Fetishing the object of your eye Fenichel and Freud

We quickly move from Modernism to psychoanalysis and the work of Freud and an article by Fenichel.

The guidance notes suggest reading the first part of Fenichel's chapter The scoptophilic instinct and identification in the course reader: Visual Culture: the Reader.

Not heard of "scoptophilic" before.  It appears to be synonymous with scopophilia, defined in Wikipedia as:

"Scopophilia or scoptophilia, from Greek "love of looking", is deriving pleasure from looking.  As an expression of sexuality, it refers to sexual pleasure derived from looking at erotic objects: erotic photographs, pornography, naked bodies, etc."

The Free dictionary uses a narrower definition based purely on libidinal pleasure:

"the deriving of sexual pleasure from viewing nude bodies, sexual acts, or erotic photographs; voyeurism".

Secondly, need a definition of identification. This is evidently a cornerstone of Freudian analysis, well known to anyone who has studied psychology, but new to me. The Wikipedia definition is as clear as required:

“a psychological process whereby the subject assimilates an aspect, property, or attribute of the other and is transformed, wholly or partially, by the model the other provides. It is by means of a series of identifications that the personality is constituted and specified.”

There seems to be a tacit assumption here that personality is derived solely by identification, a process of nurture as opposed to nature. We are not concerned here with that argument.

Fenichel starts by pointing out that someone "gazing intently" at an object means he or she is "devouring" it.  Uses example of wolf in Little Red Riding Hood or the snake that charms its victim..

Secondly, Fenichel says that looking at an object may be to grow like it, or force it to grow like oneself.

We now read Fetishism by Sigmund Freud on pp324-6 of the course reader. I have never read Freud before, my preconception is that much of his work seeks to demonstrate that psychological issues have deep and often hidden sexual causes. Let me confess immediately to a prejudice against this; not because I abhor the particular idea of sexual hang ups being the basis for psychological issues, more that it seems to me there are so many influences on us from both nature and nurture that it is unwise, perhaps unscientific, to isolate one. Doubtless, there are cases where a single factor could be the main cause of psychological disorder, but these will be restricted to particular people in a particular set of circumstances. I have a notion that Freud will find these and then by induction seek to theorize more generally.

Let's start with a definition of fetishism, not an easy task itself as there are several forms. The synopsis below is taken from a number of web based definitions, notably Marxist.org and psychologytoday.com.

At its most basic, a fetish is a belief that an inanimate object has human properties. Marx extended this definition to what he called 'commodity fetishism', resulting from the product of labour becoming divorced from the labour itself. More important to understand this article is sexual fetishism, defined in Psychology Today as a "pathological assignment of sexual fixation, fantasies or behaviours toward an inanimate object...or non genital body parts." Wool clothing is an example of the first, a foot the second. This fetishism can move in some quite unusual directions, such as a woman who married the Berlin Wall. 

Freud's article on fetishism takes a very particular thread from his observations of fetishism among a number of men. Freud observed that the fetish seemed not at all unusual or symptomatic to the men so were not concerned. In analysis, Freud found that the fetish was a substitute for the mother's penis that the man as a little boy believed she had. He refuses entirely to give up the notion, thus uses an object to replace it. Freud goes further; perhaps the male refused to give up the notion of a female penis because he feared she had been castrated.

This seems a fantastical notion. There is no science to this, Freud does not even say how many men he saw in order to arrive at his theory. There is no control group, and the notion is therefore non verifiable as a generality. The best one can say is that the theory has some applicability in some cases. 

Now revert back to Fenichel article. As I read this it becomes increasingly clear that this is a fairly advanced psychology paper. The article is verbose with much space taken up on difference between definitions of, for example, introjection and perception. It has some fantastical notions, such as that some “pregenitally fixated persons” read in the toilet in order to replace the matter that is being lost with fresh matter, or that an eye fixed in a stare stands for an erect penis (and that an eye can be a penis, vagina, or mouth). Some of the detail reflects the fact that Fenichel wrote in 1935, notably his allusion to nursery rhymes, and fears of being turned into stone. One could get too embroiled with the detail, and lose the essential messages relevant to visual culture. Lastly, it is evident that Fenichel is building on previous work, such as his definition of identification. We are, in a sense, merely dipping into an argument that has a progression pre and post dating this article.

Consequently, at this stage, I summarise only very briefly the points of the article that I deem to be the most relevant and understandable at this stage. It may be opportune to revisit at a later date.

