Visual Culture by Howells and Negreiros Chapter 1: Iconology

Concerned with subject matter or content - what is it of or what does it show.

Analysis of Haywain shows:

1.   Not difficult - use common sense;

2.   Needed n extraneous information - could describe from what is presented;

3.   Relatively simple picture

So a structured approach will look at:

4.   The kind of painting - genres of paintings are landscapes, portraits, still life, genre painting (scene from everyday life)

5.   Look at what is shown - is the subject of a portrait young, old, ethnicity,

6.   Location

7.   Age of painting

8.   Season

9.   Time of day - quality of light as well as brightness, shadows etc

10.         Moment - battle scene for example

This approach:

11.         Makes us look at a painting;

12.         focusses attention on the visual evidence provided by the painting itself, the text rather than the context

13.         Provides a generic methodology;

14.         Encourages us to look for ourselves

Interpretation beyond this though requires some knowledge of context. Important to know bible to interpret religious art for example - known as attributes. Owl for wisdom is an every day example.

Analysis then of Arnolifini's Wedding Portrait by Jan van Eyck. Here we get symbolism: e.g. not wearing shoes suggests couple standing on 'holy ground'. Dog may be symbol of marital fidelity (fido). Hand across the stomach indicates pregnancy or maybe potential for childbirth.

Secondly look at The Annunciation by Master of Flemalle. The WYSIWYG approach  permits us to estimate time of day, location, period. Beyond that a knowledge of New Testament helps us identify Mary, Joseph and Angel Gabriel. On left hand panel - looking in through a trapdoor are the sponsor (Jan Engelbrecht) and his wife.

At a deeper level there is more symbolism - Jesus has made a wooden mousetrap - according to St Augustine the cross was a mousetrap designed by God to catch the devil. The candle has just been extinguished - does this mean that divine light has overcome need for artificial light, or simply that angel's wings have extinguished it?

These two paintings contain many deliberate symbols that may be interpreted only by an audience that had sound grounding in Christian scripture, lore and symbolism (actually this is perhaps an attempt to be elitist - the customer wants to show something off that indicates that he understands it even if the average viewer does not - my interpretation).

Panofsky has written seminal work on iconology - Studies in Iconology - the branch of art history concerned with the subject matter or meaning of works of art.

He sets out three levels:

1.   primary or natural level - identifying only the very basic subject matter, no requirement for cultural, conventional or art history knowledge;

2.   secondary or conventional level - we can tell the difference between the Last Supper and a meal out

3.   Intrinsic meaning or content, that which reveals the underlying basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class...(broadly the Zeitgeist). This is the ultimate goal of iconology - to unpick the unintentional cultural attitudes and assumptions in a painting.

Using this, we can analyze the cover of Abbey Road.

At primary level, we have four men crossing a road, in relaxed manner.

At secondary level, we can see they are the Beatles, and identify each one. Then can move on and ask why Paul has no shoes. Sicilian mourners wear no shoes. The VW beetle has a number plate 28 IF. Is this symbolism. Is Paul dead? Is John (dressed in white) the priest. Obviously all nonsense - Paul was alive - and shows risk of over interpretation - Paul's shoes were is fact hurting him.

At intrinsic level, the casual cool look discloses the individuality, as does wearing different clothes. Also, look at what is not on the cover: the band's name. There was no need because they were so famous.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Modernist art: the critic speaks

Reading: Art in Theory 1900-2000 pps 773-9 Clement Greenberg's Modernist Painting.

The purpose of this first project is twofold: firstly to glean information from the essay about Modernism in painting; secondly to start become accustomed to the nature and protocols of academic reading.

For me, the first is possibly more important as I start a long way back in understanding Art.  The second aim is a more o a matter of reminding and updating myself on good practice.

We are asked to consider what Greenberg is talking about, his arguments, his references to other writers, and his use of quotations, making notes and researching unfamiliar words

Arguments

Art avoided the dumbing down effect that the Enlightenment had on religion by the use of Modernism, the essence of which Greenberg defines as the "use of the characteristic methods of a discipline to criticise the discipline itself", a sort of  inbuilt tacit feedback mechanism.

Whereas Old Masters viewed the limitations of the unique nature of fine art - the use of pigment, the nature of a rectangular presentation, and, more important, the  flatness of the support, the one characteristic "unique and exclusive to art" -  Modernism embraced and made a virtue of them. The Impressionists made no illusion that they were using real paint, and "sacrificed verisimilitude".  In Modernism, you see a picture before the content thereof, in direct contrast to how an Old Master is viewed.

