Today Dr Matthew Bowman gave students very interesting lecture about politics of looking divided into two sections to consider: Aesthetics (seeing and knowing) and Politics (looking and power).
First part introduced in details process of looking and seeing. We always see things as something depending on a concept, location and surely a personal experience and knowledge. That's the reason why some imagery, such as photographs or paintings can be seen completely differently. There was an example of two photographs of a woman ostensibly looking the same, but in fact they had different meanings and intentions. One of them supposed to be an artwork and the other one not. Personally I didn't spot a major difference between them. However I think it's also all about the circumstances around the work presented to be seen as art. It reminds me of Marcel Duchamp readymades objects (for instance, his "Fountain" 1917). It became a piece of art by placement in gallery setting and signed "R.Mutt". That's how a common urinal became an icon of twentieth century art.
Sometimes we look, but we don't see, because our mind may drive us somewhere else. We also make conscious and unconscious selections of what we want to see. Some things become boring with everyday routine, publicity or they just don't catch our attention. Sometimes we don't chose not too see, but we just don't give it enough time or attention. We tend to make first impression opinions without getting into closer details and insights. Looking isn't always seeing and seeing cannot happen without good observation. We scan the world around us, we recognize and we make sense of it (cognition). Sometimes we need extra knowledge and it can change our perception. For example if we've never seen or heard about pen or fork in our life, we wouldn't be able to guess its function.
Matt Bowman was telling us about a mind experiment using canvases painted purely with red, looking exactly the same. Spectators weren't able to rationalize or make sense of it without given context and extra information. One of them supposed to be primary, simple coating; the other presented Red Sea and escaping Israelites; the third one was an expression of anger and passion. Seeing is also cultural and it can develop subordination issues (placing in lower position, hierarchy).
What happens when we look at things? It's our everyday biological activity to see objects, people, movement, possible narrative. Firstly it's an overall view, first impression (happening very quickly, in seconds), which then becomes a form of cognition. First impression/experience is extremely vital for perceptions, process of gaining actual knowledge.
Thinking about it, it reminds me of personal cinema/world of film experience in aspect of language differences; originals and dubbings (most commonly for Disney or DreamWorks projections), I have noticed that some movies I've seen for the first time in Polish don't really amuse me as much in English and vice-versa. It's the voices I got used to and enjoyed listening to. Other time, rather rarely, it happens I actually appreciate the new, unknown before option.
Once we know and see something, we immediately and intuitionally identify it. We don't tend to look much more around it, what sometimes causes erroneous understanding. Everyone can struggle with professional names time to time, but still being able rather simply describe, recognize and categorize (like Jasper Johns' flag with stripped off colour). Blind people who lost their sight after years of looking are able to see with their hands, with touch in some way...
I really liked an ambiguous image of duck/rabbit publication shown during the lecture. Both animals could be simply seen separately, but I was actually able to see both in the same time after observing it deeper (however not as easily).
 |
Duck/Rabbit Illustration published in 23 October 1892 issue of Fliegende Blätte |
As I've mentioned before, first impressions are not always truthful. Light sculptures, 'Afrum'(1966) and 'Moab'(2001) by James Turrel, makes a trick on our brains which can see a physical, solid object while artist only creates clever light projections. Similarly to Bridget Riley's optical art giving an amazing visual impressions, but not showing truth to our eye. During the war, camouflage was used with similar intention, creating fictional, conspiratorial landscape solutions.
Being a graphic designer demands extra attention and sensitivity to the process of looking/seeing. It's noticing, making connections and decisions, finding context, semiotic language - parts of complex process of constructing visual information. The ability of seeing counts a lot in visual arts. It enables to get inspiration and builds an aesthetic sense, which approves satisfaction and self-realisation.
 |
| James Turrel Afrum I (1966) |
Our self-identity can be strongly affected by politics of looking. The reflection we can see in the mirror every day is incorrect (in the wrong order). It's untruthful and it only gives a guideline of our own appearance. We cannot ever really see ourselves one hundred percent the same as everyone else around us. That's why we're looking for familiar reflection of ourselves to build self-identity (also called 'selford'). Our subjectivity (i.e. sense of self, sense of who we are and not just how we look) develops and changes. Cindy Sherman is a good example of artist who uses self-portraits in her photography by assuming movie characters in particular situations. She undertakes a peculiar examination of herself.
