I first came across the term 'weltanschauung' whilst studying human activity systems. There is no satisfactory translation into english although 'world view' is commonly used. However it is much more than this as it relates to a concept that is difficult to describe in simple terms. In my studies it was applied to the underlying reason(s) why a particular human activity system behaved as it did rather than its overtly stated purpose. It was an attempt to draw together a series of interlinked philosophies that together explained the actual behaviour usually of a company or an organisation. For example most Chief Constables of Police would argue that their Force is their to protect the public. However if one examines their behaviour in depth their 'weltanschauung' could be argued to be that they sees themselves under siege from a hostile and wrong-minded public that can only be controlled by greater and greater restraint and violent methods and that only they know what is 'good' for society.
Debord seems to use the term spectacle to suggest that we live an illusion that is sustained by the output of the mass media and other communication systems that are controlled by 'others'. One is left wondering if the 'others' are also part of the illusion and that there is no 'reality' that is hidden from us and that all is illusion or spectacle. It is impossible to argue successfully against such a view of the world because the easy response is that the opponent to this view is already subject to the spectacle. Like all such arguments you either accept or reject it as being correct. There are no arguments that can be offered that support or deny the statement.
I am not sure why we need to be told that the work was first published in French in trying to assess whether the passage of time has confirmed or contradicted Debord's view. Does it matter what language it was written in to reach such a decision? There is no way of answering the question in any meaningful way because again you can either accept or reject the basic premis. If you accept then the spectacle exists throughout time because we have no way of breaking from the illusory world we occupy. If you reject then the question has no meaning.
Presumably Debord would argue that our view of the world is controlled and that we can only see the world in the way that is allowed to us by whoever is doing the controlling. We cannot conceive of the idea that what we are seeing is in some way propaganda because there is no such thing in a controlled world. Reality is what we are told it is and nothing else exists.
I can't make sense of the final question. I think I understand the term 'reification' in that it is viewing something that is abstract as in some sense being 'real' i.e. it in some way exists in a 'concrete' form. I am not sure how 'extreme reification' differs. Are there various levels of reification? I find myself at a loss for words.
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Saturday, 22 October 2011
Situationist International
I am always struck by the tendency of revolutionaries whether from the left or the right to write their theses in almost unintelligible language. Reading the material produced by the Situationist International is like entering a world where the inhabitants use the same words in the structure of their language as I do but ascribe different meanings through uncommon use or combination. In itself this cannot be said to be wrong as providing there is a consistency of use then meaning can be established in the same way as in any language. It just makes a real understanding of what is being said very difficult if not impossible because you can never be certain that you have managed to find the underlying meaning in the discourse you have just read.
Of course such a criticism can be made against the jargon filled world of most 'specialisms' that are part of our everyday life. It is as though there is a need for the 'in-group' to create a language structure that makes life difficult for new entrants. It is also a very good way to quickly identify the non-group member and thus strengthen the feeling of belonging that is so necessary to ensure cohesion of the group through time. The history of Situationist International is marked by the exclusion of groups who attempted to introduce a different 'language' (explanation or ideology) that in some way challenged the purity of the original thinking even where it would seem to have been a legitimate development. It would seem that the desire to remain true to its beginnings reduced the number of members to the point where it was no longer viable as a group.
The group was the result of the joining of two artistic groups that later became dominated by a group of political theorists and agitators. The artistic group, that had about 6 members, broke away from this politically minded faction and were subsequently excluded. They set up a second Situationist International working with a group (Gruppe Spur) who had also been excluded and were now an independent group and their artistic work is known through their graffiti in Copenhagen and the decapitation of the Little Mermaid statue.
Given that there seems to have been only one or two original members left at the final demise it is difficult to discover what the underlying philosophical force was that drove the group. Guy Debord the author of "The Society of the Spectacle" (which is the subject of the next 'in your blog') published the book in 1967 in the same year that one of his fellow members, Raoul Vaneigem, published "The Revolution of Everyday Life". This book was written to present the SI's theories to a wider audience and from the few extracts that I have read is easier to read. The different approaches of the two books (Debord the clinical theorist; Vaneigem describing the feelings) is said to have provided those involved in the uprising of 1968 in Paris with both a theoretical base and an understanding of the frustrations they felt at the society they of which they were part but felt alienated from.
We are asked to consider the possible impact the approach to art of the Situationist International had or has had on art generally. The Situationist International used the term 'Detournement' (usually translated as 'diversion' in English) to distinguish their form of art although they denied that there was such a thing stating that "there is no Situationist art, only Situationist uses of art." It is always difficult, if not impossible, to judge the impact any one movement has upon anything else although it is probably a reasonable conclusion that such use of art would make others think about the use that art is put to in our society.