(I can see here the resonance with the arguments made by Kemp regarding the perceived threat of photography to fine art (Kemp, unknown).  Artists could not possibly hope to compete with the realism of the new medium in mid 19th century, so instead took a positive attitude towards the differences between the mediums, eschewing realism for impressionism).

Greenberg then qualifies his argument: Modernist painting has in principle not "abandoned the representation of recognizable objects......." [rather] "...the representation of the kind of space [they] can inhabit." In order to create its own genre, "painting has had to divest itself of everything it might share with sculpture", and thus became abstract. Painting became abstract because it had to in order to differentiate itself from other art forms.

Art has a history of maintaining a distance from sculpture despite an early debt to it (creating the illusion of a three dimensional medium).  As early as 16th century, colour was used as the differentiating factor. Modernism continued this direction but replacing colour with "optical experience" as opposed to "optical experience [including] tactile associations." Thus shading and modelling were ignored by the Impressionists.

At this point, Greenberg backtracks somewhat with three qualifications to his argument. Firstly he points out that the differentiation between Modernist Art and other art forms goes only so far - there is no absolute flatness in Modernist painting, there is some optical illusion, for example. He acknowledges a relationship with science - in order to be a subject of pictorial art, Modernism demands that a theme be translated into strict two-dimensional terms. The analogy is with physiology: a physiological problem requires a physiological response not a psychological one. (I think this is oversimplified; Greenberg forgets that many advances in science are interdisciplinary - the application of conclusions and methodologies of one discipline in another. In social sciences, for example, economics borrows very heavily from mathematics).

Modernism has not had an established set of norms, it is not a theory, but more of an aggregation of individual practices and experiences; it is quintessentially individual.

Lastly. Modernism is as much a continuation of the past as a break. It has dispensed with many pre existing norms yet "continue (sic) to provide the experience of art in all its essentials." Modernism does not seek to lower the standing of Old Masters, but to appreciate them in new light.

In brief summary, I believe Greenberg's central tenet is that Modernist Art is defined by self criticism of the medium, that it developed out a perceived need to differentiate two dimensional painting from other art forms, yet while doing so maintains ties with pre existing art, and thus essentially represents continuity in Art.

As mentioned above, all this is new to me so it would be unwise to draw too many conclusions until getting further into the course. The essay is well written and I believe the main points are well made; the fact that Greenberg qualifies his own arguments - implicitly not overstating  his case -  I tend to respect his arguments and conclusions.   

Unfamiliar words

dialectical tension: Yahoo answers indicates the tension between two opposing views - the process by which one becomes dominant

verisimilitude: Free dictionary defines as the" the quality of appearing to be true or real".

Who does he mention - work of others

The essay is essentially about ideas, and therefore Greenberg quotes others more to demonstrate his arguments than to make any value judgments on their work. He does not seek to provide wide references as this is a thought provoking essay, not a summary of  others' work. These are some of the key people whose work is mentioned. Of these, I reviewed some paintings of David and Mondrian in order to understand better the points Greenberg makes.

Kant - first real Modernist, important because was first to criticise criticism.

Corot - an artist who had no fixed ideas about art.

Cezanne - reacted against Impressionism.

David - revived sculptural painting but his best pictures demonstrate strong colour, which was the main differentiating characteristic of art over sculpture. Two examples:

The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons 1789

Sappho and Phaon 1809

Accessed from Google search 28 December 2013

Mondrian - Piet Mondrian who exhibited extreme form of Modernism, carring Cubism to the point of abstraction. A couple of images are below:

No. VI / Composition No.II 1920

T00915

The Tree A c.1913

T02211

 (from: www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/piet-mondrian-1651 [Accessed 28 December 2013])

Conclusion and learning outcomes

I am pleased that understood the essay far better than I thought I might. The argument wanders slightly but managed to analyse and summarise the key points. The arguments made sense and definitely learned a lot about the Modernist school. Could relate to previous reading and present critical argument.

Reference: 

Kemp D. (unknown) Photography vs. Impressionism - A different history of art of the 19th and 20th centuries. Available  from http://www.dafyddkemp.com/photography.pdf [Accessed 28 December 2013]

Introductory post 27 December 2013

Why study Understanding Visual Culture?

