Tuesday 31 July 2012
Success
Just heard that I passed the Course. Apparently I was top of the class but this was rather tempered by the fact that I was the only one being assessed this time! Score of 68 which is most pleasing.
Sunday 20 May 2012
Retrospective
Now that I have come to the end of the Course and awaiting my Tutor's comment on my last Assignment it seems an appropriate time to try and evaluate what I have gained from the Course.
It is difficult to make a definitive statement because I believe that the benefits will only be apparent as time goes on and I realise the impact it has had on my thinking. However there are some clues. Recently a photograph sold for roughly £3m. It was shown on television and first impressions were not good. It seemed to be four stripes of colour and was entitled 'Rhine'. Before the Course I would have dismissed it as being part of the sometimes crazy world of art. On this occasion I approached it differently and saw the very simple way the photographer had depicted the Rhine. The stripes were the sky, the bank, the river, and the opposite bank. All the information was there in a minimalist way. Whether it was worth £3m is not a real question because that is the value that someone placed on it and it follows that that is its worth until the picture comes on to the market again.
Other clues lie in the way that I now analyse images (my major is photography) and seek the signs within the image that provides the information about the photographer's thinking at the time he completed the image. I make the distinction here between the taking of the image and its final form because of the almost infinite number of chances there are to change the initial shot before creating the final image. It is interesting to work out what is included and what has possibly been left out. Of course there remains the problem of whether my interpretation is close to the intent of the photographer. The change is significant because my approach prior to the Course to any photograph was solely on its technical merits and the use of tonal values and composition.
It would be true to say that this was one of the most difficult Courses I have ever taken which given that I have a BA Hons and an MA degree says something about the content of the Course. Looking back I believe that many of the difficulties arose because of my previous learning and my natural inclination to use an analytical approach. The philosophy I studied earlier was primarily analytical whereas the Course offered the continental approach and the thinking of Marx, Lacan, Derrida and others. I found this approach unsatisfactory and confusing. It seemed to be a series of statements the validity of which was questionable and apart from Marx, whose work is set in the stone of his death, the views changed over time occasionally reaching the point that they made very little sense. There was a need to take things at face value and not question too deeply the underpinning thinking. It was made more difficult because in researching the background it was very easy to find scathing criticism of any particular approach/idea that was not solely the usual venom found in academic work designed to discredit a rival academic.
There was also the problem of unfulfilled expectations. When electing to take the Course I assumed, without any grounds at all, that there would be some discussion and examination of the individual and his/her interpretation of the world as each of us see it. I can see the attraction of lumping together huge groups of people under one title such as Western Culture from an academic point of view but I feel that such an approach misses the richness and diversity within that Culture. It was of interest that when visiting an exhibition with tutors and students from the OCA and taking the opportunity to listen to the conversations and group discussion the variety of opinions that were expressed by what one would have considered to be an homogeneous group. The underlying approach of the Course is collectivist based on Marxist theory and followers of such thinking. So be it and I do not doubt the validity of such an approach but perhaps an examination of the way that Marxist theory has been used in the real world would suggest that the collectivist approach may not be the most illuminating way to think about Visual Culture.
Perhaps the final word should go to my wife who when told that I had submitted my final assignment responded "You will miss it". I will because it was not only difficult but stimulating forcing me to challenge long held assumptions.
It is difficult to make a definitive statement because I believe that the benefits will only be apparent as time goes on and I realise the impact it has had on my thinking. However there are some clues. Recently a photograph sold for roughly £3m. It was shown on television and first impressions were not good. It seemed to be four stripes of colour and was entitled 'Rhine'. Before the Course I would have dismissed it as being part of the sometimes crazy world of art. On this occasion I approached it differently and saw the very simple way the photographer had depicted the Rhine. The stripes were the sky, the bank, the river, and the opposite bank. All the information was there in a minimalist way. Whether it was worth £3m is not a real question because that is the value that someone placed on it and it follows that that is its worth until the picture comes on to the market again.
Other clues lie in the way that I now analyse images (my major is photography) and seek the signs within the image that provides the information about the photographer's thinking at the time he completed the image. I make the distinction here between the taking of the image and its final form because of the almost infinite number of chances there are to change the initial shot before creating the final image. It is interesting to work out what is included and what has possibly been left out. Of course there remains the problem of whether my interpretation is close to the intent of the photographer. The change is significant because my approach prior to the Course to any photograph was solely on its technical merits and the use of tonal values and composition.
It would be true to say that this was one of the most difficult Courses I have ever taken which given that I have a BA Hons and an MA degree says something about the content of the Course. Looking back I believe that many of the difficulties arose because of my previous learning and my natural inclination to use an analytical approach. The philosophy I studied earlier was primarily analytical whereas the Course offered the continental approach and the thinking of Marx, Lacan, Derrida and others. I found this approach unsatisfactory and confusing. It seemed to be a series of statements the validity of which was questionable and apart from Marx, whose work is set in the stone of his death, the views changed over time occasionally reaching the point that they made very little sense. There was a need to take things at face value and not question too deeply the underpinning thinking. It was made more difficult because in researching the background it was very easy to find scathing criticism of any particular approach/idea that was not solely the usual venom found in academic work designed to discredit a rival academic.
There was also the problem of unfulfilled expectations. When electing to take the Course I assumed, without any grounds at all, that there would be some discussion and examination of the individual and his/her interpretation of the world as each of us see it. I can see the attraction of lumping together huge groups of people under one title such as Western Culture from an academic point of view but I feel that such an approach misses the richness and diversity within that Culture. It was of interest that when visiting an exhibition with tutors and students from the OCA and taking the opportunity to listen to the conversations and group discussion the variety of opinions that were expressed by what one would have considered to be an homogeneous group. The underlying approach of the Course is collectivist based on Marxist theory and followers of such thinking. So be it and I do not doubt the validity of such an approach but perhaps an examination of the way that Marxist theory has been used in the real world would suggest that the collectivist approach may not be the most illuminating way to think about Visual Culture.
Perhaps the final word should go to my wife who when told that I had submitted my final assignment responded "You will miss it". I will because it was not only difficult but stimulating forcing me to challenge long held assumptions.
Friday 18 May 2012
Assignment 5
Just sent my final assignment to my Tutor. Await his comments with interest and in the hope that I can submit all my work for assessment in July 2012.
As I was doing the research and writing I found myself thinking that the Course tended to deal with people as a large homogeneous mass who, having been raised in a large group such as Western Culture, would see the world in much the same way. I have very serious doubts that this is the case. If we look at groups that have been raised say just in Great Britain we know that there will be differences both large and small even within similar communities. Leaving aside the class divide that remains a significant part of the world in which we live we only have to consider the effects of different educational experiences from the under-performing school in a deprived area to the highly regarded school in an affluent area.
I have the feeling that Visual Culture as an academic exercise is somehow missing the point by concentrating on the differences between Western/Eastern culture or using such large groups as women or men to make what are supposed to be learned pronouncements. For those of us who experienced the Feminist rhetoric from its strident beginnings to its more reasoned approach as seen now it is only too clear that there was a desire to jump on the band wagon of the work of Lacan and others and to produce not well thought out theories that were not only rejected by men, as would be expected, but also the vast majority of women.
It seems that Visual Culture is based on a number of different and sometimes conflicting theories whose base was originally another discipline. For example Lacan was a psychoanalyst and his trying to make sense of the world was centred around the individual. Derrida introduced the idea of deconstruction and whilst this has relevance to visual culture studies it was more concerned with the wider philosophical field. Foucault was a historian and philosopher primarily associated with structuralism and post-structuralism. Although, again, these ideas can be useful in the world of visual culture that was not their original purpose and there has been some 'stretching' of them to make them more relevant and sometimes the stretching causes a tear in the fabric. Althusser concerned himself with the works of Marx and his impact on our way of thinking. Inevitably his approach is that of the collectivist that has its place in visual culture theory but fails to take account the differences of the individual that underpins the diversity and richness of all cultures. Saussure offered remarkable insights into linguistics although his work is now criticised 'for being of its time' i.e. it has become outdated as the studies of linguistics has moved on as the use of language changes.
Like physics there is no Grand Unifying Theory (GUT) that underpins studies of visual culture so that the practitioner is able to pick and choose methodologies and theories that best suit his personal point of view. Whilst this can make for exciting discussion it necessarily leads to unresolved differences with and rejection by others in the field. Perhaps this is no bad thing but it does leave the discipline apparently thrashing about in the dark with no clear idea of where it is going. The strong message I got from Terry Eagleton's book after theory is best summed up by the book description in the Kindle library:
As I was doing the research and writing I found myself thinking that the Course tended to deal with people as a large homogeneous mass who, having been raised in a large group such as Western Culture, would see the world in much the same way. I have very serious doubts that this is the case. If we look at groups that have been raised say just in Great Britain we know that there will be differences both large and small even within similar communities. Leaving aside the class divide that remains a significant part of the world in which we live we only have to consider the effects of different educational experiences from the under-performing school in a deprived area to the highly regarded school in an affluent area.
I have the feeling that Visual Culture as an academic exercise is somehow missing the point by concentrating on the differences between Western/Eastern culture or using such large groups as women or men to make what are supposed to be learned pronouncements. For those of us who experienced the Feminist rhetoric from its strident beginnings to its more reasoned approach as seen now it is only too clear that there was a desire to jump on the band wagon of the work of Lacan and others and to produce not well thought out theories that were not only rejected by men, as would be expected, but also the vast majority of women.
It seems that Visual Culture is based on a number of different and sometimes conflicting theories whose base was originally another discipline. For example Lacan was a psychoanalyst and his trying to make sense of the world was centred around the individual. Derrida introduced the idea of deconstruction and whilst this has relevance to visual culture studies it was more concerned with the wider philosophical field. Foucault was a historian and philosopher primarily associated with structuralism and post-structuralism. Although, again, these ideas can be useful in the world of visual culture that was not their original purpose and there has been some 'stretching' of them to make them more relevant and sometimes the stretching causes a tear in the fabric. Althusser concerned himself with the works of Marx and his impact on our way of thinking. Inevitably his approach is that of the collectivist that has its place in visual culture theory but fails to take account the differences of the individual that underpins the diversity and richness of all cultures. Saussure offered remarkable insights into linguistics although his work is now criticised 'for being of its time' i.e. it has become outdated as the studies of linguistics has moved on as the use of language changes.
Like physics there is no Grand Unifying Theory (GUT) that underpins studies of visual culture so that the practitioner is able to pick and choose methodologies and theories that best suit his personal point of view. Whilst this can make for exciting discussion it necessarily leads to unresolved differences with and rejection by others in the field. Perhaps this is no bad thing but it does leave the discipline apparently thrashing about in the dark with no clear idea of where it is going. The strong message I got from Terry Eagleton's book after theory is best summed up by the book description in the Kindle library:
- The golden age of cultural theory (the product of a decade and a half, from 1966 to 1980) is long past. We are living in its aftermath, in an age which, having grown rich in the insights of thinkers like Althusser, Barthes and Derrida has also moved beyond them. What kind of new, fresh thinking does this new era demand? Eagleton concludes that cultural thinking must start thinking ambitiously again - not so that it can hand the West its legitimation, but so that it can seek to make sense of the grand narratives in which it is now embroiled
The book 'After Theory' was published by Penguin Books 2004. The Kindle edition is obtainable from Amazon Books. The quote is from the 'Book Description' provided by Kindle.
Saturday 12 May 2012
The Gulf War did not take lace
Baudrillard made a prediction that the Gulf War would not take place on the eve of the start of the war. He believed that the simulations played out by the generals of both sides would show that to proceed would be a mistake. The simulations would have replaced the 'real' war where actual people were killed or maimed. His belief that simulations had replaced would have been dramatically proved. However it could be argued that this, as with all simulations, was a specific case. There is little doubt that simulations that were played out during the Cold War to ensure that the launching of nuclear missiles would result in the annihilation of the initial aggressor enforced an uneasy peace at the global level. At the smaller conflict level this was not the case and the number of conflicts where the superpowers, through proxies, fought for domination in a particular area of the world were a constant part of the latter part of the 20th Century.
Baudrillard ignores the personalities of those involved (the military can only justify its existence through involvement in battle so have a pre-conditioned response to any perceived threat and the politicians know that to win a war is to ensure increased chances at the polls so the major deciders have an interest in going to war). In a world where logic and clear thinking rules war would be impossible - it is the vagaries of the human population that seems intent at some point in time in destroying itself. That Baudrillard was wrong was proven the very next day.
Having lost the first argument he then moved on to suggest that what was happening was not a war and that the Americans were not fighting to win a quick and decisive battle but to demonstrate to onlookers there considerable might. His argument is based on the lengthy air war before the ground war began. Although bombs were being dropped and cruise missiles were destroying their targets together with anyone in the area what was happening was no doubt real to those in the firing line the Americans were not really fighting so spectators were experiencing a simulation.
It is necessary to first accept that the Americans were not really fighting but this is to misunderstand the nature of modern war. Baudrillard argues that the relatively small numbers of casualties compared with previous wars made it difficult to see this war as a real war. He does not state what level casualties have to reach to make something real because to do so would make obvious the weakness of his argument - is 500,000 death enough or must it exceed say a million. Does the death of one individual mean less than the death of hundreds of thousands? By Baudrillard's standards the Second World War was not a war because by comparison with the 1st World War the number of deaths was small. Generals in the 1st World War saw the death of thousands of men in one day as an unavoidable price to pay to make the most paltry of gains. Seen as a totally unacceptable view, Generals in the 2nd World War tried to reduce the number of casualties by dominance of the air and preventing the enemy from mounting an appropriate response. Heavy reliance was placed on technology and fighting at a distance and this can be seen in other conflicts.
