VCS

Thanks for the link, Jonathan. Prof. Sullivan's presentation contains a lot of information on portraiture in western art and various aspects of representation, especially class and gender. The illustrations are also very good. It's an excellent example of how to do a reasonably scholarly yet informal web presentation for a general audience.

In light of our discussions I thought these images interesting and full of signifiers. - If I'm using that term correctly...Tim? Anyway these photos are the work of a woman named Elise Mitchell Sanford. I came across them while I was researching Mary Cassatt and interestingly, in spite of (or because of) their rather bizarre quality - they stayed with me. This link http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/forum/gender.html will take you to the site where I grabbed the them. You will find a few more photos and a certain amount of explanation on that site. On the other hand I'm beginning to understand what it means to be immersed in our own culture with its "highly conventional codes for indicating and expressing perceptual experiences." (from Tim's posting just before this one.) So perhaps the explanations are such that we've already been exposed to them in the daily course of our lives.

Here's a brief excerpt from Descartes' Optics in which he argues images in the mind are more effective if they resemble their objects in only a few ways. I thought of this reference in response to Carlton's remarks last night and my claim that paintings don't correspond precisely to our ordinary visual experience. Rather, pictures make use of highly conventional codes for indicating and expressing perceptual experiences. We'll talk more about this when we get into semiotics after the break. Here's the Descartes. (Descartes' term "soul" is roughly equivalent to "mind".)
---------------------------------------------------------
"We must take care not to assume -- as our philosophers commonly do -- that in order to have sensory perceptions the soul must contemplate certain images transmitted by objects to the brain; or at any rate we must conceive the nature of these images in an entirely different manner from that of the philosophers. For since their conception of the images is confined to the requirement that they should resemble the objects they represent, the philosophers cannot possibly show us how the images can be formed by the objects, or how they can be received by the external sense organs and transmitted by the nerves to the brain. Their sole reason for positing such images was that they saw how easily a picture can stimulate our mind to conceive the objects depicted in it, and so it seemed to them that, in the same way, the mind must be stimulated, by little pictures formed in our head, to conceive the objects that affect our senses. We should, however, recall that our mind can be stimulated by many things other than images - by signs and words, for example, which in no way resemble the things they signify. And if, in order to depart as little as possible from accepted views, we prefer to maintain that the objects which we perceive by our senses really send images of themselves to the inside of our brain, we must at least observe that in no case does an image have to resemble the object it represents in all respects, for otherwise there would be no distinction between the object and its image. It is enough that the image resembles its object in a few respects. Indeed the perfection of an image often depends on its not resembling its object as much as it might. You can see this in the case of engravings: consisting simply of a little ink placed here and there on a piece of paper, they represent to us forests, towns, people, and even battles and storms; and although they make us think of countless different qualities in these objects, it is only in respect of shape that there is any real resemblance. And even this resemblance is very imperfect, since engravings represent to us bodies of varying relief and depth on a surface which is entirely flat. Moreover, in accordance with the rules of perspective they often represent circles by ovals better than by other circles, squares by rhombuses better than by other squares, and similarly for other shapes. Thus it often happens that in order to be more perfect as an image and to represent an object better, an engraving ought not to resemble it. Now we must think of the images formed in our brain in just the same way, and note that the problem is to know simply how they can enable the soul to have sensory perceptions of all the various qualities of the objects to which they correspond -- not to know how they can resemble these objects. For instance, when our blind man touches bodies with his stick, they certainly do not transmit anything to him except in so far as they cause his stick to move in different ways according to the different qualities in them, thus likewise setting in motion the nerves in his hand, and then the regions of his brain where these nerves originate. This is what occasions his soul to have sensory perception of just as many different qualities in these bodies as there are differences in the movements caused by them in his brain."

From: Descartes' Optics, "Discourse Four: The Senses In General", in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Rene Descartes, trans. by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

After a short lesson in how to update the sewer system into the Seine, a.k.a “The Love Canal”, we find out that, there is more than one form of modernism. Modernism, we are told runs the gamut from the government censored and stage-managed show at the Salon starting in 1848, which encouraged eclecticism of styles “The Empire was to be all things to all people”, a.k.a Disneyland, to Pissarro’s political paintings, with Manet and Monet squished in-between. Manet, our cool and blasé flaneur turns out to be a radical. His realistic themes are depicted with subtlety for the connoisseurs of modern life though not necessarily require knowledge of the ‘history of painting’. Monet, on the other hand takes refuge from the cruelties of development in nurturing hand-picked landscapes ignoring the smell of the river, but in observance of the modernistic style. Pissarro believes in the morality of agricultural work in the shadow of the industrial stack-smokes as surpassing feudalism and again women artists are not an issue. Not to worry though the American are coming and tripling the prices for the Impressionists’ paintings so we all can feel bourgeois and visit the Met. for art sake. By now I am completely emancipated, rationalized and normalized out and my approach is ironic Modernism.

