Visual Rhetoric/Gender and Visual Rhetoric Introduction Gendered images have been effective in perpetuating both the positive and negative connotations that we associate with gender. The history of promotional images, along with the visual rhetoric of advertising sheds light on how the constructs of masculinity and femininity contextualize fabrications of social role, power, status and sexual allure. Specifically, appeals of glamour and the usage of nature images powerfully contribute to the influx of image-based advertising based on gender identification. Additionally, childhood gender development contributes enormously to stereotypes regarding masculinity and femininity. History of Gendered Images Historically, the nudes of European oil paintings portray women and men differently, in specific roles and purposes. Traditionally, women have been seen and judged as sights, while men act as spectators. In other words, women appear while men act. John Berger suggests in his work, Ways of Seeing, that this affects relations between men and women and also the relations of women to themselves. The renowned painting of Adam and Eve was groundbreaking in introducing the concept of nakedness in regard to women being seen as submissive to men. “… the woman is blamed and is punished by being made subservient to the man. In relation to the woman, the man becomes the agent of God” (Berger 48). As paintings became more worldly and had fewer religious undertones, the common denominator remained women illustrated as being seen by a spectator. “She is not naked as she is; she is naked as the spectator sees her” (Berger 50). The facial expressions of women in images also coincides with the notion that they submit to being surveyed. Berger suggests that in poses of women, a woman’s gaze and facial expression sells her femininity. Paintings and photographs often depict this by showing the woman looking over her shoulder at the viewer, rather than at the male shown in the painting or photograph. While these attitudes and ideals regarding the portrayal of women are rampant in photographs and paintings, it has also seeped into popular culture, disseminating into various media, including current advertising, journalism and television. Identification and Advertising Identification fulfills an essential role as it allows advertisers to appeal to each viewer’s individuality. In the article, "Defining Film Rhetoric: The Case of Hitchcock’s Vertigo," David Blakesley introduces the idea of identification as he describes the notion as longing to find similitude between ones self and a particular idea, picture, object, etc. He explains, “we pursue that identification as one way of expressing…pushed to its extreme, we desire to become the other, to inhabit that psychological and physical space, to take ownership of some kind, to walk in someone else’s shoes for awhile” (Blakesley 117). As a result of such desire for identification, women and men are often characterized in a generalized manner, only to appeal to their own gender-specific identify. Diane S. Hope suggests, in her chapter "Gendered Environments: Gender and the Natural World in the Rhetoric of Advertising" from the book, Defining Visual Rhetorics, that advertising demonstrates and perpetuates gender-specific attributes of men and women in order to identify with their gender-specific audiences. Hope comments, “visual rhetoric depends on strategies of identification; advertising’s rhetoric is dominated by appeals to gender as the primary marker of consumer identity. Constructs of masculinity or femininity contextualize fantasies of social role, power, status, and security as well as sexual attractiveness” (155). Within the visual realm of advertising Hope observes how women are often depicted in a way that promotes beauty, fertility and sexuality while men possess more ‘masculine’ attributes. Contrary to feminine traits, masculine attributes include strength, adventurous nature, and physical prowess. Although many of these characteristics and behavioral tendencies are thought to be innate, the advertising industry reintroduces and reiterates such gender roles as the norm. People become conditioned to believe that there are specific and isolated behavioral differences and attributes that define us either as men or women. Such differences have gone beyond the obvious physiological makeup that separates male from female. Glamour Societal roles based on one's gender are defined and controlled by culture and have been reiterated through visual means. See Visual Rhetoric/Cultural Theories of Visual Rhetoric. Such gender roles are especially evident within the visual realm of advertising. Advertisers use visual means to communicate to their viewers feminine and masculine ideals. These gendered ideals are closely linked to the concepts of envy and glamour. “Publicity persuades us of a transformation by showing us people who have apparently been transformed and are, as a result, enviable. The state of being envied is what constitutes glamour” (Berger 131). Predominantly, glamour is a tool used by advertisers and aimed at men and women in an effort to increase consumerism. The language of publicity harps upon the concept of a spectator-buyer imagining himself or herself transformed by a product, and thus an object of envy by others. People crave envy, and this advertising tactic is aimed at both men and women to create consumption of various products. Women are generally persuaded when glamour is presented as enhancing to their lives by making them more beautiful or desirable. Alternatively, men are influenced by ads that appeal to their desire to be in power and in control. Childhood Gender Development Advertisers create ‘gendered environments’ in everything from children’s toys to motor vehicles. For example, early on children are exposed to toy commercials that are set out to target a specific gender. As a result, society is conditioned to believe that dolls and houses are for little girls because they represent the idea that females are to be fertile and nurturing. Whereas little boys are conditioned to believe that they can only play with toys that will