Aware of the unpopularity of the War at home the American Generals used their supremacy in the air to ensure that when the ground battle began casualties would be as low as possible. They were successful but they had still fought a war - not least because war had been declared.
I find it difficult to take Baudrillard seriously despite his earlier work on simulations. He took up more and more extreme positions - even to the extent that he proposed that in future there would only be simulations and that simulations can never be detected - and when challenged by events such as the Gulf War invented his own simulated world in which he was never wrong. However one should never throw the baby out with the bath water and he has a great deal to say on other topics that seem well grounded in the real world or perhaps I only see the simulation.
A major source of information for this piece was the article at
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/2/raffel.html
Baudrillard ignores the personalities of those involved (the military can only justify its existence through involvement in battle so have a pre-conditioned response to any perceived threat and the politicians know that to win a war is to ensure increased chances at the polls so the major deciders have an interest in going to war). In a world where logic and clear thinking rules war would be impossible - it is the vagaries of the human population that seems intent at some point in time in destroying itself. That Baudrillard was wrong was proven the very next day.
Having lost the first argument he then moved on to suggest that what was happening was not a war and that the Americans were not fighting to win a quick and decisive battle but to demonstrate to onlookers there considerable might. His argument is based on the lengthy air war before the ground war began. Although bombs were being dropped and cruise missiles were destroying their targets together with anyone in the area what was happening was no doubt real to those in the firing line the Americans were not really fighting so spectators were experiencing a simulation.
It is necessary to first accept that the Americans were not really fighting but this is to misunderstand the nature of modern war. Baudrillard argues that the relatively small numbers of casualties compared with previous wars made it difficult to see this war as a real war. He does not state what level casualties have to reach to make something real because to do so would make obvious the weakness of his argument - is 500,000 death enough or must it exceed say a million. Does the death of one individual mean less than the death of hundreds of thousands? By Baudrillard's standards the Second World War was not a war because by comparison with the 1st World War the number of deaths was small. Generals in the 1st World War saw the death of thousands of men in one day as an unavoidable price to pay to make the most paltry of gains. Seen as a totally unacceptable view, Generals in the 2nd World War tried to reduce the number of casualties by dominance of the air and preventing the enemy from mounting an appropriate response. Heavy reliance was placed on technology and fighting at a distance and this can be seen in other conflicts.
Aware of the unpopularity of the War at home the American Generals used their supremacy in the air to ensure that when the ground battle began casualties would be as low as possible. They were successful but they had still fought a war - not least because war had been declared.
I find it difficult to take Baudrillard seriously despite his earlier work on simulations. He took up more and more extreme positions - even to the extent that he proposed that in future there would only be simulations and that simulations can never be detected - and when challenged by events such as the Gulf War invented his own simulated world in which he was never wrong. However one should never throw the baby out with the bath water and he has a great deal to say on other topics that seem well grounded in the real world or perhaps I only see the simulation.
A major source of information for this piece was the article at
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/2/raffel.html
Thursday 10 May 2012
Saturday
Just finished reading the Kindle version of Ian McEwan's Book "Saturday" Vintage 2006 for the second time. One of the delights of Kindle versions is that you can annotate the material as you go along which lessens the number of times you spend looking for a passage half remembered which has taken on significance for whatever reason. The book was recommended by my tutor as one that offered a number of ideas around the theme for assignment 5.
One strong impression left with me was the possibility that the book is a recollected dream. There is a definite denial of this in the narrative but how do we distinguish between our waking experiences and our dream world whilst we are in the dream world. Simple denial is not enough because dreams can be only too real and close to our conscious world. Why do I think that it matters? Apart from trying to distinguish the two states one of which would be considered 'real' (the quote marks indicate my scepticism about what is and what is not real) and one a false world of events. We are probably safe in assuming that the dream world is more open to interpretation as a better reflection of the person than the carefully constructed world when we are awake. Yet to be decided but I may pursue this line of thought in the assignment.
If what is recorded is a dream we can draw the reasonable conclusion that the events in the dream have meaning to the dreamer. In the case of 'Saturday' the main character is a neurosurgeon called Perowne who is at the top of the tree in his profession. The main events in the narrative are an incident in which he is assaulted by a man called Baxter; a squash game with a colleague and Baxter's invasion of Perowne's house seeking revenge all of which occur on the Saturday of the title. It could be argued that these three events reveal much about Perowne - his retreat deeper into his own world when that world is attacked; his underlying aggression revealed in the squash game that is normally not evident and the ambivalence and repressed feelings towards his family (his wife is held captive by a knife wielding Baxter and his daughter is forced to strip under the threat of the death of her mother. Freudians would have a field day with this scenario which is so reminiscent of the early stages of sexual development as described by Freud). If it were a dream then Baxter, a violent and aggressive person, could be seen as Perowne's alter-ego; a part of him that he keeps repressed. By passing the unacceptable parts of his nature to 'an other' he can retain his self image that is so much part of his persona.
Just because I would like it to be a recollection of a dream this does not make it so. It can be read as a straightforward narrative of a day in the life of Perowne. I think that from an analytical point of view this makes it less interesting but wishing does not make something real. Or does it??
One strong impression left with me was the possibility that the book is a recollected dream. There is a definite denial of this in the narrative but how do we distinguish between our waking experiences and our dream world whilst we are in the dream world. Simple denial is not enough because dreams can be only too real and close to our conscious world. Why do I think that it matters? Apart from trying to distinguish the two states one of which would be considered 'real' (the quote marks indicate my scepticism about what is and what is not real) and one a false world of events. We are probably safe in assuming that the dream world is more open to interpretation as a better reflection of the person than the carefully constructed world when we are awake. Yet to be decided but I may pursue this line of thought in the assignment.
If what is recorded is a dream we can draw the reasonable conclusion that the events in the dream have meaning to the dreamer. In the case of 'Saturday' the main character is a neurosurgeon called Perowne who is at the top of the tree in his profession. The main events in the narrative are an incident in which he is assaulted by a man called Baxter; a squash game with a colleague and Baxter's invasion of Perowne's house seeking revenge all of which occur on the Saturday of the title. It could be argued that these three events reveal much about Perowne - his retreat deeper into his own world when that world is attacked; his underlying aggression revealed in the squash game that is normally not evident and the ambivalence and repressed feelings towards his family (his wife is held captive by a knife wielding Baxter and his daughter is forced to strip under the threat of the death of her mother. Freudians would have a field day with this scenario which is so reminiscent of the early stages of sexual development as described by Freud). If it were a dream then Baxter, a violent and aggressive person, could be seen as Perowne's alter-ego; a part of him that he keeps repressed. By passing the unacceptable parts of his nature to 'an other' he can retain his self image that is so much part of his persona.
Just because I would like it to be a recollection of a dream this does not make it so. It can be read as a straightforward narrative of a day in the life of Perowne. I think that from an analytical point of view this makes it less interesting but wishing does not make something real. Or does it??
Wednesday 25 April 2012
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
I have now watched Episode 22 "Restless" of Series 4 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I cannot help feeling that I would have been better prepared had I followed the programme from the beginning. Clearly the main characters have already been created and interacted as Series 4 begins with Buffy's arrival at College on her first day. She is subject to all the fears and concerns that arise from her life experiences up to the point at which the series begins and so her behaviour as shown to us presumably is consistent with that shown/developed in Series 1 - 3. Not having seen any of these leaves the viewer struggling to understand why she is behaving as she is at this time. This comment is also true of the other main characters who we meet and have, in this episode, experience of their dreams. At times I felt that I was in a similar dream to Xander who is suddenly faced with his questions being answered in French, a language he does not understand, nor does he understand why the sudden switch to French has occurred.
The main component of the episode is the dreams the four main characters. Following a very busy time slaying evil things they are tired but feel too 'wired' to sleep so they agree to spend the night watching videos but fall asleep anyway. I will assume that the readers of this blog will know who the characters are and the role they play. If not there is a great deal of information on the Internet both in Wikpaedia and more specifically at http://www.buffyguide.com.
Willow's dream opens with Tara lying semi-naked on a bed whilst Willow paints Hymn to Aphrodite on her back. As with all dreams there is no logical sequence to what we see and we next see Willow at College believing that she is about to attend the first lesson of her Drama class. Instead she finds herself on stage with her fellow students, who are all in costume, about to present a version of Death of a Salesman. Willow who sees herself as not dressed for the role (whatever it is) is told that everyone likes her costume although, to her, she is in her everyday clothes. To add to her anxiety Buffy tells her that all her family are out front looking forward to her appearance on stage. At one point she finds herself alone between two sets of red stage curtains unable to find her way out. We next find her in the classroom about to read a paper to the class. She is wearing the same clothes as in the theatre part of the dream but Buffy strips them off leaving Willow standing in front of the class in the same clothes she wore Episode 1 of the series [ Note - Of course I was unaware of this or how she saw herself at that time]. To add to her misery Oz, her former boyfriend, and Tara, her current girlfriend flirt with each other. The dream ends with Willow being attacked by the first slayer.
The opening scene suggests that Willow has sexual feelings for Tara but has to partially suppress them because of the probable response from her family and others or her own guilt about having such feelings. She resorts to the apparently more innocent pastime of painting a love poem on her back. Interestingly there is another scene in the dream of Xander where the sexual relationship is more explicit but in this case we have to take cognizance of the fact that it is part of Xander's fantasy. The scene in the theatre is a reflection of Willow's anxieties about her being at College and not being able to keep up with her fellow students nor receive their approval. It is important to her to be accepted by the 'others' and to show them that she is no longer the girl the viewers saw in the first episodes. Graphically this is portrayed in the scene when Buffy strips her clothes off to reveal the same costume worn in an earlier part of her life.
We are also offered a glimpse of her relationship with her family whom she cannot see but are the cause of some anxiety. There is one other element of the dream and that is the red curtains in which Willow is trapped. They can be interpreted as a comfort blanket that keeps her hidden from the judgemental looks she feels are always upon her. Equally they could be seen as a metaphor for the type of relationship she has/wants with Tara - to find herself buried in the most private parts of the woman she desires.
Xander's dream, again a series of disjointed scenes, begins with him apparently waking and then excusing himself to go to the bathroom. On the way he meets Willow's mother whose behaviour is suggestive of a wish for a sexual encounter with Xander. He passes up on the immediate opportunity but does indicate a desire to return once he has been to the bathroom. Once in the bathroom he is conscious that he is not alone and on looking round sees that he is being observed by a group in white coats ready to take notes. He excuses himself saying that he will find another bathroom but on going through a door into what he thought was a bathroom he finds himself in a playground where he sees Buffy, Giles and Spike. He is told by Giles that Spike is to be trained as a Watcher. Buffy is seen playing in a sandbox. We then switch to an ice-cream truck where Xander finds Anya, Willow and Tara. The latter two are heavily made up and in skimpy clothing and are in a suggestive embrace. They invite Xander to join them but on his way he finds himself in the basement in his house. The dream sequence then returns him to the University where he seeks advice from Giles about what is happening only to be answered in French a language he does not understand. Constantly throughout the dream sequences he finds himself in the basement of his house.
It does not take a genius to work out the sexual nature of the early part of his dream. The attempted seduction by Buffy's mother is taken to be a metaphor for his desire as a child to have sex with his mother, a la Freud, whilst the behaviour of Willow and Tara in the Ice Cream van serves to offer two fantasies that men find sexually arousing - the wish to see two women in the sexual act and to watch this in a place that should be free of all such behaviour. The latter fantasy is the 'innocence' of the ice cream van created by its link with the young. However his main anxiety and probably the cause of the constant return to the basement of his house is his feelings of inferiority as he has not been as successful as his friends - for example he is not attending college. The French language sequence is a metaphor for his fear that he will no longer be able to understand his friends as they become more and more immersed in College life.
Giles dream revolves around his desire to continue to mentor Buffy and the contra-desire to let her make her own way as a Slayer. His feelings are further complicated by the presence of his girl friend who is first seen with an empty pushchair suggesting an unfulfilled desire to have children. It is not clear whether this is a desire felt by Giles. Buffy appears in his dream as a child, dressed as such and having pigtails. She is attempting to throw a ball at a mock vampire at a fairground but is unable to hit the vampire. Giles offers advice about keeping her arm straight ( there is obvious stereotyping in this part of the dream (it is usually more subtle) because there is a belief that females cannot throw a ball straight and that in some unspecified way it is a by product of being female) and she is successful. Through this sequence we can see evidence of Giles still wishing to guide Buffy We switch to a night club where Giles uses singing to explain why the group are being attacked - apparently he has always wanted to be a musician. The final sequence is him tracing the wiring from the sound system, that has failed, back stage only to find an unfathomable tangle of wires. As he looks in dismay at the task he faces the stalker catches and scalps him.
Giles dream is offered as evidence of the conflicts in his life and the difficulties of reconciling his feelings toward Buffy and his feelings towards his girlfriend. The appearance of Buffy as a child/adult figure exemplifies his ambiguous feelings towards her. His desire to protect is possibly a manifestation of his feelings about his own adequacies and the confirmation he receives from being seen as a father figure by Buffy whilst at the same time possibly avoiding a stable relationship with his girl friend.
