Manner can non last without the media. Its success as both an art signifier and a commercial endeavor depends upon attending in the media. The media have played a critical function in determining manner into the complex cultural phenomenon it has become. Photography. and subsequently movie and telecasting. have medialised manner. Manner has become an intrinsic portion of today’s ocular civilization. and frailty versa. Fashion magazines. slicks and women’s diaries can non be without manner. but manner besides can non be without these magazines. This chapter looks at ocular civilization and the ways in which manner is ‘fashioned’ by the media. The first half of the chapter gives a theoretical background to understanding modern-day ocular civilization. The 2nd half of the chapter provides an debut to the many ways that media theory can be used to analyze and understand manner. Ocular civilization
Since the innovation of picture taking. movie. telecasting. picture. CD-Rom and the Internet. we have quickly shifted from a written civilization to a ocular civilization: ‘We live in a civilization of images. a society of the spectacle. a universe of glosss and simulacra’ ( Mitchell 1994: 5 ) . Contemporary ocular civilization is both omnipresent and complex. The image no longer stands by itself. but is informed by multimedia ; it is normally integrated with text and music. A manner exposure comes with a caption or an attach toing text. A manner show doesn’t work without music or a stage dancing of traveling organic structures. Apart from their multimedia facet. images besides circulate in a planetary media society in which all sorts of genres and media are assorted. Precisely because this ocular civilization is so dominant on the one manus and so complex on the other. we need theoretical tools in order to be able to understand images. including images of manner.
To make justness to the complexness of ocular civilization. it is necessary to present inquiries on the footing of an interdisciplinary model: inquiries about significance and political orientation ; individuality and ocular pleasance ; engineering and economic system. Theoretical penetration creates media literacy. We can therefore get an attitude towards the media we use every twenty-four hours that has competently been described by Laura Mulvey as ‘passionate detachment’ ( 1989: 26 ) . Before providing a figure of analytical instruments in the 2nd half of this chapter. I would foremost wish to put ocular civilization within the model of postmodernism. I
Theoretical model Postmodernity
Although the term ‘postmodernism’ is frequently described as vague and indeterminate. there are definite ways in which it can be characterised. Here I make a differentiation between a ) postmodernity. B ) postmodern doctrine and degree Celsius ) postmodernism as a motion in art and civilization ( Van den Braembussche 2000 ) . First of all. postmodernity. Postmodernity refers to the age we are presently populating in. peculiarly the information society that has arisen since the 1960ss. It is a inquiry. so. of an historical period in which we live. The information society can be characterised as ‘postcolonial’ : after the Second World War. the settlements in the Third World achieved independency at a fast rate. This society is besides ‘postindustrial’ : heavy industry has been replaced by the exchange of services. From the 1960ss onwards. these services have progressively been characterised by information engineering. set in gesture by the coming of the computing machine. Science and engineering are indispensable and give form to our society. While the industrial society still functioned mostly around belongings ( who has control of the agencies of production? ) . the information society is chiefly about entree ( ‘xs4all’ : ‘access for all’ ) – entree to information. that is to state. to knowledge. Postmodernity means a networked society in which everything and everyone is connected with each other via aggregate media such as telecasting and the Internet. Another feature is globalization.
Globalization has taken topographic point with the media ( you can watch CNN and MTV all over the universe ) and with capital ( you can utilize hard currency machines anyplace in the universe ) . And with manner. Benetton’s multi-racial runs show the more benign face of globalization. but. to be just. they have besides drawn attending to the more blue effects of globalization. Using the features of postmodernity to manner. we get the undermentioned image. In the yesteryear. manner was dependent on cloths like silk. cotton and cashmere – every bit good as inspiration – that the West imported from its settlements. In the 1970ss the Hippies came alongwith their renewed involvement in non-Western vesture. With the deconstructivist manner of Nipponese interior decorators like Yamamoto in the 1880ss. the first non-Western interior decorators broke open the closed. elitist manner universe. Now they have been succeeded by other interior decorators such as Hussein Chalayan. Xuly Bet and Alexander Herchovitch. With the Fashion Weeks in India and Africa. manner has become globalised. When we look at the manner industry. the image is even clearer.
Whereas the Dutch manner industry was originally established here in Holland itself- in Enschede for illustration – it has now mostly moved to low-wage states in Asia or the former East Block. Expression at the label in your jumper or pants and most likely you’ll find ‘Made in Taiwan’ or something similar. Globalization consequences in inexpensive vesture and tremendous net incomes in the West. but besides in protests against development. such as against the Nikes made by little kids in Pakistan. These maltreatments signalled the start of the No Logo and anti-globalisation motions. Postmodern doctrine
Second. postmodern doctrine. Two impressions are of import here: ‘the terminal of the Grand Narratives’ and ‘the decease of the traditional subject’ . These words suggest that Western civilization is traveling through a crisis. Harmonizing to the postmodern philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard. Western civilization is no longer able to state any ‘Grand Narratives’ . by which he is mentioning to the terminal of political orientation. This implies that political orientations ( ‘isms’ like Marxism or Feminism. but besides faiths such as Christianity ) can no longer supply modern adult male with a meaningful frame of mention. Ideology finds itself in a crisis of legitimatisation. no longer able to denote the truth or to proclaim a hereafter Utopia. This does non intend. of class. that everyone has given up their beliefs ; on the contrary. we are really seeing a return to political orientation and faith. But. Lyotard argues. cipher can enforce that belief or that political orientation on others as the one and merely truth.
