Art and Visual Culture

Raphael's School of Athens (ca. 1510)

What is art? What is art history? How does visual culture relate to art? Is art history merely a starting point or birthplace for the future discipline of visual culture? Or, is Visual Culture a practice or idea that should remain interdisciplinary? Should art history survey courses incorporate theories and alternative ideas or should they stick to names, dates and periods?

There are many problematic terms that need examining within this discourse of visual culture, most notably, the terms ‘visual’ and ‘culture’. The visual is what we see, the physical aspects of the world around us that we see everyday. However, the visual is much more than this. It is a process of vision and perception. Culture is a little trickier to define. Encyclopedia Britannica defines culture as, “behavior peculiar to homo sapiens, together with material objects used as an integral part of this behavior. Thus, culture includes language, ideas, beliefs, customs, codes, institutions, tools, techniques, works of art, rituals, and ceremonies, among other elements” (Britannica). John Carlos Rowe and his group study on “ ‘Culture’ and the Problem of the Disciplines” had a more difficult time coming up with a working definition of what culture is. These scholars question how culture can be studied as an object, like that of a distinct manuscript, when culture is a combination of many different aspects of society, all rivaling for representation (Rowe 2)? They decide that, “If ‘culture’ then appears as an undecidable term in our collective research, this in no way means that specific cultural formations cannot be interpreted with the various intellectual tools developed by critical theory and cultural studies” (Rowe 4).

Visual Culture is defined within the study of art history, as a focus on cultural meaning of a work of art, rather than on its aesthetic value. What Visual Culture is not is a political or academic movement like feminism, gender studies, Marxism, etc. Mediums not traditionally thought of as part of “the canon of great works,” such as film, television, photography, and graphic design, among others. Art History has been what William Innes Homer describes in his articles, “Visual Culture: A New Paradigm,” as, “a field traditionally concerned with ‘transhistorical truths, timeless works of art, and unchanging critical criteria” (Homer 6). W. J. T. Mitchell, a well known scholar of Visual Culuture, defines it by stating, “It names a problematic rather than a well-defined theoretical object. Unlike feminism, gender studies, or studies in race and ethnicity, it is not a political movement, not even an academic movement like cultural studies. Visuality, unlike race or gender or class, has no innate politics. Like language, it is a medium in which politics (and identification, desire, and sociability) are conducted” (Homer 8). Stanley Madeja defines Visual Culture, in his article, “In Sync with Visual Culture (Moving Forward),” as “the visual intrusion that alters the natural order of our environment” (Madeja). Aesthetic value is being redefined. There is the traditional view of aesthetics, one in which a piece speaks to people throughout time and despite space; regardless of one’s class, gender, and so forth. The new aesthetics that has been developing over the past century and a half or so is one, which requires the viewer to coincide with the artwork to understand it, or to find meaning within the piece.

Questions: So how would you define culture? How would you define Visual Culture? Do you agree that a person needs to have a reference point or realize the work’s place within society to understand or extract meaning from the work? How do you feel Visual Culture fits into the discipline of art history?

Visual Culture is something that is still being thought out. Scholars are now working towards a clearer understanding of Visual Culture. They are no longer looking at an object as art, but rather another product of one’s Visual Culture. There are essentially two ways of looking at Visual Culture. One is to look at what is taking place in a specific period of time, and to examine every aspect of what is going on at that particular moment in the course of history. For example, look at the Renaissance and see what is happening politically, economically, culturally, etc. This is the idea of looking at things across the board. The other way of viewing Visual Culture is to look at it as a progression throughout history. The idea is that once an image is stored in your brain it becomes identifiable and does not appear to be foreign to our visual understanding. Visual Culture is often observed as a new methodology that looks to ask more interesting questions about the motivations and visions behind art. Images that are easily recognizable to us are familiar elements of Western European Visual Culture (Witcombe conversations).