This reading selection had me a bit baffled at first (I feel like I begin every response with that statement). It covered a lot of ground that I had a difficult time connecting on the first read, but the material made more sense the more I looked through it. The most interesting aspect of the reading for me was the bit about “eclectic individualism”. It’s interesting that the government, as well as the people adopted this attitude as a way of eliminating political and class-based differences. It seems like a very good idea in theory though perhaps it wasn’t completely successful at that time. In 1855, after the Exhibition Universelle, it seemed to cause a bit of an uproar that nine Medals of Honor were awarded to different artists, each artist representing a different major style. Each artist also received a subsequent retrospective of his work. I couldn’t tell who exactly was outraged by this. The critics? The people? Other artists? I did find it humorous that at this time Manet and Courbet decided to have their own retrospectives, Courbet in particular refusing to accept the government offer. But it seemed that these acts of dissent were not very distinguishable from the other retrospectives and so that little refusal to comply with the government was not very effective.

Censorship was also mentioned in this section of reading. Baron Haussmann had a specific vision of Paris that he wanted depicted a metropolis full of technological advances and extravagant leisure. There were a few attempts to construct large public images of this sort of life in Paris. Those commissioned pieces were glamorous, yet lacking in truth. I am curious to know what other ways censorship manifested itself. It seems like an important aspect of the evolution of painting, and not a lot of attention was paid to it in this reading.

I would guess that it was from this environment of censorship that Manet decided to paint such pieces as The Boaters. In it he depicts a slightly dirtier side of the waterfront in Argenteuil. He paints very common people in the foreground engaging in what might become a pretty naughty activity. He doesn’t shy away from alluding to the industrial growth along the waterfront and the pollution from the factories and elsewhere that was being dumped in the river, causing it to stink. The Monet images in this section were very surprising comparatively. It seems they would make Haussmann very happy. Monet didn’t pay much mind to the factories along the waterfront in Argenteuil, nor did he spend much time painting lower class people who spent their weekends boating there. Instead he painted the beautiful aspects of the town and the higher-class people who spent their leisure time there.

I wasn’t sure about some of the information about Monet. There was a lot of evidence given in this section about why he was considered such a good Modernist. There was a lot of mention of his lack of concern with non-aesthetic meanings and his pursuit of autonomy. But later in the chapter his Impressionist work is talked about. I guess I wasn’t sure how Monet was really classified. Or does he straddle both genres?

Also in this section I found what I thought was the best definitions of modernism yet. On page 127 it reads, “By ‘modernism’ we refer to those new social practices in ‘high art’ and ‘mass culture’ which engage with the experiences of modern life, with modernity, by means of a self-conscious use of experiment and innovation. Their engagements are sometimes critical, sometimes celebratory, sometimes ironic.” This section goes on to redefine the difference between modernism and Modernism, another very helpful differentiation.

First of all; what I managed to absorb of "In Praise of Love" was great. I did not understand it, but that's fine - I will just have to watch it again. All good books should be read twice and all good films seen twice. That's something the hermeneutic cirkle stresses - part understanding first, then comes a grasp at the whole as you have seen the entire film or read the whole book. Then you watch it again to repeat the "part understanding" level, and you proceed once again to the whole. Each time this cirkle is repeated, you reach a heightened level of understanding. Also, if you liked "In Praise of Love" I can recommend to you "La Jetee" by Chris Marker. This one too, is a non-linear cinematic confusion project (incidentally, the film "12 Monkeys" is based on). Good luck.