Buffy's dream centres around her feelings about the cost of being a Slayer. The dream sequences are confusing with the dream starting with Buffy being woken by Anya in her room at College and then she is seen in her room at home with Tara whose message is not easy to understand. She is then at the University where she finds her mother living inside a wall. We switch to the next sequence where she meets Riley and Adam (now restored to human form) plotting domination on a world wide scale. The three come under attack from demons to which Riley and Adam respond by deciding to build a fort made of pillows. Buffy finds her weapons bag only to find it full of mud which she smears on her face mimicking the first slayer's appearance. We then find her in the desert facing the First Slayer and a fight ensues that continues back in Buffy's room where her friends lie dying. Buffy eventually works out that she can simply stop the fight by the simple act of ignoring the First Slayer who responds by disappearing. The dreams end when everyone wakes up none the worse for their experiences.
The underlying theme of Buffy's dream is her feelings of isolation (the desert scene) that she sees as an inevitable part of being a Slayer. Her encounter with Riley expresses her fears of the effect Riley's work with the military and the effect this will have on their relationship and her ability as a slayer. The sequence with her mother inside the wall is evidence of her feelings towards her mother and the barrier that is a constant part of their relationship. Her realisation about the way to defeat the first slayer is less easy to interpret and is something of an anti-climax. Presumably it leaves open the opportunity for another series on Television.
One element that is difficult to place is the man who constantly appears with cheese slices that he presents in a variety of ways. His most cryptic comment is "I wear the cheese it does not wear me". He has placed the slices around his body. The statement is never challenged although Lacan would probably have a field day with the argument asking how we decide whether in one sense the cheese is wearing the man. A similar incident occurs when Anya is attempting to be a stand up comic at the Club where Giles sings. She starts a tale, somewhat erratically, with talking about a man wearing a duck on his head. We are not offered the rest of the story line until we hear the punch line "Why is this man stuck to my ass?" We have moved from the man wearing the duck to the duck wearing the man. I have no idea what this means other than we make assumptions about appearances based on our experience and we may actually be interpreting it totally the wrong way round.
The main component of the episode is the dreams the four main characters. Following a very busy time slaying evil things they are tired but feel too 'wired' to sleep so they agree to spend the night watching videos but fall asleep anyway. I will assume that the readers of this blog will know who the characters are and the role they play. If not there is a great deal of information on the Internet both in Wikpaedia and more specifically at http://www.buffyguide.com.
Willow's dream opens with Tara lying semi-naked on a bed whilst Willow paints Hymn to Aphrodite on her back. As with all dreams there is no logical sequence to what we see and we next see Willow at College believing that she is about to attend the first lesson of her Drama class. Instead she finds herself on stage with her fellow students, who are all in costume, about to present a version of Death of a Salesman. Willow who sees herself as not dressed for the role (whatever it is) is told that everyone likes her costume although, to her, she is in her everyday clothes. To add to her anxiety Buffy tells her that all her family are out front looking forward to her appearance on stage. At one point she finds herself alone between two sets of red stage curtains unable to find her way out. We next find her in the classroom about to read a paper to the class. She is wearing the same clothes as in the theatre part of the dream but Buffy strips them off leaving Willow standing in front of the class in the same clothes she wore Episode 1 of the series [ Note - Of course I was unaware of this or how she saw herself at that time]. To add to her misery Oz, her former boyfriend, and Tara, her current girlfriend flirt with each other. The dream ends with Willow being attacked by the first slayer.
The opening scene suggests that Willow has sexual feelings for Tara but has to partially suppress them because of the probable response from her family and others or her own guilt about having such feelings. She resorts to the apparently more innocent pastime of painting a love poem on her back. Interestingly there is another scene in the dream of Xander where the sexual relationship is more explicit but in this case we have to take cognizance of the fact that it is part of Xander's fantasy. The scene in the theatre is a reflection of Willow's anxieties about her being at College and not being able to keep up with her fellow students nor receive their approval. It is important to her to be accepted by the 'others' and to show them that she is no longer the girl the viewers saw in the first episodes. Graphically this is portrayed in the scene when Buffy strips her clothes off to reveal the same costume worn in an earlier part of her life.
We are also offered a glimpse of her relationship with her family whom she cannot see but are the cause of some anxiety. There is one other element of the dream and that is the red curtains in which Willow is trapped. They can be interpreted as a comfort blanket that keeps her hidden from the judgemental looks she feels are always upon her. Equally they could be seen as a metaphor for the type of relationship she has/wants with Tara - to find herself buried in the most private parts of the woman she desires.
Xander's dream, again a series of disjointed scenes, begins with him apparently waking and then excusing himself to go to the bathroom. On the way he meets Willow's mother whose behaviour is suggestive of a wish for a sexual encounter with Xander. He passes up on the immediate opportunity but does indicate a desire to return once he has been to the bathroom. Once in the bathroom he is conscious that he is not alone and on looking round sees that he is being observed by a group in white coats ready to take notes. He excuses himself saying that he will find another bathroom but on going through a door into what he thought was a bathroom he finds himself in a playground where he sees Buffy, Giles and Spike. He is told by Giles that Spike is to be trained as a Watcher. Buffy is seen playing in a sandbox. We then switch to an ice-cream truck where Xander finds Anya, Willow and Tara. The latter two are heavily made up and in skimpy clothing and are in a suggestive embrace. They invite Xander to join them but on his way he finds himself in the basement in his house. The dream sequence then returns him to the University where he seeks advice from Giles about what is happening only to be answered in French a language he does not understand. Constantly throughout the dream sequences he finds himself in the basement of his house.
It does not take a genius to work out the sexual nature of the early part of his dream. The attempted seduction by Buffy's mother is taken to be a metaphor for his desire as a child to have sex with his mother, a la Freud, whilst the behaviour of Willow and Tara in the Ice Cream van serves to offer two fantasies that men find sexually arousing - the wish to see two women in the sexual act and to watch this in a place that should be free of all such behaviour. The latter fantasy is the 'innocence' of the ice cream van created by its link with the young. However his main anxiety and probably the cause of the constant return to the basement of his house is his feelings of inferiority as he has not been as successful as his friends - for example he is not attending college. The French language sequence is a metaphor for his fear that he will no longer be able to understand his friends as they become more and more immersed in College life.
Giles dream revolves around his desire to continue to mentor Buffy and the contra-desire to let her make her own way as a Slayer. His feelings are further complicated by the presence of his girl friend who is first seen with an empty pushchair suggesting an unfulfilled desire to have children. It is not clear whether this is a desire felt by Giles. Buffy appears in his dream as a child, dressed as such and having pigtails. She is attempting to throw a ball at a mock vampire at a fairground but is unable to hit the vampire. Giles offers advice about keeping her arm straight ( there is obvious stereotyping in this part of the dream (it is usually more subtle) because there is a belief that females cannot throw a ball straight and that in some unspecified way it is a by product of being female) and she is successful. Through this sequence we can see evidence of Giles still wishing to guide Buffy We switch to a night club where Giles uses singing to explain why the group are being attacked - apparently he has always wanted to be a musician. The final sequence is him tracing the wiring from the sound system, that has failed, back stage only to find an unfathomable tangle of wires. As he looks in dismay at the task he faces the stalker catches and scalps him.
Giles dream is offered as evidence of the conflicts in his life and the difficulties of reconciling his feelings toward Buffy and his feelings towards his girlfriend. The appearance of Buffy as a child/adult figure exemplifies his ambiguous feelings towards her. His desire to protect is possibly a manifestation of his feelings about his own adequacies and the confirmation he receives from being seen as a father figure by Buffy whilst at the same time possibly avoiding a stable relationship with his girl friend.
Buffy's dream centres around her feelings about the cost of being a Slayer. The dream sequences are confusing with the dream starting with Buffy being woken by Anya in her room at College and then she is seen in her room at home with Tara whose message is not easy to understand. She is then at the University where she finds her mother living inside a wall. We switch to the next sequence where she meets Riley and Adam (now restored to human form) plotting domination on a world wide scale. The three come under attack from demons to which Riley and Adam respond by deciding to build a fort made of pillows. Buffy finds her weapons bag only to find it full of mud which she smears on her face mimicking the first slayer's appearance. We then find her in the desert facing the First Slayer and a fight ensues that continues back in Buffy's room where her friends lie dying. Buffy eventually works out that she can simply stop the fight by the simple act of ignoring the First Slayer who responds by disappearing. The dreams end when everyone wakes up none the worse for their experiences.
The underlying theme of Buffy's dream is her feelings of isolation (the desert scene) that she sees as an inevitable part of being a Slayer. Her encounter with Riley expresses her fears of the effect Riley's work with the military and the effect this will have on their relationship and her ability as a slayer. The sequence with her mother inside the wall is evidence of her feelings towards her mother and the barrier that is a constant part of their relationship. Her realisation about the way to defeat the first slayer is less easy to interpret and is something of an anti-climax. Presumably it leaves open the opportunity for another series on Television.
One element that is difficult to place is the man who constantly appears with cheese slices that he presents in a variety of ways. His most cryptic comment is "I wear the cheese it does not wear me". He has placed the slices around his body. The statement is never challenged although Lacan would probably have a field day with the argument asking how we decide whether in one sense the cheese is wearing the man. A similar incident occurs when Anya is attempting to be a stand up comic at the Club where Giles sings. She starts a tale, somewhat erratically, with talking about a man wearing a duck on his head. We are not offered the rest of the story line until we hear the punch line "Why is this man stuck to my ass?" We have moved from the man wearing the duck to the duck wearing the man. I have no idea what this means other than we make assumptions about appearances based on our experience and we may actually be interpreting it totally the wrong way round.
Monday 23 April 2012
A few random thoughts
Whilst reading through Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep some passages raised questions in my mind that were not directly relevant to the required work but nevertheless were of interest to me. If you like this blog is one of self-indulgence.
It will be recalled that in the previous blog reference was made to the existence of so-called specials who had been judged as insufficiently intelligent to qualify for transfer to colonies on other planets. In terms of the book "Once pegged as special, a citizen, even if accepting sterilization, dropped out of history. He ceased in effect, to be part of mankind. (Location 341 Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Philip K Dick Orion Books ebook 2010 by Gollancz). This raised the question in my mind - Is the Gaze relevant to all people? In terms of the States efforts in the book to persuade those remaining on Earth to emigrate the posters, TV and other communications they were aimed at those eligible for transfer, the 'specials' did not 'exist'. Yet, although their reactions would be different, the Gaze would generate a reaction, in this case one of rejection and isolation. Most had sufficient understanding to realise that in some way they had been classified as different and inferior.
The more general question raised, for me, was there a minimum level of understanding required for there to be a reaction to a Gaze. If there is no understanding of the object does it lose its power to bring forth a response in those who 'see' it? If I am in a foreign Country whose writing is of say Arabic script that I cannot understand any poster would lose its impact and I may simply choose to ignore it. However if I am looking for a specific location and all signs are in the same script all signs would cause me anxiety because of my need to understand. It could be argued that the existence of the Gaze is solely the property of the subject and not of the object so that anything could have triggered Lacan's feelings of anxiety and guilt because they were already part of his sub-concious feelings about his favoured position compared with the fisherman with whom he was sharing a boat.
"As Isidore knocked on the apartment door the television died immediately into non-being. It had not merely become silent, it had stopped existing, scared into its grave by his knock" (Ibid Location 981)
It is an interesting issue to consider whether a television becomes non-existent when it is switched off. Evidently the box and screen will still be there but is it a television? Is there not a need for it to be broadcasting to be a television? Consider when a person dies. They, as a person, cease to exist but there body remains for a measurable period of time.
Later in the book one of the androids realises it will shortly be 'retired' (destroyed). There is a reaction - her eyes faded and the colour dimmed from her face, leaving it cadaverous, as if already starting to decay -(ibid Locn 2016). Evidently the android is aware of its own existence i.e. 'self'. Yet, we are told the thing that distinguishes androids is there lack of empathy. Can you have awareness of self if you are non-empathetic? We recognise feelings in others through empathy and we become aware of the same feelings in ourselves and by judging the reaction of others we learn to react appropriately (most behaviour is learned). In this case there is a human reaction to the awareness of the closeness of death but how has the android learnt this behaviour if it is not empathetic. There are examples throughout the book where androids show empathy in the writing.
"Rachel [an android] said "Or we could live in sin, except that I'm not alive" (Ibid Locn 3025). Decker replies that legally 'she' is not but because she is an organic being and not made out of electronic wizardry she is alive. It raises the question of what it means to be alive. Who decides? Death has to be certified by doctors who have knowledge of the deceased. Up until that point the person is not legally dead even if the body is well into decay and it is clear that death occurred some time prior to discovery. Death and by definition life is a decision that would appear to lie with the State. We are a legal entity that at some time is seen as 'alive' and at another time 'dead'. I wonder what we are between being alive and the state recognising that we are dead.
One passage that has a Kafkaesque quality is when Isidore becomes aware of the state of the world in which he lives. He touches the wall only for his hand to break through the surface; he sits only for the chair to collapse and a cup disintegrates before his eyes. He is facd with another reality or perhaps reality itself. Whatever it is that has kept him from seeing this reality has gone and he is left in a world that has already beyond that of decay. (Ibid Locn 3258) He has no way of knowing whether he has in some way moved into a new reality or that he has always lived there and had failed to see it.
Towards the end Decker when asked whether something is true responds by saying "Everything is true. Everything that anybody has thought" (Ibid Locn 3467). If this is the case then there is no such thing as reality because two people can hold views that are diametrically opposed and could not exist in one reality. For this situation to exist there must be an infinite number of realities none of which is superior or more likely than any other.