By looking in the mirror and making refinements or taking 'selfies' (mirror stage) on the phone we're positively reinforcing own identity and building self-confidence. We're looking for authority figure. Sometimes we want to be or look like someone else, often even unconsciously we replicate parts of styles or behaviours. We learn from each other, we like to identify some of it with others. We look at advertisements... and a lot of the time many of us blindly believe that all of it is true.
An interesting fact here is also evolution in human's vision. Little babies and children have limited eye sight. In the first stage of life they can only recognize their mother, their view is indistinct and blurry. Newborn baby sees only in black and white and shades of grey. Their ability of vision isn't fully developed. Infant's eyes are noticeably big (apparently 65% of their adult size), not very light sensitive and unable to accommodate (focus on near objects). One week after birth infant can see some colours (red, yellow, orange, green). It's more difficult to recognize blue or violet, because of fewer colour receptors in the human retina for blue light. That's the reason for first book for children being black and white or with very limited colours. Having my own personal experience I also know that infants eyes are very dark, almost black for first few days and the proper colour develops then.
http://www.allaboutvision.com/parents/infants.htm [Accessed on 12th Nov 2015]
It's really quite funny and amazing, when children stand in front of the mirror for the first time and they start to recognize their reflection and apparently see their body as a whole for the first time (Lacan's Mirror Stage). I have also heard somewhere that children cannot really see what's behind the glas in the moving vehicle to some point, but I am not sure that's true...
Most than ever, in the twenty-first century we gazed upon. We look at and we're looked at; we have subject within our gaze (objectifying), but we also become objectified. We recognize ourselves as subjects; we also pick up selectively from subjectivity of others. Male gaze is linked to social power for centuries and it is under examination and critique today. Women are objectified by men to be looked at as being fair sex. Right to vote and many other activities were exclusively given to men in society for may years. A lot of the time that probably imbalanced power. Well, women and man got equal rights for a while now. Muscly handsome lads are appreciated by women and men public in the advertising world. Moral codes are often broken in trying to balance male and female society. However, two wrongs don't make it right. Inappropriate, sexist and almost pornographic images appear on adverts. People are breaking boundaries and traditional styles. But is it really freedom? Do we like the world we live in? New technologies and easier life surely help us...besides of that technological progress, is the life any less stressful, better with acceptation of nearly everything...? Well, I like traditional... old school style, old morals. I think world is going well too far now, its full of sickness more than it ever was with numerous issues. But I also see a lot of potential for those who want to make it better.
Art and design next to media holds a lot of power over the world. Unfortunately there are examples of bad and controversial advertising (like 'Is your body beach ready' posters or 1980s fashion poster entitled 'Hello boys'), which can be insulting for some people or very inappropriate for teenagers or young children to see (shown in the wrong place or wrong time). Advertisements are often full of fiction, showing perfectly shaped model bodies approved by Photoshop refinements, persuading with adequate phrases how we should live, what to use and how to look. As a result there're more anorectic girls not feeling good enough with their bodies, increased depression for many different reasons (relating to that as it's a big part of the world around us and causing particular behaviours) and growing consumerism. Of course there are plenty of very beautiful adverts, showing happy families... but some of them are quite exploitative, using aspect of being happy or accepted (showing the world we want to belong to) to make us buy their product or service. That's just part of advertising strategies, but I think it's important to be aware of it. I'm very interesting in advertising campaigns, but I will definitely want my work to be respectful to others, considerate and possibly sending out a good message. Possibly for some companies or artists of all sort, controversy is the way to show up their name to the world, but I don't want to be a part of anything not matching my moral values.
I have already taken a life project which made me ask myself this moral questions. There were two separate parts of the brief: one to create brand, logo and fashion tags and the other to make design for a packaging of different clothing line. Knowing that packaging project supposed to contain unreal information ('since 1926') I decided only to be part of the first one. Also knowing that I look at this sort of information myself while buying the product, I don't won't to confuse and encourage potential shoppers with this fake attachment. Besides the first part is really exciting and in progress. We work in a group of four and I found out that working in the group can actually be really pleasurable. I really enjoyed it. Discussion and exchange of ideas builds confidence. I have done a lot of thinking and drawing, but I couldn't actually see a lot of potential in my ideas. I had plenty of them, but none seemed possibly good enough to consider for a client (well... surely before I tried them digitally). I felt great, when the group picked up on my idea and have taken my sketch to further - software development. I am really happy with that, because my concept for the logo could become known in American environment (of course if our client approves he likes it).