Peoples who still try to bring down any sort of truth upon others are called fundamentalists today. The terminal of the Grand Narratives is non merely a negative procedure. For most people it is emancipating to be freed from a nonreversible. enforced truth. What’s more. it has led to a blooming of‘small narratives’ in postmodern civilization. Now that there is no 1 dominant truth. many people have the right and freedom to state their narratives. including those who antecedently had few chances to make so. such as adult females. workers. inkinesss. immature people. You see the same development in art: there is no longer one dominant motion but a battalion of waies. And we see the same pluralism in manner. No longer a ‘Grand Narrative’ dictated by a individual manner male monarch. or even by merely one metropolis. but a battalion of positions coming from many interior decorators. in assorted metropoliss and different parts of the universe. The terminal of the Grand
Narrative besides has effects for the position of human subjectiveness. The traditional impression of the person is that he ( it was about ever a he ) represents an independent and consistent entity. endowed with ground. It was chiefly depth psychology that put an terminal to this impression. Harmonizing to Freud. the human being is non at all governed by his ground. but instead by his unconscious. And it was Marx who claimed that it is our category that determines who we are. We may believe we are persons. but in fact we are defined by our category. ethnicity. age. sexual penchant. faith. nationality and so on – the list is eternal. In fact. so. we are non truly an independent and consistent entity. This is why postmodernism no longer refers to an ‘individual’ but to a ‘subject’ . A topic. moreover. that is split. fragmented. splintered. As a piece of graffito in Paris in the 1880ss put it. ‘God is dead. Marx is dead. And I don’t experience so good either’ . A more positive manner of explicating this thought of disconnected subjectiveness is by analogy with the web society: the topic. the ego. ever stands in relation to an other. Alternatively of being independent we are all incorporated in a cloth of complex and nomadic dealingss. Our individuality is to be found. as it were. on a node of communicating cir
cuits. The postmodern topic is therefore characterised by a dynamic and a diverseness that were foreign to the traditional person. This alteration in the place of the human being has had the same consequence as the terminal of the Grand Narratives: many more people can now do a claim to subjectiveness who were antecedently excluded. such as inkinesss. adult females and homophiles. This can besides be witnessed by the acknowledgment of art and civilization produced by adult females. people of coloring material. and creative persons from the so called ‘Third World’ . This development has resulted in a much greater freedom in the formation of human individuality. Just expression at pop civilization. where person like Madonna assumes a different image with the regularity of a clock. Today you can play with your individuality by gender bending. for illustration. Or by crossings with other cultural civilizations. such as Surinamese or Dutch Muslims who borrow elements from the American black hip-hop subculture. Fashion is an of import constituent of the drama with individuality. In earlier yearss it was your gender and your category that determined what you had to have on. and there were rigorous regulations that were non so easy to offend. These regulations now merely use to the Queen. Everyone else stands in forepart of the closet each forenoon to find which apparels fit his or her temper: Baroque. Gothic. sexy. or possibly businesslike today after all? Postmodernism
Third. the term postmodernism as applied to art and civilization. A important feature of postmodernism is the melting differentiation between high and low civilization. Over the class of the 20th century the traditional impression of civilization has been freed from its connexion with elitist art. Scholars nowadays employ a wide impression of civilization. based on Raymond Williams’s celebrated look ‘culture as a whole manner of life’ ( 1958 ) . Here it concerns a position of civilization as a pattern within a societal and historical context. The stiff differentiation between high and low
civilization is no longer well-founded. In any instance. it was ever mostly based on the contention between word and image in Western civilization. where the word is seen as the look of the high quality of the head and the image as showing emotion and the baser desires of the organic structure. The displacement from a textual to a ocular civilization means the image is no longer viewed in strictly negative footings but is valued for all its positive powers and the experiences it evokes. Furthermore. ‘high’ civilization and ‘low’ civilization can non be unambiguously linked to peculiar subjects ( read: literature versus telecasting ) . Every art signifier has its low cultural look. Just think of the portrayals of the itinerant male child with a tear running down his face or mush romantic novels. ‘High’ is stepping off its base: haute couture is influenced by street civilization. ‘Low’ is upgraded and receives attending in newspaper art addendums or is exhibited in the museum. Advertising exposures from Benetton. computing machine art by Micha Klein and manner exposures by Inez new wave Lamsweerde have all been shown in Dutch museums.
Democratisation and commercialization are besides important to the treatment of ‘high’ and ‘low’ . Increased prosperity and airing via the media have brought art and manner to within about everyone’s range. The tremendous Numberss of visitants to major exhibitions testify to this. as does the ‘festivalisation’ of large metropoliss. Culture is ‘in’ and is thirstily consumed in big measures. Furthermore. commerciality is no longer associated entirely with low civilization ; it has penetrated high civilization. as can be deduced from the hebdomadal top 10 lists for literature. the hemorrhoids of Cadmiums of music by Bach and Mozart in the local supermarket. Audi’s sponsoring of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. or Karl Lagerfeld’s designs at H & A ; M. Another postmodern characteristic is inter- textuality. which amounts to the thought that a text ever refers to other texts. Every text is a web of citations. borrowed words and mentions. This term does non. of class. merely stand for a narrow position of text ; images likewise endlessly refer to each other. Advertising musca volitanss refer to videoclips. which borrow from telecasting series. which in their bend quotation mark movies. which are themselves based on a novel. And that fresh refers once more to a drama by Shakespeare. and so on and so on. It’s an eternal game. Madonna’s picture cartridge holder ‘Material Girl’ refers for illustration to Marilyn Monroe’s vocal ‘Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend’ in the movie ‘Gentlemen Prefer Blondes’ . In an advertisement forEstee Lauder aroma. the theoretical account walks through a digital field of flowers that is indistinguishable to the one Madonna walks through in hervideoclip ‘Love Profusion’ . Nicole Kidman. in the commercial for Chanel No. 5. does a perfect repetition of her function in ‘Moulin Rouge’ . Some managers. such as Baz Luhr- adult male or Quentin Tarantino. hold made inter- textuality their hallmark. A big portion of the ocular pleasance in modern-day civilization is based on acknowledgment: the more mentions you can put. the more clever you feel as spectator. Some theoreticians. such as Frederic Jameson. name the postmodern signifier of intertextuality a ‘pastiche’ . A medley is a textual or ocular citation which simply repeats ; sheer quoting is the name of the game.