It will be recalled that in the previous blog reference was made to the existence of so-called specials who had been judged as insufficiently intelligent to qualify for transfer to colonies on other planets. In terms of the book "Once pegged as special, a citizen, even if accepting sterilization, dropped out of history. He ceased in effect, to be part of mankind. (Location 341 Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Philip K Dick Orion Books ebook 2010 by Gollancz). This raised the question in my mind - Is the Gaze relevant to all people? In terms of the States efforts in the book to persuade those remaining on Earth to emigrate the posters, TV and other communications they were aimed at those eligible for transfer, the 'specials' did not 'exist'. Yet, although their reactions would be different, the Gaze would generate a reaction, in this case one of rejection and isolation. Most had sufficient understanding to realise that in some way they had been classified as different and inferior.
The more general question raised, for me, was there a minimum level of understanding required for there to be a reaction to a Gaze. If there is no understanding of the object does it lose its power to bring forth a response in those who 'see' it? If I am in a foreign Country whose writing is of say Arabic script that I cannot understand any poster would lose its impact and I may simply choose to ignore it. However if I am looking for a specific location and all signs are in the same script all signs would cause me anxiety because of my need to understand. It could be argued that the existence of the Gaze is solely the property of the subject and not of the object so that anything could have triggered Lacan's feelings of anxiety and guilt because they were already part of his sub-concious feelings about his favoured position compared with the fisherman with whom he was sharing a boat.
"As Isidore knocked on the apartment door the television died immediately into non-being. It had not merely become silent, it had stopped existing, scared into its grave by his knock" (Ibid Location 981)
It is an interesting issue to consider whether a television becomes non-existent when it is switched off. Evidently the box and screen will still be there but is it a television? Is there not a need for it to be broadcasting to be a television? Consider when a person dies. They, as a person, cease to exist but there body remains for a measurable period of time.
Later in the book one of the androids realises it will shortly be 'retired' (destroyed). There is a reaction - her eyes faded and the colour dimmed from her face, leaving it cadaverous, as if already starting to decay -(ibid Locn 2016). Evidently the android is aware of its own existence i.e. 'self'. Yet, we are told the thing that distinguishes androids is there lack of empathy. Can you have awareness of self if you are non-empathetic? We recognise feelings in others through empathy and we become aware of the same feelings in ourselves and by judging the reaction of others we learn to react appropriately (most behaviour is learned). In this case there is a human reaction to the awareness of the closeness of death but how has the android learnt this behaviour if it is not empathetic. There are examples throughout the book where androids show empathy in the writing.
"Rachel [an android] said "Or we could live in sin, except that I'm not alive" (Ibid Locn 3025). Decker replies that legally 'she' is not but because she is an organic being and not made out of electronic wizardry she is alive. It raises the question of what it means to be alive. Who decides? Death has to be certified by doctors who have knowledge of the deceased. Up until that point the person is not legally dead even if the body is well into decay and it is clear that death occurred some time prior to discovery. Death and by definition life is a decision that would appear to lie with the State. We are a legal entity that at some time is seen as 'alive' and at another time 'dead'. I wonder what we are between being alive and the state recognising that we are dead.
One passage that has a Kafkaesque quality is when Isidore becomes aware of the state of the world in which he lives. He touches the wall only for his hand to break through the surface; he sits only for the chair to collapse and a cup disintegrates before his eyes. He is facd with another reality or perhaps reality itself. Whatever it is that has kept him from seeing this reality has gone and he is left in a world that has already beyond that of decay. (Ibid Locn 3258) He has no way of knowing whether he has in some way moved into a new reality or that he has always lived there and had failed to see it.
Towards the end Decker when asked whether something is true responds by saying "Everything is true. Everything that anybody has thought" (Ibid Locn 3467). If this is the case then there is no such thing as reality because two people can hold views that are diametrically opposed and could not exist in one reality. For this situation to exist there must be an infinite number of realities none of which is superior or more likely than any other.
Sunday 22 April 2012
Being and its semblance
We are asked to consider examples of 'gaze' . I thought that I would use the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" [Philip K Dick 1968. First published in Great Britain in 1999 by Millennium. Edition used eBook Gollancz 2010 eISBN:9780575097933 - note ebooks do not use page numbers using 'locations' instead]. The film Blade Runner is based on this book.
In my background research for this blog I came across a paper written by Henry Krips Professor of Cultural Studies "The Politics of the Gaze: Foucault, Lacan and Zizek" that can be found at http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v2/a06/cu10v2a6.pdf. Commenting on the work of Joan Copjec he quotes from her work Read my Desire: Lacan Against the Historicists, Harvard MIT Press 1994 in which she recounts an autobiographical story told by Lacan:
One day, I was on a small boat with a few people......an individual known as Petit-Jean..pointed out to me something floating on the surface of the waves. It was a small can, a sardine can...It glittered in the sun. And Petit-Jeansaid to me - Do you see that can? Do you see it? Well it doesn't see you? [Copjec 1994 30-31]
The important part of this story is the response of Lacan who supposedly felt a great deal of anxiety that was seated in his feelings about his privileged position in relation to his hosts which Lacan internalizes as him being externally scrutinised by some unknown thing that was the cause of his anxiety. (My skepticism about the validity of this story arises from Lacan's future behaviour where he frequently changes his previously stated beliefs and assigns different meanings to terms). Lacan describes the gaze in The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis Jacques-Alain Miller (ed) Alan Sheridan (trans) New York Norton 1981
[It] is not a seen gaze [that is it is not an eye that I see looking at me] but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the Other..the sound of rustling leaves....a footstep heard in a corridor.....the other surprises him, the subject, as entirely hidden gaze (p82-84).
It is this description that I have used as what the 'gaze' means in finding examples in the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". For the purpose of this analysis the two main characters are Decker -the Bounty Hunter and Isidore - a 'special' (a 'special' is someone who has failed to meet the target IQ score that all who wish to be transferred from Earth must achieve). Reference will be made to the androids who are the other main element in the story but by definition they are all the same but are assigned slightly different characteristics for the purpose of the story.
As in the present day world, television is a major source of communication. For many it is the blind eye in the corner of the room but which can, both on and off, generate a whole gamut of feelings in us. Isidore 'owns' a set that can only receive one channel and that channel is owned by the government. It broadcasts for 17 hours a day a programme fronted by a presenter known as Buster Friendly who prostelyses the views of the government throughout the programme. It is in many ways the ultimate example of the gaze - it is an object that is unaware of our presence, has no knowledge of the feelings it generates and yet switched off , by its very silence, causes us anxiety.
After the world war that reduced the planet to rubble and decay most of the population were transferred to colonies on other planets - primarily Mars. Although those deemed unworthy of transfer had to remain on Earth there remained others who had refused to transfer despite being eligible. These people were bombarded with poster and TV ads and junk mail with the exhortation "Emigrate or degenerate". One is reminded of the blimp in the film. Further encouragement to leave Earth is the promise of the gift of an android created to the person's design with the promise that it would help 'duplicate the halcyon days of the pre-Civil War Southern states.
As stated above the gaze is "not a seen gaze but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the other" Reference is made to the rustling of the leaves. Having switched off the television Isidore is struck by the all pervading silence. Not only was he conscious of the silence, hearing nothing, but he also experienced it as having a life, that it was Alive. Silence was part of or was the Other in Isidore's world. It does not even have to have uncertain sounds such as a footstep heard elsewhere in the building to generate a sense of anxiety and of separation from others. In a later part of the book we are told of Isidore sudden awareness of the necessity of being with others in order to live. Although prior to the arrival of the androids he was able to live alone in the huge apartment block now he needed there presence to exist as a person.
Decker, the Bounty Hunter, in negotiating for the ownership of an owl (virtually all wild life had died out) becomes aware that under the conditions of the agreement he would become the hunted. He was aware that thinking that you are being stalked, whether true or not, has a marked effect upon the person. Here we have the gaze that is created by the fears or anxieties of the person who may never see his stalker. It is the belief that there is one that is the crucial factor.
An everyday object such as a pair of nail scissors can go 'unnoticed' for years. It is only when they are connected with the possibility of mutilation (in the book a spider found by Isidore is targeted by an android who is threatening to remove four of its legs) that anxieties are roused. There is a similarity with the sardine can in Lacan's story.
Although very few people have the experience of being shown a police officer's warrant card most have seen an officer in uniform. In the first case very few of us would challenge the validity of the card and would respond to any questions asked or directions given. In the latter case we would respond even when the Officer is some distance away even if we are innocent of any misdemeanour. Both the card and the uniform are 'objects' that cause some anxiety or tension in us. In the book Decker frequently shows his id card and in turn is shown someone elses. Both humans and androids behave in predictable albeit slightly different ways.
The book also raised a number of other interesting questions and I hope to 'think' about them in a future blog.
In my background research for this blog I came across a paper written by Henry Krips Professor of Cultural Studies "The Politics of the Gaze: Foucault, Lacan and Zizek" that can be found at http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v2/a06/cu10v2a6.pdf. Commenting on the work of Joan Copjec he quotes from her work Read my Desire: Lacan Against the Historicists, Harvard MIT Press 1994 in which she recounts an autobiographical story told by Lacan:
One day, I was on a small boat with a few people......an individual known as Petit-Jean..pointed out to me something floating on the surface of the waves. It was a small can, a sardine can...It glittered in the sun. And Petit-Jeansaid to me - Do you see that can? Do you see it? Well it doesn't see you? [Copjec 1994 30-31]
The important part of this story is the response of Lacan who supposedly felt a great deal of anxiety that was seated in his feelings about his privileged position in relation to his hosts which Lacan internalizes as him being externally scrutinised by some unknown thing that was the cause of his anxiety. (My skepticism about the validity of this story arises from Lacan's future behaviour where he frequently changes his previously stated beliefs and assigns different meanings to terms). Lacan describes the gaze in The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis Jacques-Alain Miller (ed) Alan Sheridan (trans) New York Norton 1981
[It] is not a seen gaze [that is it is not an eye that I see looking at me] but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the Other..the sound of rustling leaves....a footstep heard in a corridor.....the other surprises him, the subject, as entirely hidden gaze (p82-84).
It is this description that I have used as what the 'gaze' means in finding examples in the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". For the purpose of this analysis the two main characters are Decker -the Bounty Hunter and Isidore - a 'special' (a 'special' is someone who has failed to meet the target IQ score that all who wish to be transferred from Earth must achieve). Reference will be made to the androids who are the other main element in the story but by definition they are all the same but are assigned slightly different characteristics for the purpose of the story.
As in the present day world, television is a major source of communication. For many it is the blind eye in the corner of the room but which can, both on and off, generate a whole gamut of feelings in us. Isidore 'owns' a set that can only receive one channel and that channel is owned by the government. It broadcasts for 17 hours a day a programme fronted by a presenter known as Buster Friendly who prostelyses the views of the government throughout the programme. It is in many ways the ultimate example of the gaze - it is an object that is unaware of our presence, has no knowledge of the feelings it generates and yet switched off , by its very silence, causes us anxiety.
After the world war that reduced the planet to rubble and decay most of the population were transferred to colonies on other planets - primarily Mars. Although those deemed unworthy of transfer had to remain on Earth there remained others who had refused to transfer despite being eligible. These people were bombarded with poster and TV ads and junk mail with the exhortation "Emigrate or degenerate". One is reminded of the blimp in the film. Further encouragement to leave Earth is the promise of the gift of an android created to the person's design with the promise that it would help 'duplicate the halcyon days of the pre-Civil War Southern states.
As stated above the gaze is "not a seen gaze but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the other" Reference is made to the rustling of the leaves. Having switched off the television Isidore is struck by the all pervading silence. Not only was he conscious of the silence, hearing nothing, but he also experienced it as having a life, that it was Alive. Silence was part of or was the Other in Isidore's world. It does not even have to have uncertain sounds such as a footstep heard elsewhere in the building to generate a sense of anxiety and of separation from others. In a later part of the book we are told of Isidore sudden awareness of the necessity of being with others in order to live. Although prior to the arrival of the androids he was able to live alone in the huge apartment block now he needed there presence to exist as a person.
Decker, the Bounty Hunter, in negotiating for the ownership of an owl (virtually all wild life had died out) becomes aware that under the conditions of the agreement he would become the hunted. He was aware that thinking that you are being stalked, whether true or not, has a marked effect upon the person. Here we have the gaze that is created by the fears or anxieties of the person who may never see his stalker. It is the belief that there is one that is the crucial factor.
An everyday object such as a pair of nail scissors can go 'unnoticed' for years. It is only when they are connected with the possibility of mutilation (in the book a spider found by Isidore is targeted by an android who is threatening to remove four of its legs) that anxieties are roused. There is a similarity with the sardine can in Lacan's story.
Although very few people have the experience of being shown a police officer's warrant card most have seen an officer in uniform. In the first case very few of us would challenge the validity of the card and would respond to any questions asked or directions given. In the latter case we would respond even when the Officer is some distance away even if we are innocent of any misdemeanour. Both the card and the uniform are 'objects' that cause some anxiety or tension in us. In the book Decker frequently shows his id card and in turn is shown someone elses. Both humans and androids behave in predictable albeit slightly different ways.
The book also raised a number of other interesting questions and I hope to 'think' about them in a future blog.
Monday 16 April 2012
Schrodinger's Cat
Schrodinger proposed a theoretical experiment to illustrate a principle in quantum theory known as superposition which theorises that for any physical entity, such as an electron, the entity is in all its possible states and a particular state is only known when observed. Schrodinger proposed that a living cat is placed inside a box along with a vial containing a lethal acid. Also in the chamber is a small amount a radioactive substance. The mechanism is so designed that should a single atom of the radioactive substance decay then a hammer is tripped that breaks the vial thus killing the cat.
