Six weeks on from receiving Feedback from Assignment 1, I have just completed Assignment 2. I had a break for a week or so when walking and completing blog thereafter, but last 3-4 weeks have been intensive. The course manual sets aside just 5 hours for Chapter 2; I spent around 20 hours on the assignment alone. What you forget is how much time is required to research and read articles that don't add anything to the subject in hand and are never included in the Learning log or Reading. Referencing too is very time-consuming to do properly.
I knew a little about Berger and Benjamin, but the rest of the reading was all new. The assignment was challenging as had never heard of appropriation art, and only two of the artists that wrote about. But feel reasonably confident that beginning to understand (if not always agree with) what UVC is about and how it enriches my learning and understanding as relevant to photography in particular.
Two themes have started to become apparent to me while working through this chapter. Some points are relevant specifically to this chapter, others are more fundamental and will be revisited as progress through course.
1) Contemporary relevance
Some of what I have read in this Chapter was relevant when the articles were written but I would argue that they have lost much of their relevance now. Debord for example was a leader of the Marxist and anti establishment Situationist International movement. That period has had its day. Much the same applies to Hebdige's article. It is difficult not to be moved by his raw intervention on behalf of the academic black and white periodical Ten-8 as opposed to The Face, perceived by Hebdige as an icon of paganism and postmodernism. But Hebdige too was a creature of his period: a Marxist writing at the peak of Thatcherism, not long after she had inflicted a heavy defeat on Michael Foot, one of the last Messiahs of strongly left leaning politics, in the 1983 election. I read his article and thought at the end that he lacks empathy with the young, with the aspirational, with frivolity, with fun. Like Debord, Hebdige lives in a serious world, where people think a lot about their relationships with one another and with the wider world, where they worry about inequality and social injustice. Those who do not are being manipulated in subtle and iniquitous ways by the media powerhouses around them, the contemporary proxies for the capitalist landlords and industrialists of earlier times.
I simplify and exaggerate, but, I guess, it is slightly up to those who believe that these writers and their theories have relevance today to make the case and, so far, I have not seen much of that. They have more relevance as academic discourse than as insight into the way we view our world today. To be brutally frank, the writings simply achieved nothing tangibly long lasting.
But there is another way of looking at this: that actually the authors had a point, indeed their arguments were so persuasive that their conclusions are just accepted as a given nowadays. Take the idea that visual media manipulates the viewer as set out and analysed by Berger in respect of what may be termed high art, and many others in respect of advertising and related media. Extend this to include Bourdieu and his openly class based 'social definition of photography', a pursuit he observes is essentially for the working classes and is therefore classed only as 'legitimizable', a second class citizen in his hierarchy of cultural legitimacy.
It seems a very natural response to say: " Well, of course the way we view a painting is affected by whether we view it as an image in a contemporary living room on a screen or whether we see it in a gallery alongside similar works of art"; and it is a given that photography is a pursuit of the masses. We all do it and many of us do it in the hope of being published, of having our work viewed and purchased on stock libraries (the largest has 30,000 images submitted every day, of which 50% are accepted. That is equivalent to nearly 5.5m image additions every year for just one relatively 'serious' photographic site, a tiny fraction, one guesses, of the total added on social media).
In a sense, then, events have shown that Berger and Bourdieu had it right. Whether this means they have relevance or were pointing out what is now accepted as uncontroversial truth is a moot point.
2) Isolationism
These articles and arguments are set out in isolation of one another. Debord's 'spectacles', Bourdieu's 'spheres' etc., set our arguments about the way we see things, and/or the ways we are manipulated by the visual media, but they all have their own terminology, their own isolationist arguments, and there is little space set aside within their cases to see how their views link and overlap with those of others. One can argue that it is the role of those who review, comment on, and synthesize afterwards, to do that; these writers are the original thinkers, and the rest of us read, digest, analyze and classify the original works. Moreover, none of these works claims to be a cosmologist style 'entire theory of visual culture', they theorize about what they see, how they perceive the visual world and our place in it.
They are writing at a point in time and surely therefore we should expect them to offer views of the visual world that are relevant to the world in which they live. Papers are not written with the deliberate aim of being relevant in 10, 20, 100, 1000 years time. Their authors observe and theorize about the world as it is not as it might be in the future. The logical consequence of this is that the theories and observations can be relevant only insofar as the world is now as it was when they were writing.
Some of the writing in this section (Berger, for example) and some of the artwork (Fischli and Weiss, Brown, Lucas, and perhaps Sturtevant, for example) is directly or indirectly anti high culture, sometimes subtle, sometimes confrontational. This is in tune with much of social science Zeitgeist in the period: a need to break free of perceived reactionary constraints, a need to empathise with the wider world that manifests itself almost in a guilt complex that the ordinary man or woman cannot engage in arts because the institutional norms of high culture raise barriers to engagement. But perhaps the world has moved on. There is a realisation that a) most people actually don't care that they cannot indulge in high culture, and b) if they do, it is actually a lot more accessible than it used to be by virtue of modern media - the aura has been removed (note 1).
I shall return to these during this course. Some of the arguments are not properly or fully enunciated and I am aware that I have not read widely or deeply - there is a risk of drawing conclusions too readily; a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. What is most important is to revisit and refine the arguments in the light of further reading and research and to retain an open mind.
Have looked ahead to Chapter 3 and very enthusiastic about what is to come. Have read fair bit on Barthes already and think his ideas remain very relevant, particularly to advertising. Have a good idea of advert for Assignment 3 already.