Of course such a criticism can be made against the jargon filled world of most 'specialisms' that are part of our everyday life. It is as though there is a need for the 'in-group' to create a language structure that makes life difficult for new entrants. It is also a very good way to quickly identify the non-group member and thus strengthen the feeling of belonging that is so necessary to ensure cohesion of the group through time. The history of Situationist International is marked by the exclusion of groups who attempted to introduce a different 'language' (explanation or ideology) that in some way challenged the purity of the original thinking even where it would seem to have been a legitimate development. It would seem that the desire to remain true to its beginnings reduced the number of members to the point where it was no longer viable as a group.
The group was the result of the joining of two artistic groups that later became dominated by a group of political theorists and agitators. The artistic group, that had about 6 members, broke away from this politically minded faction and were subsequently excluded. They set up a second Situationist International working with a group (Gruppe Spur) who had also been excluded and were now an independent group and their artistic work is known through their graffiti in Copenhagen and the decapitation of the Little Mermaid statue.
Given that there seems to have been only one or two original members left at the final demise it is difficult to discover what the underlying philosophical force was that drove the group. Guy Debord the author of "The Society of the Spectacle" (which is the subject of the next 'in your blog') published the book in 1967 in the same year that one of his fellow members, Raoul Vaneigem, published "The Revolution of Everyday Life". This book was written to present the SI's theories to a wider audience and from the few extracts that I have read is easier to read. The different approaches of the two books (Debord the clinical theorist; Vaneigem describing the feelings) is said to have provided those involved in the uprising of 1968 in Paris with both a theoretical base and an understanding of the frustrations they felt at the society they of which they were part but felt alienated from.
We are asked to consider the possible impact the approach to art of the Situationist International had or has had on art generally. The Situationist International used the term 'Detournement' (usually translated as 'diversion' in English) to distinguish their form of art although they denied that there was such a thing stating that "there is no Situationist art, only Situationist uses of art." It is always difficult, if not impossible, to judge the impact any one movement has upon anything else although it is probably a reasonable conclusion that such use of art would make others think about the use that art is put to in our society.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Visual Culture - Barbarous taste
We are asked to consider the statement by Bourdieu that "in conferring upon photography a guarantee of realism, society is merely confirming itself in the tautological certainty that an image of the real which is true to its representation of objectivity is really objective". We have to presume that the translation is an objective rendition of the original and not, as one would suspect given the clumsiness of the statement, a best guess.
A tautology generally refers to a statement where the words repeat elements of the meaning already given. Often used in a pejorative sense to describe statements that are said to be true simply because the same statement is repeated twice in the argument. However the fact that someone uses a tautological argument does not make that argument false - it could equally be true there is just no way of deciding from the statement itself. There is a further use of the term in logic where a statement is always true when it takes the value true for all combinations of values of its components. I presume that Bourdieu was using it in the first way in the above statement based solely on the context.
The more that I read this statement the less sure that it has any meaning at all. It seems to say something profound but on closer examination this is not the case. It is difficult to agree or disagree with the statement because it has no meaning. Bourdieu offers no reasoning for his statement nor what he means by 'society' and on what basis he ascribes such beliefs to that 'society'. More importantly he appears to assume that there is a 'real' that is capable of being photographed and perhaps this is the fatal flaw in what he says. There is no 'real' that would be universally accepted even if it exists because we interpret the information being provided to our senses in a unique way. The way that I see a scene is different from how my companion sees that scene although we may use the same or similar words such as 'building' or 'tree' in our discussion of what is before us. What we cannot discuss is the subtleties of colour and light that reflect from the objects.
The more specific we become the less likely that we will agree even assuming the scene remains unchanged throughout our discussion. If we are looking at the Sacre Coeur in Paris it is highly probable, given its size, that we will view it a bit at a time and create within our mind a whole picture. What we notice and see as important to the whole picture and therefore retain will depend very much on our individuality and pre-conditioning. If we have previously been told of the many vendors that offer their wares we are more inclined to see and include them. Whereas our partner who has been told of the figures that surround the structure or the difficulties of creating the overall shape will pay particular attention to those elements. Both views may be 'true' to that individual but are they true to some objective reality that exists separate from or senses? I would suggest that there is no objective 'real' out there and that what we 'see' only exists in our minds.
If this is the case then how can a mechanical object such as camera capture an image? In one sense it does not capture an image what it captures is varying amounts of light and stores them on some medium such as film or a digital sensor. Even this capture is proscribed by the designers of the camera and the capturing medium. There are severe limitations imposed by the technical constraints of the materials available and so the engineers have to settle on a compromise that they hope will produce an image that is acceptable to a large number of people. The compromises continue when the captured light levels are transferred from the storage medium onto a system that is viewable by a human being. Again best guesses are made and although modern technology offers a wider range of choices than say glass plate negatives there are still limitations.