define their masculinity, such as cars and toy weapons. Hope says, “masculinized environments present a natural world made for conquest and control” (174). Much like the masculine ideal, toys for little boys often include cars, action figures, and sporting goods, all which fulfill the idea of a conquest. These items and the advertisements redefine the gender role ideal that men are active, strong, and courageous. On the other hand, little girls are raised to believe that their roles is to care for the family. Typically, little girls toys include baby dolls and play houses. Since the idea of identification carries immense weight in the targeting of specific audiences, advertisers begin promoting the concept of gendered environments early on beginning with children's toys. However, as people grow older the gender roles are only made more evident and are further perpetuated in advertising that is targeted towards adults. For example, Hope discusses how the advertising of sport utility vehicles is a primary example of the gender role divide. She talks about how an SUV reiterates the idea that men are conquerors of territory and must have a powerful vehicle to traverse through their difficult journeys. She describes the more ‘masculine’ advertisements as a place where man can conquer land and explore the vast wilderness. She states, “the features of these advertisements emphasize a mythic world where men play [as] heroics and a vast environmental wilderness promises control and adventure” (161). Nature images Hope analyzes the characteristics of the specific visual environments that promote the sales of such masculine or feminine products. She concludes that advertisers use certain natural environments within a commercial or print ad in order to appeal to a specific gender. She observes in one advertisement how femininity is characterized using a picture of a waterfall. Hope explains that the waterfall acts as, “a sign of nature’s unending fertility…images are exotic and lush with icons of fertility and female sexuality” (157). In such advertisements women are one with nature. Advertisers also use specific natural environments to appeal to males. However, these images depict a sense of acquisition unseen in feminine advertisements. Hope suggests that for men "nature is the object of conquest or background for demonstrations of power." "... there are no environmental problems in this space or in the fertile seas of feminized lands, there is only opportunity to consume" (Hope 162). She observes in one advertisement how masculinity is distinguished using the image of "Marlboro Country". In Marlboro Country, men are free from responsibility and routine. In one particular ad, two cowboys are depicted riding wild horses. The mystical west is perceived as for "real" men (Hope 160). " . excepting the occasional cowboy or Indian, the space is there for urban man to play at adventure" (Hope 161). File:Marlboroman.jpg Ultimately, Hope articulates, “advertising appropriates a rich visual history of nature images as sites of femininity and masculinity in order to sell commodities" (Hope 173). Through the use of visual rhetoric and the natural world, gender specific behaviors are promoted to appeal either to both genders. The existence of gender roles and gender identity through images will continue to be present in the future of advertising. Conclusion Gendered images are omnipresent in modern society. Understanding the history of these images is important in understanding how they are capable of persuading us. Gendered images are considered rhetorical because they have a persuasive quality. It is important to remember that since birth, we have been conditioned to make the distinction between men and women, masculinity and femininity, and to recognize both the positive and negative aspects of Works Cited Berger, John. "Ways of Seeing." London, England: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books, 1972. 45-64 Blakesley, David. “Defining Film Rhetoric: The Case of Hitchcock’s Vertigo.” Defining Visual Rhetorics. Ed. Charles A. Hill. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. 117. Hope, S. Diane. “Gendered Environments: Gender and the Natural World in the Rhetoric of Advertising.” Defining Visual Rhetorics. Eds. Helmer, Marguerite, Charles A. Hill. 155-174 Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Visual_Rhetoric/Gender_and_Visual_Rhetoric&oldid=1582158" This page was last edited on 29 July 2009, at 02:32. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Visual Rhetoric/Ethics of Controversial Images Controversial Images and Emotional Responses Little research has been done thus far concerning the emotional effects surrounding abrasive images. How are you supposed to feel when you see a picture of child soldiers in Africa, or a composite image making a mockery of the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald? Images have the potential to elicit emotion from a viewer just as much, if not more than text alone, so why hasn't the ethics of visual communication been studied more comprehensively? As images become more and more a part of professional communication, we will see more research and ethical guidelines pertaining to the use of ethically questionable images. But for the time being, what is currently out there in the real world? Research shows that visuals play just as an important role as text, if not more important, in having an emotional impact on its audience (Kienzler, 1997). However, the code of ethics that loosely governs images is highly under-developed compared to that of its counterpart- written text. According to Stephen Casner, Ph.D., of the NASA Ames Research Center, visuals can sometimes have more impact than text when coupled together, for three reasons. First, images have a direct and quick emotional impact that linear text alone lacks. Also, when viewing a document, an audience is drawn to the images accompanying the text before the view the text itself. Last, viewers remember images much longer than they remember accompanying text. For these reasons it is important to study images and the effects that they may have on viewers