The observer cannot know whether the vial has been broken and the cat killed. Since an entity can exist in all possible states for that entity - in the case of the cat dead, alive or dead/alive - then until the box is opened and an observation made the cat is in all three (or possibly more) states. In quantum mechanics the observation affects the outcome so that any outcome does not exist until an observation is made. Whilst this may be true for electrons it is more difficult for us to accept that it can be true for such an entity as a cat. In our experience of the world a cat is alive or dead - it cannot be both at the same time. (One is reminded of the Dead Parrot sketch in Monty Pythons Flying Circus where the buyer of the parrot insists that the parrot is dead whilst the shopkeeper holds the opposite view. The sketch is funny because we 'know' that the parrot is dead or alive and the efforts of the two antagonists to prove their point of view is seen by us as ridiculous because of this 'knowledge'.
Some hold to the theory of 'many worlds'. Simply put all possible outcomes happen but in parallel worlds that do not interact so that you both married the girl of your dreams as well as being jilted at the altar - two states that cannot both be true in one world. If this is the case then everything exists in every possible state created by a particular outcome until an observation is made in one of the worlds when a particular outcome becomes part of the memory stream of that world. However it also means that it is possible for all outcomes to become part of the memory stream in all the worlds created and just to make it more complex occasionally there could be interaction between worlds such that two or more memory streams existed in one world. Before you dismiss this idea as preposterous think of the times that you and another person have believed strongly in the outcome of an event you both shared yet the two versions are incompatible. You will assume that your friend has created a false memory BUT he will have the same opinion about you.
The observer cannot know whether the vial has been broken and the cat killed. Since an entity can exist in all possible states for that entity - in the case of the cat dead, alive or dead/alive - then until the box is opened and an observation made the cat is in all three (or possibly more) states. In quantum mechanics the observation affects the outcome so that any outcome does not exist until an observation is made. Whilst this may be true for electrons it is more difficult for us to accept that it can be true for such an entity as a cat. In our experience of the world a cat is alive or dead - it cannot be both at the same time. (One is reminded of the Dead Parrot sketch in Monty Pythons Flying Circus where the buyer of the parrot insists that the parrot is dead whilst the shopkeeper holds the opposite view. The sketch is funny because we 'know' that the parrot is dead or alive and the efforts of the two antagonists to prove their point of view is seen by us as ridiculous because of this 'knowledge'.
Some hold to the theory of 'many worlds'. Simply put all possible outcomes happen but in parallel worlds that do not interact so that you both married the girl of your dreams as well as being jilted at the altar - two states that cannot both be true in one world. If this is the case then everything exists in every possible state created by a particular outcome until an observation is made in one of the worlds when a particular outcome becomes part of the memory stream of that world. However it also means that it is possible for all outcomes to become part of the memory stream in all the worlds created and just to make it more complex occasionally there could be interaction between worlds such that two or more memory streams existed in one world. Before you dismiss this idea as preposterous think of the times that you and another person have believed strongly in the outcome of an event you both shared yet the two versions are incompatible. You will assume that your friend has created a false memory BUT he will have the same opinion about you.
Sunday 15 April 2012
Lacan - What is a picture?
Have read the passage three times and as with all of Lacan's work I remain unsure of what he is saying or trying to say. As is usual I did a web search to see if there was any entries that at least would offer a clue or a firm foundation on which I could build my ideas. I found none that seemed relevant although as always came across a number of articles vilifying Lacan and his ideas. I then followed through the requirement to read the article by Kaja Silverman - The Subject as it is suggested reading this article "may help". It is worth quoting from this work:
"Lacan's prose is notoriously remote, and his presentation deliberately a-systematic. Many of the terms to which he most frequently returns constantly shift meaning. These qualities make it almost impossible to offer definitive statements about the Lacanian argument; indeed, Lacan himself almost never agreed with his commentators." [visual culture: the reader; eds jessica evans and stuart hall; Sage Publications 2010 p 340].
Silverman avoids the problems that this raises for her as a commentator by "not attempt{ing} a comprehensive survey of the Lacanian argument, but will focus instead on those parts of it which have proved most assimilable to a broader psychoanalytic theory.." [Ibid pp 340-341]. It seems to be less than good academic practice to cherry pick those parts that support one's theory and even then ignore the problems with these parts that remain unclear or wrong. [see reference to Lacan's theory of the mirror image ibid p344 where she fails to address the question of the congenitally blind child and Lacan's initial belief that the mirror stage occurred at round about 4 months.
It would seem that having argued that Lacan "almost never agreed with his commentators" Silverman fails to see the irony of her being a commentator with whom Lacan would most likely disagree. I found the article less than helpful and, indeed, added to my confusion.
To add to my confusion further is the reference to an earlier statement by Lacan in the seminar that has been translated "the picture is in my eye but I am not in the picture" It is stated that this is arguably a mistranslation of the original but it is difficult to see how this has arisen - the negative in French is not easily mistaken. We are not offered the original statement in French for us to make a judgement or on what grounds the arguable case is put forward. In the text we were required to read Lacan states "I must, to begin with, insist on the following: in the scopic field, the gaze is outside, I am looked at, that is to say I am a picture" [The Visual Culture Reader ed Nicholas Mirzoeff 2nd edn Routledge 2002 p 126]. It is interesting to consider whether someone who is the picture is in or not in that picture.
I also found it difficult to relate the screen in Lacan's work with the description in the Course material where it is described as being something that 'cuts us off from something, like the screen around a hospital bed'. I would suggest that that Lacan's idea of a screen is different. He argues that the subject "isolates the function of the screen and plays with it. Man, in effect, knows how to play with the mask as that beyond which there is the gaze. The screen here is the locus of mediation" [ibid p128]. I would suggest that the screen is, as suggested in the Course material, our cultural conditioning but far from being an obstacle to 'seeing' we are able to see through the screen, albeit faintly and with a degree of distortion the 'reality' beyond it - we are able to mediate.
"Lacan's prose is notoriously remote, and his presentation deliberately a-systematic. Many of the terms to which he most frequently returns constantly shift meaning. These qualities make it almost impossible to offer definitive statements about the Lacanian argument; indeed, Lacan himself almost never agreed with his commentators." [visual culture: the reader; eds jessica evans and stuart hall; Sage Publications 2010 p 340].
Silverman avoids the problems that this raises for her as a commentator by "not attempt{ing} a comprehensive survey of the Lacanian argument, but will focus instead on those parts of it which have proved most assimilable to a broader psychoanalytic theory.." [Ibid pp 340-341]. It seems to be less than good academic practice to cherry pick those parts that support one's theory and even then ignore the problems with these parts that remain unclear or wrong. [see reference to Lacan's theory of the mirror image ibid p344 where she fails to address the question of the congenitally blind child and Lacan's initial belief that the mirror stage occurred at round about 4 months.
It would seem that having argued that Lacan "almost never agreed with his commentators" Silverman fails to see the irony of her being a commentator with whom Lacan would most likely disagree. I found the article less than helpful and, indeed, added to my confusion.
To add to my confusion further is the reference to an earlier statement by Lacan in the seminar that has been translated "the picture is in my eye but I am not in the picture" It is stated that this is arguably a mistranslation of the original but it is difficult to see how this has arisen - the negative in French is not easily mistaken. We are not offered the original statement in French for us to make a judgement or on what grounds the arguable case is put forward. In the text we were required to read Lacan states "I must, to begin with, insist on the following: in the scopic field, the gaze is outside, I am looked at, that is to say I am a picture" [The Visual Culture Reader ed Nicholas Mirzoeff 2nd edn Routledge 2002 p 126]. It is interesting to consider whether someone who is the picture is in or not in that picture.
I also found it difficult to relate the screen in Lacan's work with the description in the Course material where it is described as being something that 'cuts us off from something, like the screen around a hospital bed'. I would suggest that that Lacan's idea of a screen is different. He argues that the subject "isolates the function of the screen and plays with it. Man, in effect, knows how to play with the mask as that beyond which there is the gaze. The screen here is the locus of mediation" [ibid p128]. I would suggest that the screen is, as suggested in the Course material, our cultural conditioning but far from being an obstacle to 'seeing' we are able to see through the screen, albeit faintly and with a degree of distortion the 'reality' beyond it - we are able to mediate.
Saturday 7 April 2012
Baudrillard - Reality and the Matrix
Baudrillard argues that in our post modern society the simulacrum precedes the original and that difference between representation and reality disappears. There is only the simulacrum i.e. there is no reality and to talk of an underlying reality is to talk about a meaningless concept. He distinguishes four stages in the relationship between sign-order.
The first stage is denoted by our belief, whether well-founded or not, that a sign is a "reflection of a profound reality" (p6 Simulacra and Simulation -Baudrillard 1994); in the second stage we believe that the sign is not an accurate copy of the reality although we continue to believe that there is a reality that the sign is unable to faithfully represent; in the third stage signs and images claim to be linked to reality but that reality does not exist; and in the fourth stage the sign has no relationship to reality and signs point to other signs so their legitimacy rests only on the existence of these signs but these in turn may well seek legitimacy from the existence of the signs that reference them. Baudrillard refers to this final stage as hyperreality.
"In postmodernism, hyperreality is the result of the technological mediation of experience, where what passes for for reality is a network of images and signs without an external referent, such that what is represented is representation itself" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism). In layman's terms no matter how exhaustive the search for the underpinning reality the searcher will always find yet another sign.
In the film Matrix the humans exist in a world of signs that have no relationship to reality. The reality, offered in the film, is the reality that is occupied by a 'superior' race of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Humans exist to serve the needs of the Artificial Intelligence beings that need the existence of the humans who represent a vital energy source. In this case we have one 'reality' populated by the AI beings and another that only exists in the collective minds of the human population. The film centres around a group of humans who for some unexplained reason have become aware of the existence of the two realities and fight to take their place in the reality dominated by the AI beings. In a sense this group are able to exist in both realities at the same time.
Of the two realities it can be argued that the 'reality' of the AI beings is that of the first stage and the 'reality' of the humans that of the fourth stage but the only referent system we are offered is that of the script of the film. It may be the case that the AI beings are as deluded as the humans and that they are under the control of a greater being. There is no way of knowing what is reality even under Baudrillard's stages as all rely upon our belief system. I may believe that I am the only one who is living in a 'profound reality' and that everyone else is mistaken in their beliefs. Yet my only referent system is the one that I think I occupy that can of course be of the fourth order stage. It is interesting to consider whether, if I am correct in believing that I am the only one living in reality, why I created the reality in which I live and how I keep it populated with others of whom I can have no experience.
The first stage is denoted by our belief, whether well-founded or not, that a sign is a "reflection of a profound reality" (p6 Simulacra and Simulation -Baudrillard 1994); in the second stage we believe that the sign is not an accurate copy of the reality although we continue to believe that there is a reality that the sign is unable to faithfully represent; in the third stage signs and images claim to be linked to reality but that reality does not exist; and in the fourth stage the sign has no relationship to reality and signs point to other signs so their legitimacy rests only on the existence of these signs but these in turn may well seek legitimacy from the existence of the signs that reference them. Baudrillard refers to this final stage as hyperreality.
"In postmodernism, hyperreality is the result of the technological mediation of experience, where what passes for for reality is a network of images and signs without an external referent, such that what is represented is representation itself" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism). In layman's terms no matter how exhaustive the search for the underpinning reality the searcher will always find yet another sign.
In the film Matrix the humans exist in a world of signs that have no relationship to reality. The reality, offered in the film, is the reality that is occupied by a 'superior' race of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Humans exist to serve the needs of the Artificial Intelligence beings that need the existence of the humans who represent a vital energy source. In this case we have one 'reality' populated by the AI beings and another that only exists in the collective minds of the human population. The film centres around a group of humans who for some unexplained reason have become aware of the existence of the two realities and fight to take their place in the reality dominated by the AI beings. In a sense this group are able to exist in both realities at the same time.
Of the two realities it can be argued that the 'reality' of the AI beings is that of the first stage and the 'reality' of the humans that of the fourth stage but the only referent system we are offered is that of the script of the film. It may be the case that the AI beings are as deluded as the humans and that they are under the control of a greater being. There is no way of knowing what is reality even under Baudrillard's stages as all rely upon our belief system. I may believe that I am the only one who is living in a 'profound reality' and that everyone else is mistaken in their beliefs. Yet my only referent system is the one that I think I occupy that can of course be of the fourth order stage. It is interesting to consider whether, if I am correct in believing that I am the only one living in reality, why I created the reality in which I live and how I keep it populated with others of whom I can have no experience.
Wednesday 4 April 2012
Blade Runner - Do androids dream of electric sheep?.
Whilst searching for more information about Blade Runner I came across a reference to the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" that claims to be the basis for the film "Blade Runner" . It is true that the main character in the film is the same as in the book and indeed he is a bounty hunter whose task is to 'retire' (kill) androids. Other characters from the book appear but it could not be claimed that the film bears any close relationship to the book.
The book presents Decker as human with a wife and an electric sheep and the book provides a much more rounded character than that portrayed by Harrison Ford in the film. We see a number of sides of him most strikingly his doubts about his work particularly after he had made love to one of the androids. He portrays as human with all the weaknesses of the species as well as the strengths. For me he was much more believable as a character.