Once a viewable image is created then we return to the same situation that existed between the real time viewer and the object that he/she was looking at. We interpret what we see. A photograph is no more than coloured or monochrome dots on a piece of paper or a computer screen. It is incapable of conveying meaning. What we 'see' is once again an individual reaction and interpretation. We are not seeing something that is objectively 'real' and indeed I would argue that there is no such 'real' object.
The early belief that photography in some way was 'real' was because of its relatively instant capture of a moment in time, the lack of any noticeable interpretation by an artist and the seeming consistency between photographs of the same object at different times. Our greater awareness of the limitations of photography and the more overt interpretation of any scene both within the camera and any subsequent creation of a viewable image now means that the most common reaction is to assume that in some way the image is 'false'. Of course if there is no reality then there can be no falsity.
A tautology generally refers to a statement where the words repeat elements of the meaning already given. Often used in a pejorative sense to describe statements that are said to be true simply because the same statement is repeated twice in the argument. However the fact that someone uses a tautological argument does not make that argument false - it could equally be true there is just no way of deciding from the statement itself. There is a further use of the term in logic where a statement is always true when it takes the value true for all combinations of values of its components. I presume that Bourdieu was using it in the first way in the above statement based solely on the context.
The more that I read this statement the less sure that it has any meaning at all. It seems to say something profound but on closer examination this is not the case. It is difficult to agree or disagree with the statement because it has no meaning. Bourdieu offers no reasoning for his statement nor what he means by 'society' and on what basis he ascribes such beliefs to that 'society'. More importantly he appears to assume that there is a 'real' that is capable of being photographed and perhaps this is the fatal flaw in what he says. There is no 'real' that would be universally accepted even if it exists because we interpret the information being provided to our senses in a unique way. The way that I see a scene is different from how my companion sees that scene although we may use the same or similar words such as 'building' or 'tree' in our discussion of what is before us. What we cannot discuss is the subtleties of colour and light that reflect from the objects.
The more specific we become the less likely that we will agree even assuming the scene remains unchanged throughout our discussion. If we are looking at the Sacre Coeur in Paris it is highly probable, given its size, that we will view it a bit at a time and create within our mind a whole picture. What we notice and see as important to the whole picture and therefore retain will depend very much on our individuality and pre-conditioning. If we have previously been told of the many vendors that offer their wares we are more inclined to see and include them. Whereas our partner who has been told of the figures that surround the structure or the difficulties of creating the overall shape will pay particular attention to those elements. Both views may be 'true' to that individual but are they true to some objective reality that exists separate from or senses? I would suggest that there is no objective 'real' out there and that what we 'see' only exists in our minds.
If this is the case then how can a mechanical object such as camera capture an image? In one sense it does not capture an image what it captures is varying amounts of light and stores them on some medium such as film or a digital sensor. Even this capture is proscribed by the designers of the camera and the capturing medium. There are severe limitations imposed by the technical constraints of the materials available and so the engineers have to settle on a compromise that they hope will produce an image that is acceptable to a large number of people. The compromises continue when the captured light levels are transferred from the storage medium onto a system that is viewable by a human being. Again best guesses are made and although modern technology offers a wider range of choices than say glass plate negatives there are still limitations.
Once a viewable image is created then we return to the same situation that existed between the real time viewer and the object that he/she was looking at. We interpret what we see. A photograph is no more than coloured or monochrome dots on a piece of paper or a computer screen. It is incapable of conveying meaning. What we 'see' is once again an individual reaction and interpretation. We are not seeing something that is objectively 'real' and indeed I would argue that there is no such 'real' object.
The early belief that photography in some way was 'real' was because of its relatively instant capture of a moment in time, the lack of any noticeable interpretation by an artist and the seeming consistency between photographs of the same object at different times. Our greater awareness of the limitations of photography and the more overt interpretation of any scene both within the camera and any subsequent creation of a viewable image now means that the most common reaction is to assume that in some way the image is 'false'. Of course if there is no reality then there can be no falsity.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
Visual studies 1 - Tutors Response to Assignment 1
Received my tutors response to my submission on assignment 1. Generally positive but faced the usual problem of the difference between the brief and the tutor's view of what is 'implicit'. Hopefully it will not prove a major problem in the future.
Found the annotation of my submission a positive help as it was easy to link the tutor's remarks/comments to the actual passage.
Beginning work on 2nd module.
Found the annotation of my submission a positive help as it was easy to link the tutor's remarks/comments to the actual passage.
Beginning work on 2nd module.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)