Looking, Observation or surveillance Part 2

The use by video artists of themselves as the subject probably has as many underlying reasons as there are artists. I did find this quote:

"The quest for self-identity is at the heart of so many works because the face-to-face with one’s self that video allows encourages the search for self-definition. As the image evolves over time, the speaking subject weaves the narrative fabric of self, allowing identity to be conceived in full fictional depth. This allows artists to seize the territory of the video as a space for personal metamorphosis through an artistic, aesthetic act. This is not about using video in a psychoanalytical context to treat neuroses [4], but to reflect on the way in which artists play with this."

http://freepassproject.com/?p=28

How common this is amongst video artists I do not know but for me it offers a viable explanation although the relationship to the viewer remains obscure. another artist who uses the same medium, Milutin Gubash, stated in an interview (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSk4fD67qTE) that he was attempting to show what it is to be an artist by being the subject. When asked towards the end of the interview about forthcoming work he responded by saying "you will be looking at me  .. you will have to go shopping to find it (him)" that indicates that he sees an interactive relationship between the work he has created and the viewer where questions will be posited by the video that will require a thinking response from the viewer.


How do these relate to panopticism? The two quotes in the Course material are not very helpful other than to suggest that to use panopticism (is that really a word?) as a metaphor is to really stretch its meaning from its original concept in Bentham's thinking about the ideal prison. Of course if you create an 'ism' you are free to make it mean and cover what you like but I cannot help the feeling that it does not work. The panoptic was a design to minimise the number of staff required and to create in the prisoner the idea that he would always be observed even though in reality the odds were very much in his favour. In the present time we can see its modern counterpart in the CCTV cameras that are now so much a part of our urban landscape and the same ideas underpin its use - the number of policeman or other agents of law and order can be reduced and the citizen controlled by his own fears that he is being watched at all times although how this is taken to suggest that the images that we see in art and elsewhere are also part of the same system is a difficult leap to make.


I have argued in an earlier blog that 'looking', 'observing' and 'surveillance' (what happened to 'seeing') are part of the same continuum and that it is impossible to decide without a physical reaction from the person exactly where (s)he is on that continuum. Here is an image that I found on a web page (http://www.mentondailyphoto.com/2011/11/photomenton-looking-and-seeing.html) 

In the narrative accompanying this image are the words:

"Some people look and see the photos. Others look but their eyes are glazed. This visitor to PhotoMenton is really concentrating and absorbing what she sees."

I believe these words are written by the photographer. Clearly he has had the advantage of having observed the visitor to draw the conclusion that he has about her 'state'. Can we in all honesty draw the same conclusion from looking at the photograph. We cannot tell what she is looking at and there is nothing in her attitude to suggest that she is really concentrating. She may be doing nothing more than half-closing her eyes because of the bright sunlight as evidenced by the blown out element of the photograph immediately to her right. It is not that I deny the photographer's interpretation - just that we, with such limited information, cannot come to any conclusion based on the evidence before us.

It is also of interest that the photographer indicates that there is a state - concentrating - that is beyond seeing as he separates his choice from those who 'see' and a group whose 'eyes glaze over'

Let us examine an image, in this case a painting, to see if we are justified in drawing any conclusions about whether those in the picture are looking or observing.

Does the Subject Matter

Alfred Joh Munnings

The Munnings Collection at

The Sir Alfred Munnings Art Museum

Here it is clear that the people in the painting are doing more than looking. We are able to draw this conclusion because their body language, exaggerated in the painting, is offered as a strong clue to what they are doing. (I am not to sure about the dog!). The painting supports my argument (hence its choice) that we need some indication of a physical reaction to draw conclusions about what a person is doing. 

In this second image the mental state of the person is less obvious:

The Balcony

John Phillip 1857

Leicester Arts and Museums Service

Can we realistically draw any firm conclusions about what the woman is doing. Her gaze seems to be somewhere in the middle distance but to me it is evidence of a person pursuing her inner thoughts and not really aware of at what she is looking. I am sure that there are others who would argue a different case and there is no possible way for me to refute their view or them to refute mine. In essence it is purely a personal view that possibly changes depending upon the feeling being experienced by the viewer at that time.