The book also presents the androids (called replicants in the film) in greater detail. Most strikingly they are aware of their status, their strengths and their weaknesses. We are offered the resignation with which they accept death whether it is sudden, as in being retired by a bounty hunter, or as a result of the limit of their lives that is four years. They have no empathy so cannot put themselves in the position of another whether it be another android or a human. It is one characteristic that distinguishes them from most human beings thus allowing them to be recognised. Sometimes it is easy to feel sorry for them insofar as they hunted down to be retired, or 'die' after only four years of existence, treated as slaves on the colonies (Mars and other planets settled by the humans escaping from the devastation caused by a nuclear world war), or hunted down if they manage to escape their bondage.
I much preferred the book to the film, the latter being more like a violent video game. At least the book is populated by characters that have 'souls' and self awareness.
The book presents Decker as human with a wife and an electric sheep and the book provides a much more rounded character than that portrayed by Harrison Ford in the film. We see a number of sides of him most strikingly his doubts about his work particularly after he had made love to one of the androids. He portrays as human with all the weaknesses of the species as well as the strengths. For me he was much more believable as a character.
The book also presents the androids (called replicants in the film) in greater detail. Most strikingly they are aware of their status, their strengths and their weaknesses. We are offered the resignation with which they accept death whether it is sudden, as in being retired by a bounty hunter, or as a result of the limit of their lives that is four years. They have no empathy so cannot put themselves in the position of another whether it be another android or a human. It is one characteristic that distinguishes them from most human beings thus allowing them to be recognised. Sometimes it is easy to feel sorry for them insofar as they hunted down to be retired, or 'die' after only four years of existence, treated as slaves on the colonies (Mars and other planets settled by the humans escaping from the devastation caused by a nuclear world war), or hunted down if they manage to escape their bondage.
I much preferred the book to the film, the latter being more like a violent video game. At least the book is populated by characters that have 'souls' and self awareness.
Monday 2 April 2012
Yet another Reader
Came across two references to required reading that simply referred to the Course Reader and gave page numbers. Neither reference was correct and when I contacted my Tutor he told me that the book referred to was The Visual Culture Reader [ed. Nicholas Mirzeoff, Routledge London, 2002.] not the Course reader! As if the Course isn't difficult enough without easily rectified mistakes remaining in the Course material.
Managed to get hold of a copy that makes life a bit easier although the articles are their usual obscure selves. Oh happy days.
Managed to get hold of a copy that makes life a bit easier although the articles are their usual obscure selves. Oh happy days.
Friday 30 March 2012
Blade Runner
The suggested reading does not appear to be in the Course Reader. I have e-mailed my tutor seeking guidance.
Have now watched Blade Runner - the Director's Cut Version. Not a film I would have chosen for my personal entertainment before viewing and even less likely having sat through it. We are asked to consider whether Deckard is a human or a replicant. There is insufficient information provided to make a well-informed decision but if forced I would argue that he is human. There is one moment in the film when one of the replicants accuses Deckard of being irrational. Irrationality is not something that we, in our present state of knowledge, would ascribe to a robot. There are also the fights that Deckard has with all the replicants where they are superior in strength. Both these factors would suggest that Deckard is not a replicant. However the replicants he has set out to destroy are Nexus 6 that are presented as the latest version. Deckard could be an earlier and less sophisticated version and does not have the abilities of the latest versions. The only way that a replicant can be distinguished from a human by contemporaries in the film is by the use of a machine that measures minute changes in the pupil size. We are not offered this information about Deckard.
A question that has exercised the minds of a great many philosophers and others is how we can tell whether the object we are facing is human or a robot/replicant. Alan Turing suggested a test that would allow someone to make the distinction. However the test has been challenged on a number of grounds. For a comprehensive discussion of the 'Turing Test' see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test.
A question that is implicit in the discussions is 'How do we decide that the object in front of us is an intelligent human being?" We can only guess based on the information (both visual, verbal and behavioural) that is presented. We also rely upon our belief that such beings as replicants as shown in the Blade Runner do not exist and that computers are incapable at the present time to appear humanoid even in the most primitive sense. We gain a great deal of information from conversation but where this is not available to us (e.g. we are in a foreign country whose language we do not speak) we make the assumption that because something looks and behaves like a human it is human.
Have now watched Blade Runner - the Director's Cut Version. Not a film I would have chosen for my personal entertainment before viewing and even less likely having sat through it. We are asked to consider whether Deckard is a human or a replicant. There is insufficient information provided to make a well-informed decision but if forced I would argue that he is human. There is one moment in the film when one of the replicants accuses Deckard of being irrational. Irrationality is not something that we, in our present state of knowledge, would ascribe to a robot. There are also the fights that Deckard has with all the replicants where they are superior in strength. Both these factors would suggest that Deckard is not a replicant. However the replicants he has set out to destroy are Nexus 6 that are presented as the latest version. Deckard could be an earlier and less sophisticated version and does not have the abilities of the latest versions. The only way that a replicant can be distinguished from a human by contemporaries in the film is by the use of a machine that measures minute changes in the pupil size. We are not offered this information about Deckard.
A question that has exercised the minds of a great many philosophers and others is how we can tell whether the object we are facing is human or a robot/replicant. Alan Turing suggested a test that would allow someone to make the distinction. However the test has been challenged on a number of grounds. For a comprehensive discussion of the 'Turing Test' see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test.
A question that is implicit in the discussions is 'How do we decide that the object in front of us is an intelligent human being?" We can only guess based on the information (both visual, verbal and behavioural) that is presented. We also rely upon our belief that such beings as replicants as shown in the Blade Runner do not exist and that computers are incapable at the present time to appear humanoid even in the most primitive sense. We gain a great deal of information from conversation but where this is not available to us (e.g. we are in a foreign country whose language we do not speak) we make the assumption that because something looks and behaves like a human it is human.
Tuesday 27 March 2012
Illusion only is sacred, truth profane part 2
Annotation
1 Note the simple font used and the wording "Syrup and Extract"
2 Described as a cure for all "nervous affections" suggesting that it has medicinal properties
3 The inclusion of the word 'chemist' designed to re-assure the customer that it is in some way scientifically prepared.
Annotation
1 Use of the dove to suggest 'peace and harmony' referring back to a very successful TV commercial "I want to teach the world to sing..."
2 Rainbow indicative of sunshine in the rain - a promise also of a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.
3 Bottle presented, balanced on the head of the clown, (?subliminal message of the a well balanced drink) . The 'light' links the bottle to the rainbow and through that to the dove re-inforcing the message.
4. The choice of colour and the inclusion of bubbles not only refers to the 'fizziness' of the drink but also is suggestive of something that is clean and healthy.
5 The main figure is the clown suggesting that the drink is linked with a fun lifestyle and makes people happy.
6 the placement of the bottle, the simple use of the word 'coke' the universal shorthand for Coca-Cola (there are other Colas but only one Coke!) strengthens the overall message.
7. Finally the now well known font of Coca-Cola advertising.
The claims made in the first advert would no longer be allowed under legislation designed to make advertising more honest although my cynical side thinks that were the legislation not there such claims would be made explicitly or implicitly. The staid printed advert has now been replaced by colourful and exciting imagery that through symbols and suggestion links to all previous adverts thus ensuring a consistent and powerful message.
Annotation
1 Each corner has an image representative of a particular age emphasising that the soap is for all ages despite the heavy reliance upon the image of children used in nearly all Pears soap adverts
2 A young white boy suitably dressed for bathing a child (suggesting a superior relationship with the other human in the advert), is offering the soap to a young black boy in the bathtub.
3 The young black boy looks wonderingly down into the bathwater one supposes what miracle is about to happen.
4 Placed in the middle of the advert is the name of the product clear for all to see and offers a 'time' barrier to allow for the transformation to take place
5 The writing that is difficult to see is an endorsement of the product by a famous name in this case Lily Langtry.
6 The black boy has miraculously become white skinned where he has been washed by the soap
7 The white boy holds up a mirror so that his friend? can see the benefits of using Pears soap - it washes away all those stains that we do not want.
{Comment - I still cannot believe that this advert is 'real'. The undisguised racism is breathtaking and it is difficult to believe that any company at any time would wish to be associated with such beliefs}
Annotation
1 Here the packaging is used to provide a simple message for the potential purchaser and shows the 'new 'soap in its different form
2 The second package uses a similar message but this time it refers to thew original form of the soap - the one that is well known to those who use it.
3 The soap is taken out of the package to show that it is indeed the original that remains unchanged
4 Here is the new soap - different shape and now wrapped.
Pears attempted to introduce a new version of its much loved soap. As a public relations exercise it was a disaster akin to the problems faced by Coca-Cola when they attempted to introduce a newer more up to date version of their drink. However, compared to the pre-war advert the modern advert is simpler, cleaner and makes no false claims. Again the existence of legislation that would ban the content of the pre-war advert makes it difficult to judge whether such advertising tricks would still appear in an unfettered advertising world.
1 A frightened/scared woman reflecting the human form of the problems mentioned in the narrative.
2 A direct reference to a possible medical condition that may be 'cured' by the drinking of the product.
3 Name of the product clearly displayed.
4 Here the reader is told what she needs to overcome all the problems suggested in the remainder of the advert. There is no doubt expressed in the efficacy of Ovaltine nor any evidence to support the claims made.
Annotation
1 Here there is no claim made about the effect upon the person drinking the beverage but there is the suggestion that the goodness of the countryside is contained in the drink and that 'goodness' will in some unspecified way be felt by the consumer.
2 The woman is holding a tin of the product making a direct connection between the obvious health of the person and the tin that she is holding.
3 The image is of a woman brimming with health and happiness. The sheath of barley and the eggs in the basket are there to show that the product is the result of the combination of two of nature's natural bounty.
4 The image is backed by easily recognisable 'country' scenes including cows for milk and the collection of the harvest.
The first advert which is pre-war makes similar claims to the health benefits of the product as made for Coca-Cola. Again these claims would not be allowed under present legislation. The second advert makes no direct claims but uses symbols that the reader can use to connect the product with a desired end.
General comment: I looked at quite a few adverts and the thing that struck me that the pre-war adverts would be banned under present day legislation. This suggests that it was felt there was a need to curtail the activities of the advertisers who made claims that could not be backed up by evidence. One is left wondering how far advertisers would go if there constraints were removed. Is it possibly the case that the reason for the changes are little to do with the era and more to do with the drive to make adverts 'honest'
Wednesday 21 March 2012
Illusion only is sacred, truth profane
The second advert is from the April 2012 issue of Vogue. The tag line "Wear the Shoes Rule the World" invites the viewer to believe that by the simple act of wearing 'fitflop' shoes she will be in command of all that she desires. Again the model has been made anonymous by the face being hidden by her hair.
The third advert is taken from the April 2012 issue of the magazine Vogue. The product is aimed at those who wish to remove/reduce the signs of ageing. Although difficult to read the 'small print' is an interesting exercise in implying 'greatnbess' without telling a lie. It reads:
- The multi award-winning Sisleya Global Anti-Age has been Sisley's No 1 selling skin care product since its launch. Formulated to address all signs of skin ageing in one single cream. It contains Sisley's choice of the best anti-wrinkle, regenerating and stimulating plant extracts nature has to offer. It gives the skin the indispensable elements need for its beauty. Skin is smoother, more luminous, plumped and radiant.
A close reading of the claims shows that they only refer to the world of the seller of the product. There is no outside confirmation. The final sentence describing the effect upon the skin may or may not be true and as it is a subjective view is not open to challenge.
It would seem at first glance that adverts for beauty/fashion products are not subject to the strictures of the Advertising Standards Authority largely because there is no objective evidence to support or deny the claims. In the adverts above, primarily aimed at women, the unstated result of using the product is to enter into a new world where the image presented to the world is aligned very closely with the image the person believes to be the desired aim of everyone. The illusion is all.
One of the things that I noticed whilst scanning the magazines for appropriate adverts were the very large number where only the makers name was included with the image. Nothing was said or claimed about what it means to have these products. Here the 'name' has reached the point that simply to mention it conjures up a world where simple ownership of the product is all that is needed. Is this not the ultimate illusion?
Monday 19 March 2012
The concept of Reality
Started this, the final part of the Course by reading the set passage in the Reader. Having struggled to understand the series of statements that appeared to be unsupported and not necessarily connected the thought occurred to me that perhaps this is the way that thinkers like Guy Debord establish their image. It is though they are driven to use language and its structure in a way that sets their works apart from the rest of the world. In this way they create an 'image' that they are deep thinkers and if you cannot understand what they are saying the fault lies with you and not with the writer. They create a very small group relatively speaking, of those that can, or pretend that they can, understand the dialogue. It is better if it is so obscure that any interpretation can be stated to be wrong. In that way the writer cannot be challenged and he can dismiss from his group of followers (as Debord was very quick to do - as evidenced by his actions with the Situationist International) on the grounds that they did not understand the nature of his argument or that their interpretation was subversive of the group and an unworthy attack upon the master by one of his disciples.
If this is the case then the the image is illusory and has no basis in reality; if there be such a thing as reality.
I was also puzzled by the statement in the text of the Course (p 61) that suggests that the obsession with image arose in the late 20th Century. Whilst it is the case that the technologies that came to fruition in this period allowed a greater and more rapid distribution of the 'image' it could be argued that the obsession with image has always been there. During the Course we have been asked to examine works of art for symbols that give a clue to the artists and the person commissioning the work message. The way that the family group is portrayed and the dress worn together with the background (often indicating the family estate and house) are clearly understood messages that underline the image that the family or individual wish to portray. Evidence can also be seen in the many grand houses that the aristocracy and then the nouveau riche built that were grandiose in the extreme and were a message that said "look how wealthy I am".