•  The aim of the scoptophilic instinct is to look at the sexual object. This sounds tautologous, but it has value in explaining, for example, the desire to view pornography – Fenichel points out that anyone who wishes to view sexual activities really wishes to share them by a process of empathy;
•   The basis of the scoptophilic instinct is that we wish what we see to enter our body. Fenichel defines this process as ‘ocular introjection’, and takes place alongside introjections from other organs, the key difference being that ocular introjection is not necessarily real. This seems obvious, because the bran interprets visual signals, whereas breathing is instinctive.
• Fenichel notes that “man’s mechanical ingenuity has actually created a ‘devouring eye’....[namely]...the camera”. This is a very interesting point and raises the issues of what goes on in the author’s mind when taking images that some would view as voyeuristic. I discuss this more in the project.                                                                                                                                   

Visual Culture by Howells and Negreiros Chapter 7: Fine Art

The chapter firstly points out that 'reality' in fine art is an illusion, then explores Gombrich's theory that the illusion of reality is communicated by a series of learned conventions and artistic devices.

H&N use the examples of da Vinci's The Virgin and the Child with St Anne and St John the Baptist, Vermeer's The Kitchen Maid, and Monet's The Gare St Lazare as three examples of paintings that we can all identify as 'realistic' in the sense that we can identify with because it reflects the way we see things ourselves, rather than being absolute photographic style likenesses.

On the one hand, if everyone drew or painted 'realistically', the work of all of them should look pretty much the same. But if we accept, on the other hand, that everyone sees the world differently, then we should be unable to identify 'styles' of groups of artists.

There must, therefore, be a middle way - a recognition that 'reality' as a goal is a purpose of painting on the one hand, but that the skill of a painter must to a degree be learned and copied.

Early artists were unable to draw with reality - e.g. the Egyptians who drew two dimensional images with feet sticking sideways, hence the parody of the 'Sand Dance'.

This continued into Middle Ages in European paintings such as The Road to Cavalry by Martini.

The twin problem of why early artists got reality 'wrong' and why they got it worn 'together' in a unitary style was tackled by Gombrich in Art and Illusion: 'the riddle of style' as he called it.

Gombrich theorized that Egyptians and Middle Ages artists were clouded by what they knew as opposed to what they saw. It was only when the concentration was reversed and artists started to paint what they saw that art became more real.

He argued further that this was a process of evolving artistic conventions or 'schemata' by which the illusion of reality could be achieved. 'Knowing and seeing' is replaced by 'making and matching'. All paintings, according to Gombrich, 'owe more to other paintings than they owe to direct observation'.

Painting cannot simply be learning to see otherwise we would not need to learn to paint (or to take a photograph but you can see here how photography does become more about the seeing because the technological part is so much more accessible than artistry).

Painting was originally taught on a rigid system of master and apprentices - Durer for example - but then some of the apprentices would further themselves by self-teaching. Not easy in Middle Ages when there was no way of spreading practice widely. Alberti's book Della Pittura was the first that expounded a theory of perspective.

Once you realise how important the theory was, you can see its influence in Italian Renaissance works, many of which contained tiles.

Durer used a simple method of embracing the schemata developed by the Italians: he went there and later wrote and printed his own books in German, thus imparting much of the valuable acrrued knowledge of the Italians to north Europeans.

Art developed into education under Joshua Reynolds in late eighteenth century Britain. he saw artistic talent as being acquired by 'long application and training', and idea more recently enunciated as the 10,000 hours rule for almost anything. One is reminded of Arnold Palmer's famous dictum on his success in golf. When asked if there was an element of luck in the sport, he replied: "The harder I practise, the luckier I become."

The problem with Gombrich's approach is that it remains Eurocentric and presupposes an historical trajectory towards the ultimate goal of the illusion of reality . It does not help to understand the Post Impressionists who eschewed reality in the photographic sense. Further afield, the illusion of reality has never been important. Art in other societies - native Americans, Polynesians, Incas to quote just three examples - is symbolic.

Take photography. Because the medium guarantees reproduction of reality, there could be no style if the goal was simply that. But we can discern style so there must be more to it.

Visual Culture by Howells and Negreiros Chapter 6: Hermeneutics

During nineteenth century, the concept of culture as a way of life of an entire people emerged with the new discipline of anthropology. You can make a list of what constitutes a culture (TS Eliot did so on 1948 "to understand the culture is to understand the people" - clue to why visual culture is so important: it helps us understand ourselves. (an interesting example is the 2010 Yves St Laurent Opium perfume advert adorning billboards using a naked Sophie Dahl in a very suggestive pose. Apparently about 730 people complained to ASA. This was deemed to be a record number of complaints. But turn this on its head: out of a population of 60m, ONLY 730 complained about an advert that is actually soft porn).

Clifford Geertz was an anthropologist who was interested in culture - 'an assemblage of texts' he called it. Cultural meaning was not discoverable in experimentally but needs interpretation. The theory of interpretation is known as hermeneutics.