The mention has no deeper significance because all historical connexions are abandoned. This can besides be found in manner. If you look at a John Galliano creative activity you can recognize countless citations: from other civilizations ( cultural prints ) . from other times ( 19th century silhouette ) . from street civilization ( ‘bag lady’ with shopping cart and plastic bags ) and even from the circus ( clown-like makeup ) . Everything is thrown into a large heap while elements are wrenched from their historical clip and geographical context. A term frequently used in this connexion is ‘bricolage’ . which literally means doing make. We’ve go a ‘cut & A ; paste’ civilization. where everyone can putter approximately and scramble together their apparels and even their individuality. Postmodernist civilization is therefore characterised by medley and bricolage. It’s non ever an easy affair to bespeak the significance of this cultural phenomenon. but it does do manner playful and flexible. without it being compelled into an overruling ‘Grand Narrative’ . A concluding feature of postmodernism that I would wish to discourse is the passage from representation to simulation. We have already seen that postmodern medley – citing. adoption and mentioning – does non needfully hold any deeper significance. This is because postmodern civilization no longer represents. but simulates. This procedure is dependent upon the function of media engineering. 1963 Amsterdam ( NED )
In 2003 the magazine American Photo put together a list of the 25 best lensmans in the universe. That list contained one Dutch name: Inez new wave Lamsweerde. Both an creative person and a manner lensman. she has ignored the spliting line between art. manner and commercial work from the really get downing. And successfully. Her work is shown in many slicks such as The Face. Vogue and Arena Homme Plus ( columns and advertisement runs ) every bit good as in international museums and galleries. Her signature is clearly recognizable in both countries. Inez new wave Lamsweerde one time said in an interview that she was obsessed with beauty. It’s ever people she photographs – or recreates. to be precise. Her digitally altered animals are estranging. Too smooth. excessively clone-like. excessively impersonal to be to the full human. She frequently bases her work on ideal female images from the mass media and the organic structure civilization in connexion with cistron engineering. surgery and anaerobic exercise. the use of the organic structure. individuality and sex. In the series ‘Final Fantasy’ ( 1993 ) three-year-old misss posed flirtatiously in satin underwear but with the oral cavities of grownup work forces superimposed on their faces.
The cloyingly sweet eroticised tot turns out to be a child devil. The series ‘The Forest’ V995? ) shows mWd-manneted passwe work forces vjWV women’s custodies. and the adult females in ‘Thank You Thighmaster’ ( 1993 ) are truly mutations who resemble manikins. without organic structure hair and with a impersonal tegument surface where mammillas and genitalias are supposed to be. The camera doesn’t prevarication? You surely hope it does. Many theoretical accounts in Van Lamsweerde’s manner exposures are hyperstylised. overdone stereotypes. absolutely beautiful. without abnormalities and without single characteristics. They move in a hyperrealistic scene in which the whole consequence sometimes suggests the work of Guy Bourdin ( for illustration. see the series ‘Invisible Words’ in Blvd 2. 1994 ) . But her work is more various than that of the old maestro. so it is besides less likely to be related to a certain clip period. Inez new wave Lamsweerde graduated from Amsterdam’s Rietveld Academy in 1990.
That same twelvemonth she got her foremost photography assignment. the consequences of which appeared in Modus. In 1992 she received the Dutch Photography Prize every bit good as the European Kodak Prize ( gold in the classs Fashion and People/Portraits ) . Since the early 1890ss she has been working about wholly with her hubby. Vinoodh Matadin. Today Van Lamsweerde and Matadin live and work chiefly in New York. The most recent developments in their work suggest a penchant for less reconstructed exposure. In 2002 they took nine black-and-white exposures of the members of the theater group ‘Mug met de Gouden Tand’ ( Mosquito with the Gold Tooth ) . In 2003 they produced a bare calendar for Vogue. All without digital effects. Literature:
Hainley. Bruce. ‘Inez van Lamsweerde’ . Art- Forum. October 2004. Inez new wave Lamsweerde ‘Photographs’ . Deichtor- hallen Hamburg: Schirmer/Mosel. 1999. Jonkers. Gert. ‘Inez en Vinoodh’ . Volkskrant Magazine. 22 February 2003. Kauw op het lijf. Rotterdam: Nederlands Foto Instituut. 1998. Schutte. Xandra. ‘Perverse onschuld’ . De Groene Amsterdamer. 10 September 1997. Terreehorst. Pauline. Modus: Over mensen manner en het leven. Amsterdam: De Balie. 1990. Illustration:
Inez new wave Lamsweerde. Devorah and Mienke. 1993
In the old construct of art. with Plato or Kant for illustration. a work of art refers to something deeper or higher beyond world. Every work of art is alone and therefore unreplaceable. Equally early as the 1930s Walter Benjamin argued that the function of the work of art was altering because of generative engineerings. With the innovation of picture taking and movie ( and subsequently telecasting and the Internet ) . any image can be reproduced boundlessly. A transcript of Rembrandt’s ‘The Night- watch’ ever remains a transcript of a celebrated. original picture. whereas a transcript of Man Ray’s exposure of Kiki as a fiddle has no original. In the age of mechanical reproduction the differentiation between original and transcript hence disappears. and with it what Benjamin calls art’s ‘aura’ . viz. that which makes a work of art unique and original.
For manner. generative engineering ab initio meant an tremendous stimulation. since images of designs could be disseminated via the mediums of magazines and telecasting. But in manner. excessively. the transcript has now overtaken the original design. A twenty-four hours after the manner shows in Paris or Milan. the exposures are already on the Internet and six hebdomads subsequently H & A ; M can sell replicas in their stores. In Pop Art. Andy Warhol played with the thought of the transcript by bring forthing silk-screened images of tins of Campbell soup or icons like Marilyn Monroe. Another illustration of the loss of aura is the letdown all of us may experience when sing Da Vinci’s ‘Mona Lisa’ or Vermeer’s ‘Girl with the Pearl Earring’ in the museum. We’ve already seen so many reproductions in books. movies. on mugs. towels. with mustache and face fungus. or as a doll. that the original is barely a lucifer for these. Merely if you really win in sing the picture in the silence of the museum ( but can you of all time with all those tourers around you? ) . you may still happen the original aura. In the 1970ss. Jean Baudrillard went a measure further than Benjamin by claiming that non merely art but besides world is altering under the onslaught of the media. He argues that the ubiquitousness of the media turns world into a simulacrum. a transcript of a transcript. The simulacrum abolishes the difference between ‘being’ and ‘appearing’ .