Fashion has always been a statement by the wearer and was designed to give to the wold the image that the wearer wished to convey about his status, wealth and daring. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that man has always been obsessed with the exterior he presents to the world and that advertising has simply used this phenomenon to make their wares more desirable.
If this is the case then the the image is illusory and has no basis in reality; if there be such a thing as reality.
I was also puzzled by the statement in the text of the Course (p 61) that suggests that the obsession with image arose in the late 20th Century. Whilst it is the case that the technologies that came to fruition in this period allowed a greater and more rapid distribution of the 'image' it could be argued that the obsession with image has always been there. During the Course we have been asked to examine works of art for symbols that give a clue to the artists and the person commissioning the work message. The way that the family group is portrayed and the dress worn together with the background (often indicating the family estate and house) are clearly understood messages that underline the image that the family or individual wish to portray. Evidence can also be seen in the many grand houses that the aristocracy and then the nouveau riche built that were grandiose in the extreme and were a message that said "look how wealthy I am".
Fashion has always been a statement by the wearer and was designed to give to the wold the image that the wearer wished to convey about his status, wealth and daring. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that man has always been obsessed with the exterior he presents to the world and that advertising has simply used this phenomenon to make their wares more desirable.
Sunday 11 March 2012
Assignment 4
Spent the last 10 days after coming out of hospital deciding on my approach to the assignment and then researching the necessary material to make sense of it all.
Decided to use the film "Battle of Algiers" as the hook to hang my assignment on. The background had piqued my interest and my feelings about the approach of Dyer (see previous blog) that I feel is over-simplistic (blackness/whiteness) also provided some of the motivation to complete the work. As always heavy reliance upon the internet to find the necessary background reading and the opportunity to follow interesting leads in linked topics. Sometimes I think that it would not be possible to do this Course without access to the internet because relying upon the local Library to find the resources necessary would have meant me camping out there. Even so I seemed to spend a great deal of time finding and reading the necessary material.
Decided to use the film "Battle of Algiers" as the hook to hang my assignment on. The background had piqued my interest and my feelings about the approach of Dyer (see previous blog) that I feel is over-simplistic (blackness/whiteness) also provided some of the motivation to complete the work. As always heavy reliance upon the internet to find the necessary background reading and the opportunity to follow interesting leads in linked topics. Sometimes I think that it would not be possible to do this Course without access to the internet because relying upon the local Library to find the resources necessary would have meant me camping out there. Even so I seemed to spend a great deal of time finding and reading the necessary material.
Wednesday 15 February 2012
Battle for Algiers
Watched this film today. Although having some links with the film 'Simba' i.e. indigenous people overthrowing their colonial masters the Battle for Algiers is told from the viewpoint of the people attempting to overthrow the colonialists. Not surprisingly the bias of the film is towards them although they do not shy from showing the atrocities they committed. Furthermore whereas 'Simba' concentrates on the battle between the Mau Mau and a small group of farmers 'Battle for Algiers' is a conflict between local freedom fighters (or terrorist if you are French) and a large military force.
What the film failed to take into account was the sub-plot of the French Army who suffered defeat at the hands of the Germans in the Second World War and at Dien Bien Phu in the Indo-China War. This latter battle had many similar aspects to the Battle of Algiers insofar as a colonial independence movement had successfully overthrown the rulers. It would seem that the opportunity to defeat the native population and restore French pride was an underlying cause for the behaviour of the French Army. It should also be remembered that the political leaders of France after Charles de Gaulle became President were minded to give independence to Algeria and this brought a bitter response from the Army who, it is alleged, planned to assassinate de Gaulle. Independence was achieved in 1962 but by this time the Algerians were pushing against an opening door.
A strange mix of films presumably chosen and interpreted by Dyer to aid in his search for 'whiteness'. As stated previously it is my view that he fails to do this largely because he feels that 'blackness' and 'whiteness' are the only opposing elements whereas the history of such places as Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Algiers and the recent events in other parts of the Arab World show that their are many other loyalties that people feel other than to the colour of their skin.
What the film failed to take into account was the sub-plot of the French Army who suffered defeat at the hands of the Germans in the Second World War and at Dien Bien Phu in the Indo-China War. This latter battle had many similar aspects to the Battle of Algiers insofar as a colonial independence movement had successfully overthrown the rulers. It would seem that the opportunity to defeat the native population and restore French pride was an underlying cause for the behaviour of the French Army. It should also be remembered that the political leaders of France after Charles de Gaulle became President were minded to give independence to Algeria and this brought a bitter response from the Army who, it is alleged, planned to assassinate de Gaulle. Independence was achieved in 1962 but by this time the Algerians were pushing against an opening door.
A strange mix of films presumably chosen and interpreted by Dyer to aid in his search for 'whiteness'. As stated previously it is my view that he fails to do this largely because he feels that 'blackness' and 'whiteness' are the only opposing elements whereas the history of such places as Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Algiers and the recent events in other parts of the Arab World show that their are many other loyalties that people feel other than to the colour of their skin.
Sunday 12 February 2012
Night of the Living Dead
Watched the film through. The film is in contrast to the images presented of the two different ethnic groups as shown in Simba. Here the strong forceful character is black whilst the whites are depicted as weak ineffectual and in the case of the older man cowardly. We do have the interesting juxtaposition of the older of the two white men and the younger who is more ready to work under the control of the black man and the tension that this creates in the group.
As we are not offered Dyer's explanation of the film and its link to his desire to examine the concept of 'whiteness' in the extract in the reader (see reference in the blog immediate to this one) one can only speculate. I presume it is the way, in this case, where 'black' is shown to be ordered, rational and in control and 'white' is shown to be disordered, irrational and lacking control that is the opposite to the version in 'Simba'. However both are films and particularly in the case of 'Night' are fictional events that have no reality other than that created by the Writer and the Director. They are totally false images that rely upon the plausibility of the plot or story line to get the message across that they could be 'real'.
Can we draw any conclusions about the concept of 'whiteness' from what we have been shown. I suspect not. To experience 'blackness' or 'whiteness' (in Dyer's terms) it is necessary to be aware of your 'self' as seen by the other group and how they respond and behave towards you. This defines you in that relationship. I recall visiting a public house in Nottingham with a friend. It was in an area that I had known as a child (my grandparents lived there) but had not visited for some time. Every other person in the pub was black. There was no hostility just a sense of being examined as something different and unusual in that setting. It was my 'whiteness' that made me different and worthy of examination. It was the intensity of the gaze that surprised and discomfited me.
As I suggested in my previous blog I believe that Dyer's approach is too simplistic in that it does not take into account the differences within the larger groups that are equally as defining as the colour of ones skin. Dislike or open hatred of a group is not confined to the colour of a person's skin. Having been around at the time of the 'mods' and 'rockers' all that seemed to be needed for open conflict to erupt was for someone to be seen who was wearing the costume of the 'hated' group. Humans define themselves by thrusting onto others those things that are seen as 'bad'. Of course it is much easier if they are easily identifiable such as someone of a different colour but it does not stop there. The Nazis had a whole range of groups that were deemed untermensch with disastrous consequences.
Throughout this exercise I have been aware of an increasing sense of unease and distaste. I believe the reason for this is that the attempt, for academic purposes, to separate us all into 'black' or 'white' (I wonder how the Asian population sees themselves) or to talk of 'blackness' or 'whiteness' can only feed into racism. Implicit in such separation is that there is a difference that can be applied to a whole group. Whilst the academic (who survives through published works) can claim it to be an intellectual exercise these are feelings that are unique to a living person. They affect their every day lives in a meaningful way either positively or negatively.
As we are not offered Dyer's explanation of the film and its link to his desire to examine the concept of 'whiteness' in the extract in the reader (see reference in the blog immediate to this one) one can only speculate. I presume it is the way, in this case, where 'black' is shown to be ordered, rational and in control and 'white' is shown to be disordered, irrational and lacking control that is the opposite to the version in 'Simba'. However both are films and particularly in the case of 'Night' are fictional events that have no reality other than that created by the Writer and the Director. They are totally false images that rely upon the plausibility of the plot or story line to get the message across that they could be 'real'.
Can we draw any conclusions about the concept of 'whiteness' from what we have been shown. I suspect not. To experience 'blackness' or 'whiteness' (in Dyer's terms) it is necessary to be aware of your 'self' as seen by the other group and how they respond and behave towards you. This defines you in that relationship. I recall visiting a public house in Nottingham with a friend. It was in an area that I had known as a child (my grandparents lived there) but had not visited for some time. Every other person in the pub was black. There was no hostility just a sense of being examined as something different and unusual in that setting. It was my 'whiteness' that made me different and worthy of examination. It was the intensity of the gaze that surprised and discomfited me.
As I suggested in my previous blog I believe that Dyer's approach is too simplistic in that it does not take into account the differences within the larger groups that are equally as defining as the colour of ones skin. Dislike or open hatred of a group is not confined to the colour of a person's skin. Having been around at the time of the 'mods' and 'rockers' all that seemed to be needed for open conflict to erupt was for someone to be seen who was wearing the costume of the 'hated' group. Humans define themselves by thrusting onto others those things that are seen as 'bad'. Of course it is much easier if they are easily identifiable such as someone of a different colour but it does not stop there. The Nazis had a whole range of groups that were deemed untermensch with disastrous consequences.
Throughout this exercise I have been aware of an increasing sense of unease and distaste. I believe the reason for this is that the attempt, for academic purposes, to separate us all into 'black' or 'white' (I wonder how the Asian population sees themselves) or to talk of 'blackness' or 'whiteness' can only feed into racism. Implicit in such separation is that there is a difference that can be applied to a whole group. Whilst the academic (who survives through published works) can claim it to be an intellectual exercise these are feelings that are unique to a living person. They affect their every day lives in a meaningful way either positively or negatively.
Simba
Watched this film the other night. Felt that there should be an automatic award of credits for anyone who has managed to sit through the film. It is absolutely awful. As a piece of entertainment it is on a par with the very worst of amateur dramatics and as a reflection of history, whatever your point of view, it is as biased as is possible. The summation of the film provided by Dyer [visual culture: the reader; eds jessica evans and stuart hall; Sage Publications 2010; pp 461 - 466] is an interpretation that supports his particular approach by the selection of elements of the film whilst ignoring others. I have no particular quarrel with this approach but I do not think that he manages to throw any more light on the concept of 'whiteness' as was his stated intention.
Dyer states the film is "organised round a rigid binarism with white standing for modernity, reason, order, stability and black standing for backwardness, irrationality, chaos and violence." As a binary system has only two possibilities describing the film in this way ignores the differences both large and small within the two main groups as depicted in the film. We have positions in the 'white' camp that range from working with the black group to shooting them out of hand and the 'black' camp that ranges from those who sided against the Mau Mau and those who formed the greater part of the forces defending the status quo and the heroic acts of the individuals such as the black servant who, although, fatally wounded, fired the rocket to get help when his master and mistress were being attacked.
Dyer tells us that he was taught the scientific difference between black and white at primary school. [ibid p 458]. His explanation is still largely accurate (black is the absence of colour and white is the presence of all colours in equal proportions) and he remarks on the way that 'black' in racial terms refers to 'coloured'. What he fails to do is to follow his analogy further. The colour or lack of colour we see when viewing objects is a combination of the nature of the reflective surface and its interpretation by our brain. Crudely put a surface that is seen as black reflects none of the spectrum and one that is seen as white reflects all of the spectrum in equal proportion. Our interpretation of what we 'see' is very much affected by our expectations. For example we see a white shirt as white in tungsten light whereas if an image of the same shirt in the same conditions is taken by a camera that has not been programmed to take images in tungsten light it will have an orange hue. This was a particular problem with film cameras using standard film.
In other words the colour of an object is only an indication of its surface properties and tells us very little about its internal structures and what we 'see' is subjective being the product of our biological make up and our learned experiences. To use a more prosaic example anyone who has been shopping with his/her loved one or worst of all presented with clothes and asked "what do you think of this colour" will know that sinking feeling because you see colours close to each other in a different way to your spouse.
In colour there are no boundaries. Colour does not make a step change from one colour to the next. There is gradation. To describe something as 'white' is a convenient shorthand and because we have no need, in our general lives, to distinguish variations. However if it was important we would develop language that would allow us to communicate the difference to others. Somewhere I have read the Intuit have some 400 words for 'snow' because the different nature of snow is of vital importance to their survival.
What has this journey into the nature of colour to do with 'Simba'; 'blackness' or 'whiteness'. The way that we interpret the vast number of colours that we see is an internal act of ours that produces different results by different people. I would argue that this is equally true of seeing 'colour' in people. There is no simple option of joining one camp or another and most will find themselves torn between conflicting elements and both supporting and rejecting the main protagonists ( to continue the analogy of actual colour there is no defined boundaries between 'black' and 'white'). Based on my viewing of 'Simba' I do not believe that Dyer has taken account of this diversity and by failing to do so undermines the conclusions that he reached.
However I plan to watch the 'Night of the Living Dead' later today (in daylight!) so I may change my views.
Dyer states the film is "organised round a rigid binarism with white standing for modernity, reason, order, stability and black standing for backwardness, irrationality, chaos and violence." As a binary system has only two possibilities describing the film in this way ignores the differences both large and small within the two main groups as depicted in the film. We have positions in the 'white' camp that range from working with the black group to shooting them out of hand and the 'black' camp that ranges from those who sided against the Mau Mau and those who formed the greater part of the forces defending the status quo and the heroic acts of the individuals such as the black servant who, although, fatally wounded, fired the rocket to get help when his master and mistress were being attacked.