I look forward to discussing in class what people think about the "inner world" that Frascina and Blake talk about - and Matt mentioned in his post. I think it's perfectly plausible that many artists engange in elaborate and technically challenging projects, to prove their abilities, or as Frascina and Blake say: asserting their worth [as artists]. However, the discussion then draws narcissism into it, and that is in and of itself fine - everyone has a certain index level of narcissism. But mentioning it here, the way F and B do, seems to allude to or suggest heightened levels of narcissism in these painters - and connect this to the "asceticism" that Monet identified with. I'm not sure if I buy this connection. I don't have the impression that there's such a strong causal relationship between the two, or if they often occur in conjunction with one another. A little strange to see this discussion here, I think.

“he maketh his Art all at once represent things alreadie done, things that are adoing, and things which are yet to be done.”
Franciscus Junius The Painting of the Ancients (1637)

After seeing In Praise of Love, I tried to tell my friend what it was about. It was extremely difficult to put into words this fragmented film and I understand why the critics had to view it several times before writing about it. The reason that it was difficult to recount the film in words was because I was still thinking about this unconventional film in conventional film terms. Coming from that angle and attempting to fit it into the typical narrative model with a beginning, middle and an end was impossible, since it didn’t have those elements. But I still needed words to describe this film. So what other things don’t have a beginning, middle, and end?
I began to think of the film in relation to a painting, specifically the continuous narrative paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries. These were paintings that told a story on one canvas, where different moments in time are represented and the characters appear more than once. This differs from a picture cycle where each scene represents a single moment, and each frame follows in the order that they happen, as in a comic strip or in the frames a conventional film.
I then watched the film a second time, mentally composing Godard’s painting in my head. Working backwards like that, I saw the film as the manifestation of the way in which a painting is read, projecting forward and backwards in the viewer’s mind. It takes time to really look at a painting in this way. In Praise of Love was Godard forcing us to take the time to look at his painting.

Well I hate to admit it but I still haven't quite finished with the reading. By tomorrow evening, but not yet. Frankly even if I was done with it I'm not sure that I could blog properly on the subject. I'll confess that I'm seeing a picture emerge of the advance of art, over time, in response to the cultural environment and the art that has come before. Artistic and societal statements are made in art and other artists come along to respond to the statements by embracing it or challenging it...

Anyway I'd rather talk about the movie. I loved this thing in the way that time became slippery and folded in upon itself. The idea of using actors in realistic situations as in having their backs to the camera, having them speak lines out of context etc... is Godard's way of saying "think for yourself! A film does not have to explain everything to be wonderful. It does not have to follow Hollywood guidelines to have impact. The chase scene is unnecessary, the desperate love story is unnecessary." A story in life is not specifically linear. The artist of this film has expressed himself and told his story in images that touch other areas of our intellect than the lowest common denominator. What a treat.

I found this weeks reading to start to differ from the rest of the book so far. In the second half of this Chapter the attention has turned slightly from politics. It seems that what we are discussing now is the effect of industrialization on the artists. How the artists react to these great changes in their lives, where they live, and what they paint. We see that Corbet, Manet and Monet are consistently making comments on social issues, but now they all seem to be tied in with industrialization, factories and even pollution.

What stuck me as the most interesting part of the reading was the discussion on Monet. I find it very interesting that he chose not to show the industrialization. He would paint scenes specifically from angles where the signs of industrialization where minimized or completely out of the picture. But, the reading goes on to insinuate that Monet was doing this to make himself seem superior. "In both there is a desire to be recognized as a superior individual. Was Monet asserting his worth in his technically rich equivalents for, and reworkings of, his view of 'nature'?" (Page 130). As I mentioned before, I really have no art history background, so maybe the authors have more reason for saying this, however I think this is possibly looking too far into the psychology of the artist and making broad assumptions. Sometimes the most effective thing is the thing left unsaid -- or in this circumstance, unpainted.

I noticed in the reading a new language begin to appear that we really have not come upon yet in the book. Towards the end of the reading words like "encoding", "schema" and "paradigm" were being used a lot. It looks like we will be discussing these further in the next weeks as we discuss Semiotics. I am looking forward to this.

Regarding the film we watched last week, Praise For Love, I found it very interesting. I don't know if I would say that I understood it at all or that I would ever go see another film by Godard. But there was one thing in the movie that really had some impact with me. Towards the end of the film there was a part in which there was a discussion about a landscape. The person said that you can't really look at a landscape for what it is, that you are always comparing it. Comparing it to other landscapes you have seen or are familiar with. At that moment I realized that I was comparing the film. Comparing it to all the films I have seen before, and this film did not fit the usual pattern. Maybe if I was used to seeing film in this more abstract manner, more used to this style of expression, I would appreciate it more...maybe not...