Think of person pretense to be ill – this individual really starts to expose marks of illness. so that it is no longer clear what is existent and what is bogus. It’s the same with postmodernism: our civilization is so thoroughly ‘medialised’ that our experience is determined by the media. Media do non reflect world. but concept it. Or to set it otherwise: media do non stand for world. but simulate it. We all know this phenomenon from our ain experience. When we’re on vacation in Greece. for illustration. we exclaim that the sea is every bit bluish as on the post card. Our experience is determined by an image. in this instance the post card. If we’re on campaign in Kenya. it seems as though we’ve landed in a National Geographic TV programme. And when we say to our beloved ‘I love you’ we can’t assist feeling we’re moving in a soap. Umberto Eco therefore says that we are presuming a lasting dry attitude in postmodern times. We can no longer innocently say ‘I love you’ . because we’ve already seen and heard it a hundred thousand times on Television.
The words have lost their significance every bit good as their genuineness. But what we can make. harmonizing to Eco. is say it with sarcasm: ‘As Ridge in “The Bold and the Beautiful” would state. I love you’ . While world shows on telecasting attempt to imitate life every bit much as possible. life itself has become one large world show. in which being and visual aspect can no longer be separated. In art and in manner we can see a yearning for genuineness. as a nostalgic reaction to the civilization of simulacra. Peoples want something ‘real’ once more in a postmodern civilization in which the spliting line between existent and unreal has become wafer-thin. The inquiry. nevertheless. is whether such genuineness is still possible. Such is the power of the simulacrum that the media have created. Now that I have given an lineation of postmodernism as a frame within which manner maps. it is clip to look more closely at instruments that can be used to analyze images. These analytical methods all come from poststructuralism. the theory implicit in postmodernism. II
The semiotic mark
Poststructuralism was informed in the 1960ss by semiologies. depth psychology and Marxism. Poststructuralism is besides referred to as ‘the lingual turn’ . since linguistic communication formed the theoretical account for the development of these theories. De Saussure’s Hagiographas on semiologies helped to develop a structuralist analysis of the ‘grammar’ of any system. whether a myth. advertizement. movie. manner or novel. as in the work of the anthropologist Levi-Strauss. the early Barthes or the movie semiotician Metz ( Sim 1998 ) . The cardinal thought that linguistic communication is paradigmatic for significance is followed by virtually all postmodern philosophers. Harmonizing to the psychoanalytical theories of Lacan. even the unconscious is structured like a linguistic communication. Although some philosophers pointed out that linguistic communication and meaning are basically unstable. as in the deconstructionism of Derrida. or in Lyotard’s postmodern loss of ‘Grand Narratives’ . text remains the cardinal focal point in poststructuralism. Everything in fact is interpreted as ‘text’ . including image. music or manner. While semiologies ab initio concentrated on literature. bookmans shortly started concentrating on the field of popular civilization. such as architecture. manner. music. athletics. women’s magazines or the picture cartridge holder – to advert a few illustrations at random. Semiotics is the theory of ‘signs’ ( from the Grecian ‘semeion’ . intending mark ) . A mark is the smallest component that carries a significance. Language is the system of marks that we are most familiar with. but traffic marks or. as Barthes has shown. manner are besides gestural systems.
A mark consists of a form ( in French. signifiant ) . the stuff bearer of significance. and the signified ( in French. signifie ) . the content to which mention is made. The letters and sound of the word ‘dress’ form the forms. which refer to the content of a concrete frock. Signifier and signified. signifier and content. together create significance. The relationship between form and signified is about ever arbitrary ; there is. after all. no ground why something is called a frock in English. a ‘jurk’ in Dutch. and a ‘japon’ in French. A mark ever refers to something in world. The first significance of a mark is denotive ; it is the meaningyou can look up in the dictionary. But things rarely have merely one significance ; most marks have many secondary significances. These are called intensions. In that instance. the denotive mark. the form and the signified signifier a new entity. a new form for a new connotative mark. as in the undermentioned diagram: SIGNIFIER| SIGNIFIED| CONNOTATION|
SIGNIFIER| SIGNIFIER| DENOTATION|
A well-known illustration is the ruddy rose. At the denotive degree it is merely a flower with foliages and irritants. In order to go a mark of love. the denotive significance of the flower must go in its bend a form. The mark so forms the footing for a connotative. 2nd significance: love. Why? Because it is agreed upon in our civilization that the rose. particularly the ruddy rose. symbolises love. An Amnesty International posting adds a 3rd significance to this well-known symbol by environing the irritants with biting wire and puting the words ‘violence ceases where love begins’ halfway up the root. The flower therefore becomes a symbol of love and non-violence. while the irritants stand for force. ( Please read the tabular array from the underside up ) . Form: ruddy rose as love| SIGNIFIED: irritants with biting wire love| Second Intension: love is the contrary of violence| SIGNIFIER: ruddy rose| SIGNIFIER: ruddy rose| FIRSTCONNOTATION: My love for you| SIGNIFIER: rose| Form: Flower with irritants and leaves| DENOTATION: Flower of the species Rosa| The multimedia image is an highly complicated mark and can convey intending in many ways. A still image. such as a manner or advertisement exposure. has the undermentioned forms: * position ( camera place: angle. distance )
* photographic facets such as exposure. unsmooth grain. coloring material or black and white * composing or ‘mise-en-scene’ of what is depicted: scene. costume. makeup. attitude and actions of the theoretical account. etc. * text: caption or fable
A moving image. such as movie. telecasting commercials. picture cartridge holder or manner show. has. all of the above facets. plus even more forms: * motion of the theoretical accounts or histrions ; stage dancing
* camera motion ( pan. joust. dolly. tracking )
* sound ( duologue. added sounds like whining door )
Any analysis requires us to briefly look into all these elements. since they influence the significance. Merely so can you find the indication and the intensions. A close- up has a different consequence than a long shooting. Camera motions direct the viewer’s regard. Quick redacting evokes tenseness. Music creates atmosphere. as does illuming. This type of formal analysis shortly reveals that the image is ne’er merely a transcript or a contemplation of world. even though what the camera records is existent. Yet so many technological and aesthetic picks enter into the enrollment that world is ever moulded and constructed. The purpose of analysis is to do this building transparent. Digital images
A formal analysis can be deepened even further by utilizing the semiologies of C. S. Peirce. an American who developed his theories at the same clip in the early 20th century as De Saussure in Switzerland. without their being cognizant of each other. Peirce’s semiologies is used more frequently for analyzing images because he focuses less on text than De Saussure does. Peirce argues that there are three kinds of relationships between the form and the signified: iconic. indexical and symbolic. An iconic relationship means that there is a similarity or resemblance between the form and the signified. An illustration of an iconic relationship is the portrayal: the image ( the form ) resembles that which is portrayed ( the signified ) . An indexical relationship presumes an existent connexion between form and
signified. A authoritative illustration is smoke as the form of fire. or the footmark in the sand as the form of the presence of a adult male on an ‘uninhabited’ island.