Dyer tells us that he was taught the scientific difference between black and white at primary school. [ibid p 458]. His explanation is still largely accurate (black is the absence of colour and white is the presence of all colours in equal proportions) and he remarks on the way that 'black' in racial terms refers to 'coloured'. What he fails to do is to follow his analogy further. The colour or lack of colour we see when viewing objects is a combination of the nature of the reflective surface and its interpretation by our brain. Crudely put a surface that is seen as black reflects none of the spectrum and one that is seen as white reflects all of the spectrum in equal proportion. Our interpretation of what we 'see' is very much affected by our expectations. For example we see a white shirt as white in tungsten light whereas if an image of the same shirt in the same conditions is taken by a camera that has not been programmed to take images in tungsten light it will have an orange hue. This was a particular problem with film cameras using standard film.
In other words the colour of an object is only an indication of its surface properties and tells us very little about its internal structures and what we 'see' is subjective being the product of our biological make up and our learned experiences. To use a more prosaic example anyone who has been shopping with his/her loved one or worst of all presented with clothes and asked "what do you think of this colour" will know that sinking feeling because you see colours close to each other in a different way to your spouse.
In colour there are no boundaries. Colour does not make a step change from one colour to the next. There is gradation. To describe something as 'white' is a convenient shorthand and because we have no need, in our general lives, to distinguish variations. However if it was important we would develop language that would allow us to communicate the difference to others. Somewhere I have read the Intuit have some 400 words for 'snow' because the different nature of snow is of vital importance to their survival.
What has this journey into the nature of colour to do with 'Simba'; 'blackness' or 'whiteness'. The way that we interpret the vast number of colours that we see is an internal act of ours that produces different results by different people. I would argue that this is equally true of seeing 'colour' in people. There is no simple option of joining one camp or another and most will find themselves torn between conflicting elements and both supporting and rejecting the main protagonists ( to continue the analogy of actual colour there is no defined boundaries between 'black' and 'white'). Based on my viewing of 'Simba' I do not believe that Dyer has taken account of this diversity and by failing to do so undermines the conclusions that he reached.
However I plan to watch the 'Night of the Living Dead' later today (in daylight!) so I may change my views.
Friday 10 February 2012
Project Black part 2
Nelson's Ship in a Bottle
Artist Yinka Shonibare
On the fourth plinth in London's Trafalgar Square
The sculpture of the boat 4.7m long and 2.35m high from keel to the top of the main mast
The sails are made of African batik fabrics, one of the signature touches of the artist. The sails are representative of cultures absorbed into the african culture. The material is is of Dutch waxcloth, that itself is an import of an Indonesian method for wax printing, that arrived in Africa in the middle of the 19th century and became the cloth of choice for African clothing. Shonibare buys the fabric from Brixton market although it is manufactured mainly in Manchester, England or Helmond, Netherlands.
In an interview with the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/7758830/Nelsons-ship-in-a-bottle-unveiled-on-Fourth-Plinth.html) the artist said that his work considers the legacy of British colonialism. He said "Nelson's Ship in a Bottle will be the first project on the fourth plinth to reflect specifically on the relationship between the birth of the British Empire and Britain's present-day multicultural context"
I finish with a quote from the same article in the Telegraph -
"...diversity, when the word is used to describe arts policy, seems to be a different thing altogether. Indeed by trying to capture the essence of difference, it seems to snuff it out altogether. In this reading culture s not fluid, but defined in rigid categories. Artists are not artists but black, Asian or minority ethnic - "culturally diverse". There are specially publicly-funded bursary schemes for black artists, and for funding black-led art groups"
Whilst one has to take into account the political stance of the Telegraph could it be the case that by pigeon-holing particular groups identified by colour or race we are at risk of perpetuating the dominance of the western white culture?
Project Black
In Fanon's "The fact of blackness" [ extract in visual cuture: the reader: eds. jessica evans and stuart hall: Sage Publications 2010 pp 417 -420] the following statements are made:
"As long as the black man is among his own, he will have no occasion, except in minor internal conflicts, to experience his being through others." [p 417]
"For not only must the black man be black; he must be black in relation to the white man" [p 417]
"...his customs and the sources on which they were based, were wiped out because they were in conflict with a civilization that he did not know and that imposed itself on him" [p 418]
"In the white world a man of color encounters difficulties in the development of his bodily schema. Consciousness of the body is a negating activity. It is a third person consciousness." [p 418]
".....the corporeal schema crumbled, its place taken by a racial epidermal schema" [p 419]
"I was at the same time responsible for my body, for my race, for my ancestors,. I subjected myself to an objective examination, I discovered my blackness, my ethnic characteristics; and I was battered down by tom-toms, cannibalism, intellectual deficiency, fetichism, racial defects, slave ships and above all else, above all: 'Sho' good eatin'.' [p 419]
" The Negro is an animal, the Negro is bad, the Negro is mean, the Negro is ugly;..." [p 419]
"I am given no chance. I am overdetermined from without. I am the slave not of the 'idea' that others have of me but of my own appearance" [p 420]
Whilst it could be argued that we are all defined by others and that we can only experience our 'self' through our relationships with others the key point is that expressed as a "racial epidermal schema". A black person is judged, in the first instant, by the colour of his skin and he is ascribed all the characteristics of the 'Negro' no matter how inappropriate or inaccurate. He or she is judged before they have spoken. Compare this with the white person. If he enters so called 'polite society' and has dressed in the proper costume he will be accepted. As soon as he speaks he will be judged on his accent, his alma mater and his work. His 'class' will be decided and all the characteristics of that class will be seen as part of his bodily schema. The 'class' issue is as negating as the colour of one's skin. It is however possible to avoid the problem but being 'black' is not changeable.
Furthermore for those who, for whatever reason, find themselves in a society that is dominantly white the pressure is always on to adopt the ideologies of that white society. Indeed all that surrounds him is the creation of the dominant element not least the education system and the public persona. What we find is the ghettoisation of the minority groups that is caused in part by the natural desire of those groups to live in a community that is supportive of their cultural background and in some cases language and place of birth.
How does this impinge on visual culture. It is a two way street. There is the artist who attempts through his work to visualise the culture of his ethnic origins albeit a culture that is not of the land of his birth. There is a risk that there will be an over-emphasis on a particular interpretation of that culture (consider the diversity in Nigeria and its many languages and cultures) and a failure to recognise that elements that are seen as a natural part of that culture are imports from other cultures. Then there is the viewer who will bring there own mindset who will interpret what is seen through 'eyes' that are coloured by pre-formed opinions. An exhibition that is dedicated to the work of the Black artist and is advertised as such will be affect the preconceptions of the viewing public whatever their colour or background. The pressure is on the artist to produce work that in some way reflects 'blackness' and that rejects the imposed culture of the dominant race. The pressure is also there on the visitor who in some way is asked to sign up to the idea that in some way being a black artist necessarily means producing a particular type of work.
For the black person there is a continuing conflict between what is presented as best and good by the white culture in which they now live and the strident demands of those who insist that they should support and fully appreciate a culture that is possibly at odds with that of those with whom they go to school, work or play. One only has to think of the third and fourth generations of young women whose families came from the sub-continent who find themselves torn between the western culture of their friends and the ethnic culture of their parents and grandparents.
"As long as the black man is among his own, he will have no occasion, except in minor internal conflicts, to experience his being through others." [p 417]
"For not only must the black man be black; he must be black in relation to the white man" [p 417]
"...his customs and the sources on which they were based, were wiped out because they were in conflict with a civilization that he did not know and that imposed itself on him" [p 418]
"In the white world a man of color encounters difficulties in the development of his bodily schema. Consciousness of the body is a negating activity. It is a third person consciousness." [p 418]
".....the corporeal schema crumbled, its place taken by a racial epidermal schema" [p 419]
"I was at the same time responsible for my body, for my race, for my ancestors,. I subjected myself to an objective examination, I discovered my blackness, my ethnic characteristics; and I was battered down by tom-toms, cannibalism, intellectual deficiency, fetichism, racial defects, slave ships and above all else, above all: 'Sho' good eatin'.' [p 419]
" The Negro is an animal, the Negro is bad, the Negro is mean, the Negro is ugly;..." [p 419]
"I am given no chance. I am overdetermined from without. I am the slave not of the 'idea' that others have of me but of my own appearance" [p 420]
Whilst it could be argued that we are all defined by others and that we can only experience our 'self' through our relationships with others the key point is that expressed as a "racial epidermal schema". A black person is judged, in the first instant, by the colour of his skin and he is ascribed all the characteristics of the 'Negro' no matter how inappropriate or inaccurate. He or she is judged before they have spoken. Compare this with the white person. If he enters so called 'polite society' and has dressed in the proper costume he will be accepted. As soon as he speaks he will be judged on his accent, his alma mater and his work. His 'class' will be decided and all the characteristics of that class will be seen as part of his bodily schema. The 'class' issue is as negating as the colour of one's skin. It is however possible to avoid the problem but being 'black' is not changeable.
Furthermore for those who, for whatever reason, find themselves in a society that is dominantly white the pressure is always on to adopt the ideologies of that white society. Indeed all that surrounds him is the creation of the dominant element not least the education system and the public persona. What we find is the ghettoisation of the minority groups that is caused in part by the natural desire of those groups to live in a community that is supportive of their cultural background and in some cases language and place of birth.
How does this impinge on visual culture. It is a two way street. There is the artist who attempts through his work to visualise the culture of his ethnic origins albeit a culture that is not of the land of his birth. There is a risk that there will be an over-emphasis on a particular interpretation of that culture (consider the diversity in Nigeria and its many languages and cultures) and a failure to recognise that elements that are seen as a natural part of that culture are imports from other cultures. Then there is the viewer who will bring there own mindset who will interpret what is seen through 'eyes' that are coloured by pre-formed opinions. An exhibition that is dedicated to the work of the Black artist and is advertised as such will be affect the preconceptions of the viewing public whatever their colour or background. The pressure is on the artist to produce work that in some way reflects 'blackness' and that rejects the imposed culture of the dominant race. The pressure is also there on the visitor who in some way is asked to sign up to the idea that in some way being a black artist necessarily means producing a particular type of work.
For the black person there is a continuing conflict between what is presented as best and good by the white culture in which they now live and the strident demands of those who insist that they should support and fully appreciate a culture that is possibly at odds with that of those with whom they go to school, work or play. One only has to think of the third and fourth generations of young women whose families came from the sub-continent who find themselves torn between the western culture of their friends and the ethnic culture of their parents and grandparents.
Thursday 9 February 2012
Project Images of woman - Naked Nude
In the last part of the blog we are asked to make a collection of nakedness and the nude and to annotate them to indicate which they represent and how. Implicit in this is that there is a difference between nakedness and nude. I would suggest that it is a false difference or at least a difference that is uniquely of the viewer. In Ways of Seeing [BBC and Penguin Books 1972 pp 47 - 48] John Berger quotes from Genesis the story of Adam and Eve and their fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden. After Eve had taken the apple the story continues:
"And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons....And the Lord God called unto the man and said unto him "Where are thou" And he said, "I heard thy voice in the garden , and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself..."
By eating the apple they became aware of their nakedness. Yet it is not clear why, having seen their nakedness, shame should follow. If 'nakedness' is the natural state of humans Adam and Eve and all the rest of humanity that followed must have felt something, in seeing the naked form of someone else, that they instinctively felt was wrong and sinful. I do not propose, nor do I feel competent, to raise the question as to where the sense of shame that they felt came from.
What is important and as stated by Berger (ibid p 48) "Nakedness was created in the mind of the beholder" It is the viewer who 'decides' whether a picture is 'innocent' of elements that create feelings leading to shame or social condemnation. It matters little what the intent of the artist or creator was - it is the reaction of each individual viewer at the time of looking. Not only is this unique to that individual (different people respond to different elements of an image in different ways) at that moment but his/her reaction can change over time as awareness increases or satiation occurs. We cannot know directly although we may draw conclusions from the body language of the viewer.
If the foregoing is correct, as I believe it to be, then my choice and annotation can only tell anyone else my personal approach to particular images at the time of my selection. There can be no 'right' or 'wrong' answer and therefore to pursue the matter further is otiose
"And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons....And the Lord God called unto the man and said unto him "Where are thou" And he said, "I heard thy voice in the garden , and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself..."
By eating the apple they became aware of their nakedness. Yet it is not clear why, having seen their nakedness, shame should follow. If 'nakedness' is the natural state of humans Adam and Eve and all the rest of humanity that followed must have felt something, in seeing the naked form of someone else, that they instinctively felt was wrong and sinful. I do not propose, nor do I feel competent, to raise the question as to where the sense of shame that they felt came from.
What is important and as stated by Berger (ibid p 48) "Nakedness was created in the mind of the beholder" It is the viewer who 'decides' whether a picture is 'innocent' of elements that create feelings leading to shame or social condemnation. It matters little what the intent of the artist or creator was - it is the reaction of each individual viewer at the time of looking. Not only is this unique to that individual (different people respond to different elements of an image in different ways) at that moment but his/her reaction can change over time as awareness increases or satiation occurs. We cannot know directly although we may draw conclusions from the body language of the viewer.
If the foregoing is correct, as I believe it to be, then my choice and annotation can only tell anyone else my personal approach to particular images at the time of my selection. There can be no 'right' or 'wrong' answer and therefore to pursue the matter further is otiose
Wednesday 8 February 2012
Images of Woman 2
These images were chosen because the women portrayed in them are shown as people in their own right. This has been achieved by including in the overall image symbols of power or by the posture of the woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)