society in which the image is meaningful. An Olay commercial will not be interpolated the same for men as they are for women because the men are not in the same societal group as women.
Most images have a meaning that the producers prefer you to see. For example, advertisers have different reasons for images than say, artist, graphic designers and filmmakers. We usually have no idea what the exact meaning is of the producers though, since each person brings to the table their own thoughts.
What determines the value of a work? One key factor is the collecting by art institutions like museums and other art collectors.
Someone’s “taste” in images if often an extension of a culture’s ideology. Living as we do in our own culture, it is easier for us to recognize the meanings of another culture’s ideology than it is our own, because we are so engrained in our own culture that we hardly consider them to be anything more than common place and common sense. Marx once theorized that since we are so enwrapped in our culture, that we are often encouraged to believe in the culture and give into it, even if we are oppressed.
Louis Althusser theorized that without ideology we would have no means of thinking about or experiencing that thing in which we call reality.
All images are encoded with meanings in their creation and production that the viewer later decode. According the Stuart Hall, there are 3 positions that viewers can take when decoding images:
1) Dominant-hegemonic reading. They can identify with the hegemonic position and receive the dominant message of an image or text (TV show) in an unquestioning manner
2) Negotiated reading. They can negotiate an interpretation from the image and its dominat meanings
3) Oppositional reading. Finally they can take an oppositional position, either by completely disagreeing with the ideological position embodied in an image or rejecting it altogether.
Thoughts for Discussion
1. How, within our class, do we vary in audience versus viewer? We are all here to learn the same material, and yet based on the reading, how does interpreting the material as a viewer change our meaning of the course?
2. Louis Althusser said that without ideology we wouldn’t be able to understand reality. How would this concept play out if we started viewing things from a different angle? Would this disrupt our reality or simply alter it?
Three elements besides the image itself and its producer:
1) the codes and conventions that structure the image and that cannot be separated from the content of the image
2) the viewers and how they interpret or experience the image
3) the context in which the image is being viewed
There is a difference between viewer and audience. A viewer is the one that looks. An audience is the collection of lookers. To interpolate something would be when an image “calls out to” a viewer or catches their attention. For the viewer to be able to interpolate something though, the viewer must consider themselves as part of the society in which the image is meaningful. An Olay commercial will not be interpolated the same for men as they are for women because the men are not in the same societal group as women.
Most images have a meaning that the producers prefer you to see. For example, advertisers have different reasons for images than say, artist, graphic designers and filmmakers. We usually have no idea what the exact meaning is of the producers though, since each person brings to the table their own thoughts.
What determines the value of a work? One key factor is the collecting by art institutions like museums and other art collectors.
Someone’s “taste” in images if often an extension of a culture’s ideology. Living as we do in our own culture, it is easier for us to recognize the meanings of another culture’s ideology than it is our own, because we are so engrained in our own culture that we hardly consider them to be anything more than common place and common sense. Marx once theorized that since we are so enwrapped in our culture, that we are often encouraged to believe in the culture and give into it, even if we are oppressed.
Louis Althusser theorized that without ideology we would have no means of thinking about or experiencing that thing in which we call reality.
All images are encoded with meanings in their creation and production that the viewer later decode. According the Stuart Hall, there are 3 positions that viewers can take when decoding images:
1) Dominant-hegemonic reading. They can identify with the hegemonic position and receive the dominant message of an image or text (TV show) in an unquestioning manner
2) Negotiated reading. They can negotiate an interpretation from the image and its dominat meanings
3) Oppositional reading. Finally they can take an oppositional position, either by completely disagreeing with the ideological position embodied in an image or rejecting it altogether.
Thoughts for Discussion
1. How, within our class, do we vary in audience versus viewer? We are all here to learn the same material, and yet based on the reading, how does interpreting the material as a viewer change our meaning of the course?
2. Louis Althusser said that without ideology we wouldn’t be able to understand reality. How would this concept play out if we started viewing things from a different angle? Would this disrupt our reality or simply alter it?
3. Based on Stuart Hall’s idea of 3 ways a viewer can decode images, what are some common examples we find everyday that can illustrate his points? Why are these illustrations such a hot topic for discussion?
4. Political cartoons are often based upon the viewers ideologies. How much of these ideologies are expressed through the work itself and how much of the meaning is interpreted by the viewer?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Chapter One: Images, Power and Politics
One of the main themes that caught my eye was the mention and idea that, like other practices, “looking involves relationships of power.” This idea is much like that of Foucault and Panopticism
According to The Practices of Looking, the role of images in providing views of violence, and of voyeurism and fascination with violence, is countered by a history of using images to expose the devastating aspects of violence. The poignant example was that of Emmett Till, a black boy that was murdered for whistling at a white woman. Till’s mother, knowing the effect it out have on the public, had an open casket for her son.
Representation
Representation refers to the use of language and images to create meaning about the world around us. I found it interesting that representation can be interpreted as either what the world "really is" (what is mirrored back to us) or what we really just precieve things as being. I agree with the idea that we percieve things to be as they are becuase of the things that we carry along with us -- our mental baggage.
One of the most interesting parts of the discussion was the idea of "this is not a pipe." Surrealist artist Rene Magritte created a picture of a pipe with the phrase "this is not a pipe" on the bottom. Though this is taken as a joke, it could also be pointing to the relationship between words and physical things. Of course the painting is not an actual pipe -- you cannot pick up the pipe and smoke it. That being said, if someone where to say "this is a pipe" or "this is a picture of a pipe" the general understanding would be the same.
The Myth of Photographic Truth
One of the most interesting points of the chapter was the discussion of the truth of photography. Many people often associate photography with being a snapshop of the truth. Though things can easily be posed and manipulated, via the photographer, photoshop or other digital technologies, there is a power in photography that makes the viewer believe that what they are viewing has to be the real thing.
Photographs can be used as both documents of how something is at a given time (like the snapshot at Tinamen Square) or they can be of more a symbolic stature.
According to The Practices of Looking, the role of images in providing views of violence, and of voyeurism and fascination with violence, is countered by a history of using images to expose the devastating aspects of violence. The poignant example was that of Emmett Till, a black boy that was murdered for whistling at a white woman. Till’s mother, knowing the effect it out have on the public, had an open casket for her son.
Representation
Representation refers to the use of language and images to create meaning about the world around us. I found it interesting that representation can be interpreted as either what the world "really is" (what is mirrored back to us) or what we really just precieve things as being. I agree with the idea that we percieve things to be as they are becuase of the things that we carry along with us -- our mental baggage.
One of the most interesting parts of the discussion was the idea of "this is not a pipe." Surrealist artist Rene Magritte created a picture of a pipe with the phrase "this is not a pipe" on the bottom. Though this is taken as a joke, it could also be pointing to the relationship between words and physical things. Of course the painting is not an actual pipe -- you cannot pick up the pipe and smoke it. That being said, if someone where to say "this is a pipe" or "this is a picture of a pipe" the general understanding would be the same.
The Myth of Photographic Truth
One of the most interesting points of the chapter was the discussion of the truth of photography. Many people often associate photography with being a snapshop of the truth. Though things can easily be posed and manipulated, via the photographer, photoshop or other digital technologies, there is a power in photography that makes the viewer believe that what they are viewing has to be the real thing.
Photographs can be used as both documents of how something is at a given time (like the snapshot at Tinamen Square) or they can be of more a symbolic stature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atom Feed (xml)