The symbolic relationship corresponds to what De Saussure calls the arbitrary relation between signifier and signified: the ruddy rose is a convention. based on an understanding. Yet this remains a moot point. because the rose has an iconic relation to the female sex organ. It is this resemblance that has likely led to the rose going a symbol for love. All three relationships apply to the automatically consistent image. like the exposure or movie. An image is ever iconic since that which is depicted shows a resemblance to the forms: every exposure is a portrayal of a individual or an object. Something that is photographed or filmed is besides ever indexical: there is a facturelationship. since the camera records reality-with the camera you prove that you’ve been someplace ( ‘I was here’ ; the ocular cogent evidence that tourists bring place as their trophy ) . Finally. the image. like linguistic communication. has symbolic significances. which are created through an interplay of the many audiovisual forms mentioned above. Digital engineering has put the indexi- cal relation under strain. because we can no longer cognize with certainty whether an image is linear. and therefore standing in a factual relation to world. or digital. made in the computing machine without an experiential relation to world.
Digital images therefore create confusion. In semiotic footings: they maintain the iconic relation. for they look merely like exposures and expose a similarity between signifier and signified. But digital images are no longer indexical. This is what happens in Diesel’s ‘Save Yourself’ exposure series. We see bantam theoretical accounts who look like people ( iconic relation ) . but all the same seem unreal. Their tegument is excessively smooth. the positions excessively stiff. the eyes excessively glassy. We suspect shortly plenty that the image has been digitally manipulated. which disturbs the indexical relation – these are non existent shootings of existent people. The tenseness between the iconic and the indexical relationship draws attending to the tenseness between existent and unreal. And this creates a symbolic significance. Together with the text. the photographs remark ironically on our culture’s compulsion with staying foreveryoung. Sometimes the digital use is instantly clear. as in this image of Kate Moss as a bionic man: a cybernetic being. Because this is clearly an impossible image of a half human / half machine figure. we don’t acquire confused about the indexical position of the exposure.
Its symbolic significance is instantly evident. which here excessively represents a remark on the unreal ideal of beauty. It is typical of digital picture taking to make images of people that are like bionic man. since many art and manner exposure in today’s ocular civilization explore the fluid boundary lines between adult male. machine and manikin. Looking and being looked at I: the voyeuristic regard
Manner is profoundly involved with erotism and gender. To analyze this we can turn to psychoanalysis. which determines how we shape our desires. The most authoritative theoretical account for desire is the Oedipus composite. which regulates how the kid focuses its love of the parent onto the other sex and undertakings feelings of competition onto the parent of the same sex. This is more complicated for misss because they at first experience love for the female parent and subsequently have to change over this into love for the male parent. while the male child can go on his love for the female parent without break.
The Oedipus composite is peculiarly applicable in narratives. in both literature and movie. but in the manner universe it really plays no important function. and so I won’t be traveling into it any farther here. More relevant to manner is the erotism of looking. Harmonizing to Freud. any desire or gender begins with looking. or what he calls scopophilia ( literally the love of looking ) . The desiring regard frequently leads to touch and finally to sexual activities. Although it has a instead soiled sound to it. scopophilia is a rather ordinary portion of the sexual thrust. Film theoreticians were speedy to claim that the medium of film is in fact based on scopophilia: in the darkness of the film theatre we are voyeurs permitted to look at the screen for every bit long as we like. There is ever something titillating in watching movies. in contrast to telecasting which does non offer the same voyeuristic conditions since the visible radiation is on in the life room. the screen is much smaller and there are all kinds of distractions.
Laura Mulvey ( 1975 ) was the first theoretician to pull attending to the critical function of gender in ocular pleasance. The active and inactive side of scopophilia ( voyeurism and exhibitionism severally ) are relegated to rigorous functions of work forces and adult females. As John Berger. in his celebrated book Ways of Seeing. had already argued. ‘men act and adult females appear’ . or instead. work forces look and adult females are looked at. Harmonizing to Mulvey. this works every bit follows in classical film. The male character is watching a adult female. with the camera shooting what the adult male sees ( a so- called ‘point of position shot’ ) . The witness in the film theater therefore looks at the adult female through the eyes of the male character. The female organic structure is furthermore ‘cut up’ into fragments by bordering and redacting: a piece of leg. a chest. the natess or the face. The female organic structure is therefore depicted in a disconnected manner. We can therefore state that there’s a threefold regard that collapses into each other: the male character. the camera and the witness. Mulvey argues that the movie witness ever adopts a structurally male place. It is of import to gain that the filmic agencies. such as camera operation. framing. redaction and frequently music every bit good. exteriorize the woman’s organic structure into a spectacle. In Mulvey’s words. the adult female is signified as ‘to-be-looked-at-ness’ . At the same clip the filmic means privilege the male character so that he can actively look. speak and act. Mulvey takes her analysis even further
with the aid of depth psychology. The voyeuristic regard upon the female organic structure arouses desire and hence creates tenseness for both the male character and the witness. Furthermore. the woman’s organic structure is upseting because of its intrinsic difference from the male organic structure. Freud would state the female organic structure is ‘castrated’ . but we can set it slightly more neutrally: the female organic structure is ‘different’ . In a society dominated by work forces. adult females are the mark of sexual difference. In most civilizations. it is ( still? ) the instance that the woman-as-other. viz. as other than adult male. endows sexual difference with significance. Otherness. unfamiliarity. difference ever instils fright. The distinctness of adult females incites fear in work forces at an unconscious degree and this fright needs to be exorcised through civilization. in movie or art.