Our Visual Culture is rooted in European Visual Culture, which is based on Greek and Roman Visual Culture. In Alberti’s Treaties On Painting, he warns young painters that, “…we must avoid the habit of those who strive for distinction in painting by the light of their own intelligence without having before their eyes or in their mind any form of beauty taken from Nature to follow” (Alberti 90). Alberti is writing in the 15^th Century, however he quotes writing from the Ancient times, (both that of Pliny and Cicero in this instance), that refers to Zeuxis, “the most eminent, learned and skilled painter of all” (Alberti 90-91). The point here is that Alberti is referring back to the Greeks and what they saw as beauty and the only things with true beauty for them came from Nature. The Greeks lay the foundations for what will become our Visual Culture. We still exercise our discipline of art history in fundamentally Greek terms. Although there are great cultural changes between these societies, they all seem to have a common visual language.

An example of this is Rapheal’s School of Athens. Although a moment in the far, far past is being depicted, it is shown in a visual language that is comprehendible to us. We recognize the architectural forms and can distinguish specific individuals. We know that it is Plato and Aristotle preparing to descend the stairway in the center of the painting, because we recognize the books that they are carrying as well as the way that their hands are positioned. The fact of the matter is that this is where Western culture’s Visual language or culture originated, in Ancient times.

This staircase from La Sagrada Familia, in Barcelona, Spain, is an example of the modern architect, Gaudi’s, obsession with nature, as well as his use of the circular. Many say that the staircase was constructed to represent a snail, or a circular form found in Nature.

Figure 7: Gaudi, La Sagrada Familia, staircase

The Period Eye

Michael Baxandall writes about the period eye and ways of seeing objects. When an object is observed, light passes from the object into the viewer’s eye. The light enters through the pupil and is collected by the lens, which then projects the light to the retina located in the back of the eye. The retina then passes this information back to nerve fibers that get the light to what is known as cones. These cones can decipher both light and color before transmitting the processed information to the brain. From here on out the interpretation of that information varies from person to person. It is now up to the individual’s brain to apply their knowledge to what they are seeing. Baxandall writes, “The brain must interpret the raw data about light and colour that it receives from the cones and it does this with innate skills and those developed out of experience” (Baxandall 29). For example, when examining the manuscripts from the medieval period, it is difficult for someone of our time to interpret the great amount of decoration and letters that are present within the manuscript. However, a seer in the middle Ages would have been able to recognize the meaning of the manuscript much more readily. Once you know the patterns and concepts, it is easier to apply meaning. Baxandall argues there, “are three variable and indeed culturally relative kinds of thing the mind brings to interpreting the pattern of light…(cast) on the retina: a stock of patterns, categories and methods of inference; training in a range of representational conventions; and experience, drawn from the environment, in what are plausible ways of visualizing what we have incomplete information about” (Baxandall 32).

Giovanni di Paolo, The Creation and the Expulsion from the Paradise, c. 1445, Tempera and gold on wood, 46, 4 x 52,1 cm, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

The period eye is a way of seeing things. An important component of Visual Culture is examining, “how ways of seeing predominated at certain periods of time among certain groups of people” (McEnroe and Pokinski 291). It is through our experiences that we read these paintings. For example, in Giovanni di Paolo’s The Creation and the Expulsion from the Paradise, the rings we see depicted represent the seven planets, with the Earth placed at the center. Here we can see an example of the Visual Culture of the Renaissance; however, we can go further with this piece by saying that the use of circles and naked figures is part of our Visual Culture. It is recognizable to us. Although we now know that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, and we now have ten planets, it is still familiar visual language for us. Western Visual Culture has a tendency of seeing the world in terms of circles. This is a way of conceiving for us, and we see this repeated throughout history. The same is true of the naked figure. It is not foreign for us to see figures depicted in the nude. It is something that we read and understand. It is part of Greek Visual Culture that becomes part of our Visual Culture. This establishes a cultural connection in visual terms. Very often when we see three figures in a garden with at least two being depicted as naked and shamed, we can easily infer that this is a representation of the Expulsion. Even if not used in this context the naked figure is part of our Visual Culture (Conversations with Witcombe).