Understanding Visual Culture ('UVC')  is the third of my three Level One modules of study towards a degree in Photography. Previously I have studied The Art of Photography  and People and Place. The Photography choices for this final module were Digital Film Production: Creative Concepts or Digital Photographic Practice ('DPP'). The former has no interest for me, and I am well versed in the skills and practice of post processing so would not benefit greatly from the latter. From accounts of the course from other OCA students, DPP suffers from two things that any practising photographer will recognise:

1. The technology and techniques in digital processing move on very quickly. It is vital therefore that the course is kept up to date, and by all accounts, this is not the case with DPP; in many cases, the techniques recommended are simply out of date;
2. Post processing is a very individual pursuit, and there are many ways of achieving similar objectives - for example I know of at least six ways to produce a monochrome image from a colour shot - so much of the course would simply be irrelevant.

Consequently, I looked at two courses in the Art History course that are eligible options for Photography students: Western Art and Understanding Visual Culture ('UVC'). Western Art was not an option as it requires drawing skills, so UVC has become the default option (short of doing three HE5 level courses, not a realistic prospect in terms of time and cost). 

But let it not seem that I am the reluctant student, breezing in on a course with a "why am  I here?" look on my face, preparing for it to be uninteresting and/or tedious. On the contrary, I am looking forward to a course that is more abstract and theoretical, for three reasons:

1.  The challenge: 35 years ago, I studied Geography at university, a subject with little practical use but one that introduced many strands of social science theory, from econometrics to Levi-Strauss, none to any depth but requiring a degree of understanding. I enjoyed the challenge of understanding the theories and their relevance in a geographical context; I see a parallel in UVC with understanding and criticising more general theories in a visual context;
2. The broadening: this a theoretical subject with the following four assessment criteria are to be demonstrated: knowledge and understanding; research skills; critical and evaluation skills; and communication. Compare this to the four criteria assessed in previous two courses: technical and visual skills; quality of outcome; creativity; and context. These are much more practical skills, very useful for me as a photographer but it seemed appropriate to take the opportunity to broaden my outlook;
3. The relevance: the OCA Photography degree course has changed recently and now includes Documentary as a level 5 option. A couple of phrases from the course description serve to demonstrate that UVC will be a useful background course: "In this unit you will explore historical and contemporary strategies (a combination of technical, visual and conceptual methodologies) in documentary photography......................You will be encouraged to develop further your visual communications skills and convey rich narratives in your photographs, incorporating elements of the semiotics of the image."

Outcomes

The three reasons above form the basis for desired outcomes from this course: that I feel challenged; have broadened my outlook and knowledge so, for example, I can look at other forms of art with a more knowledgeable and understanding eye and have a good basis for taking the skills and knowledge from UVC into further Photography study.

I believe also that UVC will encourage a more rigorous approach to theoretical study: locating information from a variety of electronic and non electronic sources; referencing; appraising and criticising different approaches, all useful skills to look at my own subject in the future.

Concerns

Probably my main concern is not understanding the subject, finding the jargon arcane, and the arguments highfalutin. I have little time for academic study that is deliberately opaque so as to appear more difficult than it truly is. The challenge will be to avoid scorn or dismissiveness when reading an commenting on such material.

I am also concerned of moving too far from my comfort zone. I know nothing about fine art. Tutor has interest in sculpture; my sole exposure to that art form is four lessons of pottery in the 1970s. It will either be a steep learning curve towards a higher understanding, or struggling to comprehend what the subject is about, indeed what the point is of studying it. However, the flip side of having little previous exposure is that I come to the subject with few preconceptions and a fresh outlook.

Time may be an issue but one advantage of UVC over photography courses is being able to pick up the manual and associated material at short notice for maybe a limited time; the photography exercises are mostly outside and require a degree of organizing, travel, set up etc, so require more planning in advance. UVC lends itself to more spontaneous study

Study so far

Having had a break for several months, I have read most of Visual Culture by Howells and Negreiros. Slightly curious why this is not the course reader, possibly because it is a new (2012) book. It was recommended by OCA tutor as a useful introduction, and can see it has a lot of relevance to all the chapters of study. The book is very well written, avoids jargon and pomposity, and sets out the strands of theory in first part, then the application thereof in the second. I shall finish the book at a time that seems appropriate in the course. The notes from chapters read hitherto are posted as reading on the blog.

Conclusion

I am looking forward to UVC. The study book looks daunting but then so did the photography courses at first. It will be an interesting challenge.