Harmonizing to Mulvey. this happens in cinematic narratives in two ways. First. through sadism where the female organic structure is controlled and inserted into the societal order. Sadism chiefly accompanies a narrative and acquires signifier in the narrative construction. The titillating regard often consequences in force or colza. Nor is it inadvertent that in the authoritative Hollywood movie the femme fatale is killed away at the terminal of the film. No happy terminal for any adult female who is sexually active. Merely in the 1890ss is she allowed to populate on at the terminal. like Catherine Trammell in ‘Basic Instinct’ . or in telecasting series like ‘Sex and the City’ . The 2nd manner of exorcizing the fright evoked by the female organic structure is through fetichism. In that instance the female star is turned into an image of perfect beauty that diverts attending from her difference. her distinctness. The camera fetishises the woman’s organic structure by lingering infinitely on the spectacle of female beauty. At such minutes the movie narrative comes momently to a clasp. Although Mulvey’s analysis day of the months from the 1970ss. her penetrations are still of considerable relevancy for manner today. The spectacle of manner shows is about wholly constructed around looking at fetishised female organic structures. Models have taken the topographic point of movie stars as the fetishised image of perfected muliebrity.
Many manner coverages make usage in one manner or another of the sexu- alised drama of looking and being looked at. However. some things have changed since the clip of Mulvey’s analysis. Feminist unfavorable judgment has so counteracted women’s passiveness in recent decennaries. and now we frequently see a more active and playful function for the female theoretical account. Not merely is the adult female less inactive. but both manner and other popular ocular genres such as video cartridge holders have turned the male organic structure into the object of the voyeuristic regard. Now the male organic structure excessively is being fragmented. objectified and eroticised. This is go oning non merely in manner coverages but besides on the catwalk. It may be interesting for pupils of manner to take a closer expression at how the male organic structure is visualised. how inactive or active the male theoretical account is. and how the regard is supported by filmic or other agencies. Ethnicity besides plays a function in the game of looking and being looked at. Stuart Hall ( 1997 ) and Jan Nederveen Pieterse ( 1992 ) have produced an extended historical analysis of the manner that coloured and black people are depicted in Western civilization.
Stereotypes are abundant. as in the image of the alien black adult female as Venus or the black adult male as sexually endangering. There are still really few black theoretical accounts in the manner universe. Again. it may be utile for pupils of manner to analyze how ethnicity is visualised because of this long history of pigeonholing. Does exoticising the theoretical account. for illustration. underscore ethnicity? Or does it affect an existent denial of cultural difference? This happens for illustration in manner exposures of Naomi Campbell with consecutive aureate hair. or have oning bluish contact lenses. Here. the black theoretical account has to conform to the white norm of ideal beauty. Looking and being looked at II: the egotistic regard So far I have been speaking about looking at the other. but depth psychology besides has something to state about looking at yourself. As a babe you are barely witting of yourself. because that ego. or in psychoanalytical nomenclature the self-importance. still has to be constructed.
A primary minute in ego formation is what Jacques Lacan has called the mirror stage. A 2nd of import minute is the aforesaid Oedipus composite in which linguistic communication plays a major function. The mirror stage. nevertheless. precedes linguistic communication and takes topographic point in the Imaginary. the kingdom of images. When you’re between six and 18 months. and so still a babe. you’re normally held in your mother’s weaponries in forepart of the mirror. In placing with its mirror image. the kid learns to recognize itself in the mirror and to separate itself from the female parent. This designation is of import for the building of the child’s ain individuality. For Lacan. it is important that this designation is based on the mirror image. He argues that the mirror image is ever an idealization. because the kid undertakings an ideal image of itself. In the mirror the kid sees itself as a integrity. while it still experiences its ain organic structure as a amorphous mass with no control over its limbs. The acknowledgment of the ego in the mirror image is in fact a ‘misrecognition’ . The kid is really placing with the image of itself as other. viz. as a more ideal ego that he or she hopes to go in the hereafter. Merely look into how you look at yourself in the mirror at place: in fact you ever look at yourself through the eyes of the other.
Harmonizing to Lacan. this is in a certain sense man’s calamity: we build our individuality on an ideal image that we can ne’er populate up to. In his eyes. so. we are ever doomed to failure at an experiential degree. We can take the mirror really literally ( it is striking how frequently mirrors characteristic in movies. videoclips. advertizements and manner exposures ) . but we can besides construe the procedure more metaphorically. For case. the kid sees an ideal image of itself reflected in the eyes of its adoring parents who put him or her on a base: for your parents you’re ever the most beautiful kid in the universe. And justly so. When we’re older we see that ideal image reflected in the eyes of our beloved. We need that ideal image in order to be able to organize and prolong our self-importance. It’s a healthy egotistic regard that is necessary for our individuality. That self-importance is ne’er ‘finished’ . nevertheless ; it has to be nurtured and molded clip and clip once more. And this is helped by internalizing ideal images. The analysis of the mirror stage has been applied to many phenomena within ocular civilization.