Masaccio, Brancacci Chapel

Rose Window from Notre Dame

Visual Culture and Art Education

The general consensus among scholars of Visual Culture is that understanding of the world through images is becoming increasingly important; however, within education the humanities are lagging behind in this idea of visualization as a way of knowing rather than the traditional linguistical discourse. Many feel that art history is among these disciplines lagging behind in incorporating the visual world of today with the traditional base of the discipline. For instance, Stanley Madeja argues in his article, “In Sync with Visual Culture,” that art education is not aligned with what is happening within the art world. He believes that art historians and art history classes in particular are out of touch with what the artists of today are doing. Madeja argues that the major force driving the creative arts of today is not the same as it was in the past. He lists five areas where he believes “art education is out of sync (with): the art world and what artists are doing today, how images are used and what they communicate, the way in which people use imaging and images to express themselves, the economic impact of the subject matter we’re teaching,” and the substance that mass media provides for the world and “defines visual culture” (Madeja).

The traditional ways of educating people needs to change in order to keep up with our visual world. Science, math, and English are so forcibly supported in our school systems that there has been no time or money devoted to the arts within traditional primary education. Within higher educational institutions there has been a move away from the traditional and towards the theoretical. Instead of teaching names, dates, and periods in art survey classes, programs such as Harvard are creating more theoretical classes, based around discussion more than lecture. This class, “concentrates on introducing students to the history of methods and debates in the field, rather than asking them to memorize names, dates, and works of art” (McEnroe and Pokinski 289-291). An example used in the Harvard classes is that of an African home of the Batammaliba tribe, juxtaposed against the Parthenon in Athens. Professors explain that they are both used as temples of worship, and both provide guides to the people on how to behave within that society. In the African tribe, the house is used as a device for the passing down of history. The sculptural friezes of the Parthenon are concentrated on, but not in the conventional way of style and technique. Instead it the frieze is discussed as a tool of “civic ideology.” This is an example of virtual abandonment of skills customarily needed as a base for art history (McEnroe and Pokinski 289-291).

It appears to most scholars that Visual Culture is emerging as an “interdisciplinary” study. It is so young that it has not solidly ground itself to any one discipline, (unlike art history who many argue do everything they can to keep their borders tied down). Many proponents of Visual Culture within art education believe that art history must open up its borders to contemporary Visual Culture, or the discipline will become out of date. A removal of the traditional linguistic dialogue is not necessary; however, and by taking that solid base already established in formal education, and building visualization and Visual Culture up from there would open the doors of education wider than they have been since feminism, Marxism, and other political movements hit the scene.

Questions: Do you agree that there is something else behind the motivations of the

artists of today? Or could the images produced by the people of the past

as well as the present be created by the same driving forces? What makes an artist an artist? How do you feel about the incorporation of Visual Culture within art history? How do you feel about primary education (elementary, middle, and high schools) not incorporating the arts into traditional ways of learning? Do you feel that this incorporation is or is not important in our ever-changing world?

Figure 3: Parthenon in Athens, Greece

Figure 4: Sculptural frieze on the Parthenon in Athens, Greece

The major points of contention for art historians and scholars of Visual Culture are in the areas of film studies, photography, and graphic design. Although the medium is different, it is argued that the same process of illusion is taking place in the creation of these new objects and images. For instance, elements such as perspective and foreshortening were used in the Italian Renaissance in order to create paintings that Alberti would describes as, “…the finest and most ancient ornament of things, worthy of free men and pleasing to learned and unlearned alike…” (Alberti 64). The artists are using these devices to place a three-dimensional surface onto a two-dimensional plain. These devices that are used, although it is not reality being depicted, a viewer’s eye will make the appropriate adjustments in order to read the painting in a way that makes sense. As Dr. Witcombe says, these tools are like special effects placed into the painting. We know that they are not real, however our eyes adjust so that we may comprehend the work in a way that makes sense to us. These elements are recognizable to us today because they are part of our Visual Culture. We understand and read perspective, composition, foreshortening, etc. Essentially the same thing is taking place in movies. When there are cars exploding and whatnot, we read these scenes as real even though they are merely images. The same is true of photography. Photographs are the images of objects seen in reality. Our brain knows that these images are not real, however we tend to read them as real. At one point in the past the action captured was real.