In watching “Praise of Love” initially I was trying desperately to decipher what was going on, as far as the plot was concerned. After going back and forth with the subtitles and eventually getting frustrated I made the decision to let go and simply watch (which is what I should’ve done from the beginning). With this shifted tactic I feel I was able to notice the detailed fragmented play of technique that for me separated the film from the typical Hollywood “flick”. Along with that I also felt that this film did an excellent job at simply embracing life without sensationalism. Without the unnecessary fluff of violence or sex “Praise of Love” challenged you to think about the images yourself and assemble the structure within your own context. Godard’s approach to film making motivates the viewer to achieve a more heightened creative state by challenging the rules, and at the same time raising political issues.

I found the reading for this week particularly interesting in comparing industrialization to Manet and Monet. It created a true sense of how art can depict the true reaction to an experience or environment. I was also clarified in that Monet put his work on a pedestal in order to achieve status, or maybe not to achieve status, maybe just to shut out what he thought to be scary and simply create something aesthetically beautiful. So I suppose I didn’t achieve as much clarity as I thought. At any rate I feel I’ve gotten a lot from this week and I have to say that one of the most provoking things I’ve heard was something by Godard that resembles this statement: There is no originality but just the cobbling together of the past.

Avant-gardists, like Courbet and Manet, introduced and developed different ways of seeing while inventing new codes for interpreting and understanding the increasingly diverse political, economic and social landscapes. This week’s reading shows how different artists in the late 19th century approached this challenge, adding to the already multi-dimensional aspects of modernity and modernism.

Blake and Frascina’s recap of the modern discourse definitely helped me stay somewhat grounded in their discussion: “By modernism we refer to those new social practices in both ‘high art’ and ‘mass culture’ which engage with the experiences of modern life, with modernity, by means of a self-conscious use of experiment and innovation”. And we can’t forget that there is a difference between modernism and Modernism: Modernism being one “contested account of modernist art practices, which stresses ‘art for art’s sake’, artistic autonomy, aesthetic disinterestedness…” etc. etc. (127). At first I felt totally turned off by the categorization of the modern i.e. saying Courbet was an avant-gardist but not yet a modernist (yeah, so what!). But after reading this section 4-5 more times, I began to understand the categories i.e. realist, avant-gardist, impressionist, modernist more as they relate to one another than how they are separate. Obviously, the technique and conventions used by an impressionist differ from an avant-gardist, but both were part of a much larger modern discourse, one that incorporated new and developing realities that conflicted with the Modernist’s mantra, art for art’s sake.

These new realities were characteristics of market capitalism i.e. the smokestacks, the factory and were evident in the changing landscape as depicted in various ways by Manet, Monet, and Pisarro. The diverse ways in which each artist reconciled the modern industrial age revealed and confirmed that the ways in which artists approached art were changing and evolving. Courbet may be known more for his political avant-garde stance whereas Manet represented the modernist/avant-garde/self-critical yet still “artistic-like” artist. Monet may be regarded as exemplary because though he included social and political codes, he still emphasized more the pictorial aspects of painting. ALL, however, offer clues, which together made up the codes, for understanding the modern. Therefore, criteria used in the past to view art as “authentic” was inadequate because, as Blake and Frascina explain, understanding the new political and social landscapes required new codes. Adopting new codes requires one to be more tolerant and more willing to consider new perspectives – a challenge that will become familiar to socially-conscious individuals who are part of industrial societies.

I was reminded of my own attachments to the familiar while watching In Praise For Love. Even though T.Q. gave us a heads up to Godard’s approach of mixing up the chronology of the story, I found myself trying and wanting to understand the film as if it was linear. I gave up trying to understand the film after the first fifteen minutes. I became more curious in HOW Godard was telling the story than WHAT he was telling – actually, that probably happened by default since I didn’t know what the story was about in the first place. Godard juxtaposed everything to the point where my mind lost any kind of attachment to the familiar. In hindsight, the conversation between two characters in the film about memory and the irrelevance of it served as warning signs for the disorientation would soon follow. The “debris of a smile” revealed itself when T.Q. asked us to imagine what the realists from the Academie thought when avant-gardists showed their work. Hmmmm. maybe we share more things in common after all…