The movie hero or heroine maps as the ideal image with which we identify ourselves. In the manner universe it’s the theoretical accounts. In fact you could denominate ocular civilization as a whole in this manner: dad stars. theoretical accounts and histrions all offer us chances for placing with ideal images. Fan civilization is mostly based on this egotistic designation. There’s another side to it. of class. In a civilization in which young person. fittingness and beauty are going more and more of import. the ideal image becomes of all time more unachievable. Many people are no longer able to recognize themselves in that prescribed ideal image and are highly dissatisfied with their visual aspect. That so leads to defeat and drastic steps like plastic surgery. or to complaints like anorexia and binge-eating syndrome. In that instance the egotistic regard in the mirror falls short of outlooks. Looking and being looked at III: the panoptical regard
So far we have chiefly been concerned with analyzing the desiring regard: the voyeuristic expression at the other ( the desire to ‘possess’ the other ) and the egotistic expression at oneself ( the desire to ‘be’ the other ) . It is besides possible to do a more sociological analysis of the drama of expressions in society. This brings us to the historian Michel Foucault. who has made a thorough analysis of how power works. Alternatively of seeing power as something that the 1 has and the other deficiencies. he argues that in modern civilization power circulates in a continual drama of dialogue. struggle and confrontation. opposition and contradictions.
Changes sing power are reflected in linguistic communication. Whereas you were a victim in earlier yearss. now you’re an expert of experience. In this manner you give yourself a certain power. viz. the power of experience. even if that experience is unpleasant. One manner of determining power in our modern civilization is by agencies of surveillance. or what Foucault calls the ‘panoptical’ regard. He derived this from the architecture of eighteenth-century prisons which had a cardinal tower in a round edifice with cells. A cardinal authorization. out of sight within the tower. could detect every captive in every cell. The captives were besides unable to see each other.
The panoptical regard means that a big group of people can be put under changeless guard and examination. while they can non look back. In this manner. says Foucault. they are disciplined to act decently. Today the function of surveillance and monitoring has been taken over by cameras. Everyone knows there are security cameras ‘guarding our and your property’ in the street. in Stationss and supermarkets. in coachs and ropewaies and in museums. The cognition that we are invariably and everyplace being watched by an anon. engineering possibly gives us a feeling of security ( or the semblance of security ) . What is more of import is that the panoptical regard subjects us to be orderly citizens. A big grade of subject emanates from changeless observation. Just as with Lacan’s mirror stage. we can construe the panoptical regard more metaphorically. It is non merely security cameras that are making a panopticum. but besides the ubiquity of media such as telecasting and the Internet. Crime ticker programmes show us images from surveillance picture in order to catch ‘villains’ . while world programmes uncover how our fellow citizens commit traffic offenses.
Satellites revolving in infinite maintain a lasting oculus on us. Mobile telephones are usually equipped with GPS ( Global Positioning System ) and ever cognize where we are to be found. When I was on vacation in Italy. my nomadic phone sent me messages like ‘you are now in Pisa. where you can see the Leaning Tower’ or ‘you are now in Piazza Signoria in Florence ; did you know that Michelangelo’s David…’ and so on. For a minute I was that small miss once more who knows that God is ever watching over her. But godly ubiquity has now been replaced by an anon. . panoptical regard. Our surfing behavior on the Internet and our buying behavior in the supermarket are registered in the same manner. We can convey these three ways of seeing together. With the voyeuristic regard we discipline the other ; we all know that secret expression which we use to O.K. or disapprove of person at a glimpse. With the egotistic regard we discipline ourselves. through the wish to carry through an ideal image. By internalizing the panoptical regard we discipline our societal behavior. every bit good as our organic structures.
Fashion plays an of import function in this complicated drama of regards. You merely have to roll around any school resort area or look around you in the street to gain how manner determines whether person belongs or non. what the ideal images are. and how groups keep an oculus on each other. training each other as to ‘correct’ vesture. Through vesture I can do myself sexually attractive for the voyeuristic regard of the other. Or I can subject the other to my voyeuristic regard if I find their organic structure and apparels attractive. I can utilize vesture to build my ain individuality and emanate a peculiar ideal image. But manner is more than merely vesture. Fashion besides dictates a specific ideal of beauty. That beauty myth determines how we discipline our organic structures. for illustration by subjecting them to diets. fittingness. beauty interventions such as waxing. hairlessness. bleaching and even to plastic surgery. In short. manner finally affects the organic structure excessively. We see an illustration of that in the digital exposure series ‘Electrum corpus’ by Christophe Luxerau. which shows us how manner is literally engraved on the tegument: the logo has become our tegument. Bibliography
Baudrillard. Jean. 5/w«/ai/ow5. New York: Semiotext ( vitamin E ) . 1983. Braembussche. A. A. van lair. Denken over kunst: Een inleiding in dekunstfilosofie. 3rd. revised erectile dysfunction. Bussum: Coutinho. 2000. Docherty. Thomas. erectile dysfunction. Postmodernism: A reader. New York: Columbia University Press. 1993. Jameson. Fredric. Postmodernism. or the cultural logic of late capitalist economy. London: Verso. 1991 Lyotard. Jacques. The postmodern status. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1984. Sim. Stuart. erectile dysfunction. The icon critical lexicon of postmodern thought. Cambridge: Icon Books. 1998. Smelik. Anneke. ‘Carrousel der seksen ; gender benders in videoclips’ . in Een beeid new wave een vrouw. De visualisering new wave het vrouwelijke in een postmoderne cultuur. edited by R. Braidotti. 19-49. Kampen: Kok Agora. 1993. English version can be downloaded fromwww. annekesmelik. nl ( & gt ; publications & gt ; articles ) . Woods. Tim. Get downing postmodernism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1999. On civilization and cultural surveies:
Baetens. Jan and Ginette Verstraete. explosive detection systems. Cultural surveies: Een inleiding. Nijmegen: Vantilt. 2002. Cavallaro. Dani. Critical & A ; cultural theory. London: Athlone Press. 2001. During. Simon. erectile dysfunction. The cultural surveies reader. London: Routledge. 1993. Grossberg. Lawrence. Cary Nelson. Paula Treichler. explosive detection systems.