What about photography and the way that it in and of itself has revolutionized the discipline of art history? The discipline of art history has been able to expand and grow in ways not seen since the invention of the printing press, as a result of photography becoming part of the mainstream culture. Art historians now have the ability to project images that are located half way around the world, as well as to get onto the Internet and look up any image that they would like to see.

Questions: Why are we using the concept of Visual Culture? Do you see a shift or change in the basis for judgement?

Discussion of Karen Stanworth’s article, “In Sight of Visual Culture

Karen Stanworth describes art history as, “a short cut to describing a complex set of relations between visual phenomena, meanings, and actions.” She goes on to say, “The study of these relations is crucial to understanding not only the intellectual concerns of the academy but the ramifications of symbolic actions in the non-academic realm of the everyday.” Stanworth is writing on Visual Culture after the events of September 11, 2001. She grapples with what is being depicted in the world visually, why, and what it means. Stanworth, like many of her contemporaries, wrestles with Visual Culture and its problem of interdisciplinarity. She also describes one of the goals of Visual Culture by saying, “Because visual experiences are theoretically open to a wide set of interpretations and we also need to deal ethically with those pluralistic meanings, we need to find a way to pin them down, to understand them in the here and now so that change can be imagined.”

As a result of this problem of “in-discipline,” to quote W. J. T. Mitchell, Stanworth comes up with the idea of Situated Research. Stanworth writes, “The attempt to situate knowledges serves to limit the horizon of possible interpretations by situating meaning in the local, discursive, and /or subject positions.” She takes the form of a triangle to analyze subjects within Visual Culture. Through this procedure she is able to learn more about the symbols of an image, and therefore rethinking the original meaning that was given to the object. This new meaning changes the way in which she observes the object.

Stanworth then provides an example of a photograph taken on September 11, 2001 of firefighters raising the flag and the image of the Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima. She gives similarities as well as differences in the two images, pointing out the various ways of perceiving the images.

Firefighters raising the Flag at the WTC on September 11, 2001

Photo by Thomas Franklin/The RecordDan McWilliams, George Johnson and Billy Eisengrein.

Figure 1: Iwo Jima image.

Questions:

Stanworth writes, “We need to look more closely at the historical construction of ideas which have been inherited over time, shape the possible meanings of visual culture today, and affect the choices people make and the action they take.” Do you agree with her? Do you feel that images have that much power or control over people?

How do you feel about Stanworth’s Research approach as a way to limit the problems of interdisciplinarity?

How do you feel about the case study that she provides?

Discussion on Johanna Drucker’s Article: Who’s Afraid of Visual Culture?

In her article, Johanna Drucker examines fine arts relationship to mass culture. She argues, “the theoretical discussion of fine art as a cultural practice is still largely dependent on outmoded ideas that “art” defines itself in critical opposition to mass culture,” and she believes that fine art and art history are mistaken by not including visual culture within their disciplines. She believes that there is a great gap between what artist use to acquire inspiration and motivation, and the theoretical approaches in which the discipline of art history uses to examine these new artist ideologies. There needs to be a way to incorporate and study this new “response to modern life.” Drucker believes that once there is a dichotomy between art and visual culture, there will be works included that represent modern art of twentieth century, while incorporating visual images from areas other than the fine arts.