One of Geertz's most famous essays id 'Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight'. Geertz and his wife watched a cockfight and concluded that a) the gambling was the most important part of the activity; b) that is is not the gambling per se that is important, more the pride - the recognition that comes with winning. (find this interesting as it has long fascinated me why financial luminaries such as Warren Buffet and Rupert Murdoch continue to seek to make more money even though they are fantastically wealthy - why not do something else? Is it perhaps the sense of competition, that they are in their element in their chosen field and that the financial gain is more the prize for recognizing their success than required for material purposes? Perhaps that is the key to financial gain - do it for the success not the result).

Criticism of Geertz came from Crapanzano who quarelled  with Geertz's  'stylistic virtuosity' (???) and that he sets himself above those he is studying - an outsider who imposes a meaning on someone else's culture then returns to Princeton.

The latter is a popular refrain - who is Geertz (or anyone else) to interpret understanding to others' customs? This is indeed a cultural issue itself as it is part of Western culture to understand the world around us. Virtually all of the significant scientific advancers are Western. We are inquisitive, enquiring, nosey, and interpretative. Other cultures are more accepting, arguably more at peace with their customs, less questioning. Neither is better than the other, just different.

It is an admirable aim to try to understand one another but should be done with a sense of humility - we can never know it all.

The chapter goes on to point out the similarities between many of the approaches we have looked at. There are cross overs in the methodologies and conclusions applied- Panofsky's iconography and semiotics; Panofsky's intrinsic meaning and Barthes' 'goes without saying'; Fry tackled the issue of class interest and painting 60 years before Berger; Berger and Barthes were scornful of bourgeios values.

The idea that several approaches  suggests visual texts may have more than one meaning'

Visual Culture by Howells and Negreiros Chapter 5: Semiotics

Semiotics originated with the Swiss linguist de Saussure, who devised the 'lexicon of signification', a group of terms comprising the 'signifier' (that which stands for something else), the 'signified' (the idea it stands for) and the 'sign' (the union of the two).

The key is that nothing naturally means anything and therefore meaning must be cultural. There is nothing God given that DOG means a four footed domestic animal, for example. Sign is arbitrary, else there would be only one language.

(A good example would be secret code - the sign is to be secret in order that only certain people can know what the signifier stands for).

Car names provide examples of names that signify different things in different cultures. No Va means "doesn't go" in Spanish. Mitsubishi brought out the Pajero in 1980s - means wanker in Spain, where care is sold ad Montero.

In visual world , can see that tie is a classic signifier, suggests we are serious and professional, creates an impression that we treat the occasion with respect.

signs are arbitrary - witness that there is just one stroke difference from Mercedes Benz badge to CND logo.

Signs can change too. Eiffel Tower nowadays is quintessentially Paris, but it was an eyesore in early days.

Barthes extended Saussure's work from words to visual and popular culture, and to a study of 'myths'. i.e the concept of a chain of signifier, signified etc. E.g DOG is signifier, domestic animal is signifier, but dogs signify fideility. So myth is 'sum of signs'.  it is something standing for something else, the intention is more important than the form (he uses the example of a black soldier saluting the French flag on the cover of Paris Match). Of course Renaissance painters included many symbols in their work.

Importance here is that journalist or other maker of myths frequently finds a form to fit a pre existing concept - e.g. finding starving people on a mission in a famine area. Photographers find images to fit idea of 'quaint village'.

Barthes' 'impoverished signifier' also makes sense - a scantily clad girl is designed to suggest sex appeal and in doing so loses her individuality. (Sport is interesting in this respect. too - consider role of team colours, why Leeds chose white).

Barthes is mainly concerned to show how myth represents the interests of the bourgeois, it misrepresents history as nature (i.e this is how things are naturally, rather then resulting from historical forces). Similar to Berger's ideas. Myth to Barthes is all about 'it goes without saying'. whereas actually nothing goes without saying.

Barthes discusses wrestling, an activity where things are not what they seem. The passion is false but the concepts of goodie against baddie are not.

Barthes is infatuated with idea that bourgeois values (extended to middle class values of smug, reactionary unthinkingness).

Problem with Barthes is that he is selective in his approach - some brilliant insights rather than sustained analysis - and he sees exactly what he wants to see (like Berger).

Semiotics can be seen a lot in advertising. Howells and Negreiros use the example of Renault 19 ad campaign with the priest, I come up with Orange ads, very well known because a phone never appeared in the ads, the whole idea being implication, the apotheosis of this being the series of amusing cinema ads where the company executives wish to make the phone very obvious in an advertising story line but the authors of the subtle ideas are aghast at the crudity of the suggestions.