Cultural surveies. Routledge: New York. 1992.
Smelik. Anneke. ‘Met de ogen wijd dicht. De visuele wending in de cultuurwetenschap’ . in Cultuurwetenschappen in Nederland en Belgie. Een staalkaart voor de toekomst. edited by Sophie Levie and Edwin van Meerkerk. Nijmegen: Vantilt. 2005. Storey. John. erectile dysfunction. What is cultural surveies? A reader. London: Arnold. 1996. Williams. Raymond. Culture and society: 1780-1950. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1958. On ocular civilization:
Benjamin. Walter. ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’ . reprinted in Illuminations. 217-251. New York: Schocken Books. 1968 ( 1935 ) .
Berger. John. Ways of seeing. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1972. Foucault. Michel. ‘Panopticism’ . in Discipline & A ; punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books. 1979 ( 1975 ) . Hall. Stuart. Representation. London. Sage. 1997. Mirzoeff. Nicholas. The ocular civilization reader. London: Routledge. 1999. Mitchell. William. Picture theory: Essaies on verbal and ocular representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1994. Mitchell. William. The reconfigured oculus: Ocular truth in the station photographic epoch. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2001 ( 1992 ) . Peters. Jan Marie. Het beeid: Bouwstenen voor een algemene iconologie. Antwerpen: Hadewijch. 1996. Smelik. Anneke. with R. Buikema and M. Meijer.
Effectief beeldvormen: Theorie. praktijk en analyse new wave beeldvormingsprocessen. Assen: new wave Gorcum. 1999. ( out of print: the book can be downloaded from World Wide Web. annekesmelik. nl ( & gt ; publications & gt ; books ) Smelik. Anneke. ‘Zwemmen in het asfalt. Het behagen in de visuele cultuur’ . Tijdschrift voor communicatiewetenschap 32. no. 3 ( 2004 ) : 292-304. The essay can be downloaded from World Wide Web. annekesmelik. nl ( & gt ; publications & gt ; books & gt ; oratie ) Sturken. Marita and Lisa Cartwright. Practices of looking: An debut to ocular civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. On ocular civilization and gender:
Carson. Diane. Linda Dittmar. and Janice R. Welsch.
explosive detection systems. Multiple voices in feministfilm unfavorable judgment. London and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1994- Carson. Fiona and Claire Pajaczkowska. Fem/m’si ocular civilization. London: Routledge. 2001.
Easthope. Anthony. What a man’s got ta bash: The masculine myth in popular civilization. London: Paladin. 1986. Mulvey. Laura. ‘Visual pleasance and narrative cinema’ . in Visual and other pleasances. 14-26. London: Macmillan. 1989 ( 1975 ) . Neale. Steve. ‘Masculinity as spectacle’ . Screen 24. no. 6 ( 1983 ) : 2-16. Simpson. Mark. Male imitators: Work force executing maleness. London: Cassell. 1993. Smelik. Anneke. And the mirror cracked: Feminist film and movie theory. London: Palgrave: 1998 Smelik. Anneke. ‘Feminist movie theory’ . in The film book. 2nd erectile dysfunction. . edited by Pam Cook and Mieke Bernink. 353-365. London: British Film Institute Publishing. 1999. The essay can be downloaded from World Wide Web. annekesmelik. nl ( & gt ; publications & gt ; articles ) On ocular civilization and ethnicity:
Dyer. Richard. White. London: Routledge. 1997.
Gaines. Jane. ‘White privilege and looking dealingss: race and gender in feminist movie theory’ . Screen 29. no. 4 ( 1988 ) : 12-27 maulerss. bell. Black looks: Race and representation. Boston: South End Press. 1992.
Nederveen Pieterse. Jan. White on black: Images of inkinesss and Africa in Western popular civilization. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1992. Ross. Karen. Black and white media: Black images in popular movie and telecasting. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1996. Shohat. Ella and Robert Stam. UnthinkingEurocentrism:
Multiculturalism and the media. London: Routledge. 1994. Williams. P. and L. Chrisman. explosive detection systems. Colonial discourse and station colonial theory. New York: Columbia University Press. 1994. Young. Lola. Fear of the dark. ’Race’ . gender and gender in the film. London: Routledge. 1996. On new media:
Bolter. Jay and Robert Grusin. Redress: Understanding new media. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1999. Castells. Manuel. The rise of the web society. Oxford: Blackwell. 1996. Cartwright. Lisa. ‘Film and the digital in ocular surveies. Film surveies in the epoch of convergence’ . Journal of ocular civilization 1. no. 1 ( 2002 ) : 7-23. Manovich. Lev. The linguistic communication of new media. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2001. Mul. Jos de. Cyberspace odyssee. Kampen: Klement. 2002. Rodowick. David. Reading the figurai. or. doctrine after the new media. Durham: Duke University Press. 2001.
St. simons. Jan. Interface en internet: Inleiding in de nieuwe media. Dutch capital: Amsterdam University Press. 2002. On individuality:
Freud. Sigmund. Three essays on the theory of gender.
New York: Basic Books. 1962 ( 1905 ) .
Freud. Sigmund. ‘Female sexuality’ . in Sexuality and the psychological science of love.
New York: Macmillan. 1963 ( 1931 ) . Lacan. Jacques. ‘The mirror phase as formative of the map of the I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience’ . in Ecrits. A choice. 1-7. New York: Norton. 1977 ( 1949 ) – Barthes. Roland. Le systeme de la mode. Paris: Seuil. 1967 R. Barthes & A ; M. Ward. Thefashion system. Berkeley [ etc. ] ( University of California Press ) 1990 Bruzzi. Stella and Pamela Church Gibson. Manner civilizations: Theories. accounts. and analysis. London: Routledge. 2000. Klein. Naomi. No logo. London: Flamingo. 2001.