The modernist movement, which has its origins in abstractionism and the avant-garde in Europe, has had a difficult time locating a place for what Drucker describes as, “those visual works that figured their engagement with modern life through representation imagery or an enthusiastic dialogue with the mass media.” The problem that Drucker sees with this is that these new forms and mediums are more modern than ever, and the model for interpreting modern art was born as a result of the abstraction and avant-garde movements taking place in Europe. Drucker argues that, “at its core (modern art) has never been able to find a place in its arguments for those visual works that figured their engagement with modern life through representational imagery or an enthusiastic dialogue with the mass media” (Drucker 37). Drucker argues that there has to be a way to encompass visual objects that were created without concern as to whether or not the object would transcend time, space, gender, class, etc. or did not attempt to make a radical political statement.

Drucker goes on to make the point that what we once considered to be the problem of modern art is now the force that defines it. The fact that modern art is based in classical practices that, at the same time, enable it to absorb the technological advances being utilized at the time is what makes it innovative and necessary to include within art education. Moreover, she examines the work of Winslow Homer in order to portray the idea that American art has in many ways been seen as inferior to European art, yet without merit. She describes the work of Homer as having, “cunningly contrived vignettes, carefully posed dramatic moments, and touching even sentimental, instances of human drama…” as elements of Homer’s work as an illustrator. She further reiterates her point that the discipline of art history being based in European models, by addressing the late acceptance of surrealism to those movements that grew out of the Modernist Era, such as, Constructivism, Neo-Plasticism, Cubism, and Futurism. She attributes the acceptance of surrealism to “the psychoanalytic critique favored by Eurocentric modernists” (38).

Figure 6: Winslow Homer, The Adirondack Guide, 1894, watercolor

Figure 7: Winslow Homer, Return from the Hunt, 1892, watercolor, 16 x 21 inches (40.6 x 53.3 cm), Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

Drucker writes that American modern art should be accessed as unique and different than Modern European art. By comparing the two forms, American arts’ minor influence is assured to be placed by the wayside in order to examine the bright colors and innovative techniques of Modern European art. However, it is the minor influence of this European art that Drucker believes needs to be examined in and of itself. If we were to only acknowledge new and innovative works, we would miss pieces that contribute

John Sloan (1871-1951)

Sixth Avenue Elevated at Third Street, 1928

Oil on canvas, 30 x 40 in.

Whitney Museum of American Art, New York

George Wesley Bellows (1882-1925)

Dempsey and Firpo, 1924, United States

Graphic Design and its acceptance into the study of Art and Visual Culture poses a greater problem, simply that it is not thought of as art. This is where the modern period becomes the most problematic it terms of its acceptance of Visual Culture into art history. It is much easier to place Visual Culture in context with pieces of art from the Renaissance, classical, and Chinese cultures and periods because the visual culture seems to “interpenetrate” the works. This does not happen in the Modern period in the same way due to these new visual devices, such as graphic design and computer manipulation of images. By examining an exhibit called Graphic Design, Drucker “surveys the contributions to the development of modern forms of commercial art in the first four decades of the twentieth century, stopping short of the years of World War II and its aftermath.” Graphic Design is present almost everywhere in our Visual Culture including magazines and newspapers. Drucker believes that commercial art is obviously more persuasive than fine art; however, she points out that, “the very forms that originated within radical movements of the early twentieth-century avant-garde as graphic advertisements for Futurist and Dada sensibilities quickly became tamed and assimilated into corporate and state campaigns.” Her point here is that graphic design is just as much influenced by social and cultural factors as fine art, but perhaps in a more noticeable way.

Questions: Do you agree with Drucker that American art needs to be examined separately

From European art? Do you find the work of Homer less pleasing or less significant in the evolution of painting than that of the European impressionist, or Fauvist, etc.?

Do you agree that Graphic Design is just as much a part of art as the normal canons of fine art, or do you feel that the commercialization of the “art” takes away from the aesthetics and meaning placed behind the images?