just as intensely as humans have scrutinized the ethics of the written word. Visuals have an increasing impact on today's highspeed society, especially in professional communication (Keinzler, 1997). This chapter will closely examine what abrasive images are readily available to society today in advertisement, editorial cartoons, as well as manipulated composite images. We will also discuss the emotion responses that are tied with images that cause irritation Emotionally stirring images can conjure up a lot of feelings among their viewers, whether that is joy or anger. Although text has the ability to do so, there is a much more comprehensive set of ethical codes that go along with them. Currently there are no real standards set thus far for visuals beyond what is considered pornographic, and with a lack of these needed standards the envelope will only be pushed farther and farther. As the ethical boundary is pushed, and line for what is considered ethical will follow closely behind. If the current trend of abrasive and irritating images continues to move, the ethical standard will continue to drop. It is the responsibility of the viewer to act as a critical thinker and determine if an image is unjustly abrasive. The following sections will discuss the different aspects of controversial images listed above. Please use the information below as an informational start to see how current issues and other controversial debates can be manipulated. Although the ethical code of images may change soon to mirror the standards of text in public domains, for now it is the responsibility of the reader to determine what they should consider ethical and stand against. Composite Images, Photoshop & Irritation Our life is filled with emotionally-charged images that may contradict our traditional ways of interpreting and thinking. One way that we are challenged in our views is through images that shock, or surprise, an audience. Traditionally, these images are found in advertisements, but more recently we find ourselves being challenged by the popular art of composite images. Photoshop is growing trend in our culture, mostly among the younger generation, that allows our everyday images to be turned into something extraordinary whether it’s a politically-charged message or just something that we like to parody. This fairly new program opens up a world of possibilities when it comes to images and visual rhetoric given that these images can be manipulated to portray a biased opinion or view. Oftentimes in a composite image the more shocking the material, the better; and the more blatant or disturbing an image is, the more we question the ethics of the author and their intentions. Given an uproar in composite images after the advent of Photoshop, we are often brought to ask ourselves whether it is the fault of the program or audience for potentially abusing the power of the program. Mostly, our questioning of these images leads us to a different way of thinking and a way of reflecting in upon ourselves; on what it is that disturbs us about certain images and why. For example, in a recent class presentation, my partner and I used a composite image of JonBenet Ramsey as a demonstration on how composite images strike a sort of “irritation” between our social standards or ideals and our emotions. The composite is of a bartender’s body with JonBenet’s head “photoshopped” onto the figure. The child appears to be mixing a cocktail in this up-scale environment with a martini shaker made of a judicial figure. The author of the image wrote on his website Doctor Cosmo (http://www.doctorcosmo.c om) that the he made the image because he thought the trial of the case “was a mockery of the judicial system, and how money can’t buy you love…but it can certainly keep your ass out of jail.” This image stirs our beliefs and makes us question if it’s morally correct to use an image of a child who died so young and horribly in an image that mocks our system. When presenting material with my partner, we questioned if the image of JonBenet would offend our audience, but we quickly realized that sometimes it is good to shock people with emotionally-charged images because we get more of a reaction and we begin to question why it is that we get so offended. Perhaps the reason why composite images are so controversial is because they often use subjects that are displaced from their original contexts and transform them into a completely new perspective. As a result, we feel transplanted along with the subject. This change in contexts is what initially draws our attention to the image, and it may be why we initially become shocked when looking at a divisive image. Alternately, one of the reasons composite images can be rhetorical is that they sometimes shed new light on a subject, almost as if to give us a fresh new outlook on what it is that we’re seeing. When we see things as if we see them for the first time, we tend to think of them in an alternate way and may be easier persuaded given we gain a different perspective. Often images that grab our attention the most are shocking and controversial, so much so that we experience a sort of "irritation" between our cultural, social, and moral discourses. Craig Stroupe describes his theory of the rhetoric of irritation as "inappropriate juxtapositions" that work together to create a sort of dialog "among normally unrelated voices and contexts, produc[ing] both an irritation whether expressed visually, verbally, or in some hybrid form like a Web page- as well as a social irritation in the audience who registers this friction as a kind of disruption of "normal" discourse" (245). The "irritation" that we experience can offend or enhance our character simply because it's a different outlook on an image that we are normally not accustomed to. Unfortunately, with composite images, ethics is always in question. Is it appropriate to remove context from a subject or image and transfer it to another? Is ethics still a problem if the image is overall rhetorical and better for the good of society? Does a composite image have to go along with societal ideals? The answer to all these questions