Note 1: The riposte to this is that I am simply accepting the fate of the repressed - falling into Marx’s trap of false consciousness, becoming habitualised. Or perhaps Barthes would say I am perpetuating a myth. But one could counter that by saying that merely accepting these writings without criticism is itself 'false consciousness' . This is too big a debate to take on now, will return in due course.
I knew a little about Berger and Benjamin, but the rest of the reading was all new. The assignment was challenging as had never heard of appropriation art, and only two of the artists that wrote about. But feel reasonably confident that beginning to understand (if not always agree with) what UVC is about and how it enriches my learning and understanding as relevant to photography in particular.
Two themes have started to become apparent to me while working through this chapter. Some points are relevant specifically to this chapter, others are more fundamental and will be revisited as progress through course.
1) Contemporary relevance
Some of what I have read in this Chapter was relevant when the articles were written but I would argue that they have lost much of their relevance now. Debord for example was a leader of the Marxist and anti establishment Situationist International movement. That period has had its day. Much the same applies to Hebdige's article. It is difficult not to be moved by his raw intervention on behalf of the academic black and white periodical Ten-8 as opposed to The Face, perceived by Hebdige as an icon of paganism and postmodernism. But Hebdige too was a creature of his period: a Marxist writing at the peak of Thatcherism, not long after she had inflicted a heavy defeat on Michael Foot, one of the last Messiahs of strongly left leaning politics, in the 1983 election. I read his article and thought at the end that he lacks empathy with the young, with the aspirational, with frivolity, with fun. Like Debord, Hebdige lives in a serious world, where people think a lot about their relationships with one another and with the wider world, where they worry about inequality and social injustice. Those who do not are being manipulated in subtle and iniquitous ways by the media powerhouses around them, the contemporary proxies for the capitalist landlords and industrialists of earlier times.
I simplify and exaggerate, but, I guess, it is slightly up to those who believe that these writers and their theories have relevance today to make the case and, so far, I have not seen much of that. They have more relevance as academic discourse than as insight into the way we view our world today. To be brutally frank, the writings simply achieved nothing tangibly long lasting.
But there is another way of looking at this: that actually the authors had a point, indeed their arguments were so persuasive that their conclusions are just accepted as a given nowadays. Take the idea that visual media manipulates the viewer as set out and analysed by Berger in respect of what may be termed high art, and many others in respect of advertising and related media. Extend this to include Bourdieu and his openly class based 'social definition of photography', a pursuit he observes is essentially for the working classes and is therefore classed only as 'legitimizable', a second class citizen in his hierarchy of cultural legitimacy.
It seems a very natural response to say: " Well, of course the way we view a painting is affected by whether we view it as an image in a contemporary living room on a screen or whether we see it in a gallery alongside similar works of art"; and it is a given that photography is a pursuit of the masses. We all do it and many of us do it in the hope of being published, of having our work viewed and purchased on stock libraries (the largest has 30,000 images submitted every day, of which 50% are accepted. That is equivalent to nearly 5.5m image additions every year for just one relatively 'serious' photographic site, a tiny fraction, one guesses, of the total added on social media).
In a sense, then, events have shown that Berger and Bourdieu had it right. Whether this means they have relevance or were pointing out what is now accepted as uncontroversial truth is a moot point.
2) Isolationism
These articles and arguments are set out in isolation of one another. Debord's 'spectacles', Bourdieu's 'spheres' etc., set our arguments about the way we see things, and/or the ways we are manipulated by the visual media, but they all have their own terminology, their own isolationist arguments, and there is little space set aside within their cases to see how their views link and overlap with those of others. One can argue that it is the role of those who review, comment on, and synthesize afterwards, to do that; these writers are the original thinkers, and the rest of us read, digest, analyze and classify the original works. Moreover, none of these works claims to be a cosmologist style 'entire theory of visual culture', they theorize about what they see, how they perceive the visual world and our place in it.
They are writing at a point in time and surely therefore we should expect them to offer views of the visual world that are relevant to the world in which they live. Papers are not written with the deliberate aim of being relevant in 10, 20, 100, 1000 years time. Their authors observe and theorize about the world as it is not as it might be in the future. The logical consequence of this is that the theories and observations can be relevant only insofar as the world is now as it was when they were writing.
Some of the writing in this section (Berger, for example) and some of the artwork (Fischli and Weiss, Brown, Lucas, and perhaps Sturtevant, for example) is directly or indirectly anti high culture, sometimes subtle, sometimes confrontational. This is in tune with much of social science Zeitgeist in the period: a need to break free of perceived reactionary constraints, a need to empathise with the wider world that manifests itself almost in a guilt complex that the ordinary man or woman cannot engage in arts because the institutional norms of high culture raise barriers to engagement. But perhaps the world has moved on. There is a realisation that a) most people actually don't care that they cannot indulge in high culture, and b) if they do, it is actually a lot more accessible than it used to be by virtue of modern media - the aura has been removed (note 1).
I shall return to these during this course. Some of the arguments are not properly or fully enunciated and I am aware that I have not read widely or deeply - there is a risk of drawing conclusions too readily; a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. What is most important is to revisit and refine the arguments in the light of further reading and research and to retain an open mind.
Have looked ahead to Chapter 3 and very enthusiastic about what is to come. Have read fair bit on Barthes already and think his ideas remain very relevant, particularly to advertising. Have a good idea of advert for Assignment 3 already.
Note 1: The riposte to this is that I am simply accepting the fate of the repressed - falling into Marx’s trap of false consciousness, becoming habitualised. Or perhaps Barthes would say I am perpetuating a myth. But one could counter that by saying that merely accepting these writings without criticism is itself 'false consciousness' . This is too big a debate to take on now, will return in due course.
No comments:
Post a Comment