Going back to the lecture and male gaze, Matt mentioned Hollywood cinema and problem of female put into functionality in James Bond's movies. Each film has an actress portraying a character of lover and/or a sidekick of Bond. They are so called 'Bond Girls' and they have always shown classical female beauty of their time, symbols of glamour and sophistication, presented in all superlatives. On the image we've seen she is in the bikini and becomes sexual desire; she's quite obviously there to be looked at. That's why possibly every men would like to be Bond; he's got all the best girls.
There's also a poster for Alfred Hitchcock's film 'Rear Window'(1954) which exposes a female background character exercising in the centre; a man holds binoculars towards the spectator. There were also works of Allen Jones (table based on a woman figure) and Jemima Stehli's photograph following the same approach. Stehli is a British feminist photographer, who also examined reaction of men in her auto-portrait series called 'Strip', while she would perform her act with her back to the camera and let the art critic, invited for this occasion to the studio, to take the photograph.
Miley Cyrus had no clothes in her video clip.There are women wearing niqabs on the street covering their whole body, including face. It's personal choice. However...who gives the options? Part of society disagrees with those choices being public. It makes some people uncomfortable. Personally I don't like both of those ideas. Miley's video is easily available on YouTube or TV music channels and they shouldn't be shown during the day while children can watch it, even simply by accident. Access to almost pornographic imagery should have limited access. I also feel very uncomfortable with the other case. I feel unsure and usually quite unsafe passing through for obvious reasons of recent terrorist incidents in the world. I agree with it, unless it doesn't cover the whole face and you're unable to make an eye contact. It's fine and its their tradition in Arabic countries, but I think outside of them there should be some restriction in this case.
 |
| Barbara Kruger Your Gaze Hits The Side of My Face (1981) |
I think, the whole battle of man and women gaze shouldn't end with acts of extreme demonstrations, possibly bringing bad influence or demoralisation, especially for children and young people.
Having my own child, I would like to protect him from any bad and unnecessary in very young age visual influence. That's why I notice and consider those things more. In my opinion technology has already taken its place to destruct childhood in some way for many kids, who are extremely aware and able to use it. My son at age of three can easily use many option on my iPad (watching children channels on YouTube or play toddler games). He doesn't need me to assist, all I have to do its supervision of what's on the screen. That's what most kids are capable of doing this days.
I really dislike some of the products for children, dolls being very sexist, wearing heavy makeup and disgusting look of some toys being zombies or monsters. I am really against very real and scary looking Halloween costumes, that parents chose to dress their children up, accented even more with bloody face paint. I think there should be considerate and reasonable amount of ugliness applied to all areas that involve young children. I was happy to see 'Carve a heart in your pumpkin this Halloween' campaign by World Vision (even if it isn't a heart, it can still be a friendly or reasonably scary face). It supposed to be fun, not to give children nightmares and swallow their innocence. I think parents should carefully think how all this staff can influence their little ones (especially TV programmes and games), and selectively choose only appropriate options from big amount offered on the market.
I find this topic quite related to the painting showing execution of Robert Francis Damiens (1757) as a visual spectacle, terrifying play right at the beginning, when the worst part is only imagined. The artwork was intended to be seen by audience, so as the real situation. What I wanted to emphasize is that children add even more imagination to all these, if they are aware of unnecessary things too early.
Jeremy Bentham's ''penopticon'', also described by historian and philosopher, Michel Foucault, in his book 'Discipline and Punish' (who criticized it), was the final aspect of the lecture. 'Penopticon' was a circular prison building with only one guard required, located in the middle. It supposed to make prisoners feeling always watched and so they wouldn't repeat their crimes.
In the twenty-first century it is so much easier to watch... there are CCTV cameras all over the place, generally easy access to the media or internet, phone cameras that capture whatever we want at any time. We are looked at intensively, even when we're not aware of it; we're judged and objectified every day.
No comments:
Post a Comment