is subjective and ultimately depends on who you ask, but in interpreting composite images, it is always crucial to get “the big picture” and understand both sides of the argument being portrayed. Only then can you make an informed decision about the rhetorical nature and purpose. Essentially, in the search for an even clearer answer to the ethical question, composite image creators should be more aware and sensitive that audiences often view manipulated images with a naive eye and audiences need to educate themselves and question what is being portrayed in a composite image in reference to what is being said, what should be said, and what they believe is right. Shocking Advertisements File:Racist.jpg Image:http://www.cadcomic.com/news.php?i=1153 Juxtaposition and irritation can be used in order to advertise products. This idea is called “shock advertising”. You maybe be wondering, “Why would anybody use a controversial image in an advertisement?” The answer is simple- “Any publicity is good publicity.” Two companies’ that are well known for their shock advertisement strategies are United Colors of Benetton and Calvin Klein. Calvin Klein received a great deal of attention when they used an underage Brooke Shields in their advertisements very provocatively. This controversy led to a great deal of free press covering the story. However, it is not only the free press that encourages companies to use shock advertisements. This also markets their goods and services to a younger more “socially conscious” age group. This type of shock advertisement makes the company seem edgy or youthful. Peter Fressola, communications director for United Colors of Benetton, defended a Diesel Jeans advertisement, which depicted a gun pointed at the audience, by saying “Jeans are about sex and danger. And the people who are offended by these ads are probably not Diesel customers anyway.” However, it is not just clothing companies that have been known to use shock advertisement. Barnardo’s, a London based charity, helps many different poverty stricken families all across Great Britain, is also known for having very controversial ads. In the year 2000, they had an ad that depicted and infant baby about to inject heroin. They also ran and ad campaign, which staged five death and suicide scenes. One of the passages read, “From age three, Jane was neglected and a large part of her died. Her future died. 19 years later, after being lured into prostitution, she was beaten so badly by her Pimp she died for real. What a waste.” Barnardo’s was asked to remove the campaign due to criticism. However, donations increased by 5 percent to the charity. As much as these images may illicit a negative emotional response, they will not be forgotten. Editorial Cartoons: Pictures With a Point An editorial cartoon, commonly referred to as a political cartoon, is an illustration or comic strip containing a political or social message that usually relates to current events or personalities Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com). Cartoonists most often rely on symbolism, exaggeration, labeling, analogy, and irony to demonstrate the point they are trying to make. More often than not there is controversy surrounding an editorial cartoon because of the subject matter. The purpose of an editorial cartoon is to make a point and to make people think. Although editorial cartoons are often funny if you understand the underlying issue, their main purpose is to persuade the audience. Editorial cartoons thrive off of controversy and offensive material because it creates debate and discussion of the issue presented. It is important to keep in mind that a cartoon does not always portray the actual opinion of the publication, but is a reflection of the cartoonists’ interpretation of the surrounding world. Editorial cartoons are communicative because the cartoonist uses visual symbols for the purpose of communicating to an audience. Foss defines three characteristics that define artifacts or products conceptualized as visual rhetoric. An artifact must be symbolic, involve human intervention, and be presented to an audience for the purpose of communicating (Foss, p. 304). Editorial cartoons meet the stated criteria because of the symbolism the cartoonists use to portray particular events, people, places, governments, religions, ideas, etc. The cartoons are created in response to recent events and are made with the purpose of making a point to an audience. The cartoonist consciously decides to communicate about a certain topic and conveys a message through the conscious decisions to utilize certain color, forms, and symbols. Editorial cartoons use images and drawings to express a complex message in a simplified form. A more recent editorial cartoon that has caused a lot of controversy is the series of images representing the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. An editor, Flemming Rose, asked newspaper cartoonists to draw the prophet Mohammed as they saw him. A few days later, twelve different cartoonists submitted their depictions and were published in the paper. The images initiated controversy immediately because of the sensitive and sacred subject being presented in an insensitive and offensive manner. Soon to follow the publication of the cartoons were the burnings of the Danish flag, protests and boycotts of Danish products, and violence. The cartoons became famous around the world because of the amount of controversy they had stirred up. Some newspapers reprinted the images while others chose to describe the cartoons through words. The New York Times and many other U.S. newspapers chose not to reprint the images, “saying they were motivated either by respect for or fear of those who might be offended” (Cannon). There is a fine line between the freedom of expression and respecting the people, events, or issues depicted in the cartoons. Although the purpose of editorial cartoons is to make a point, strike up conversation and make the readers think, cartoonists should choose the messages they want to convey with care. It is ok for cartoonists to express a sensitive message but it should be executed in a fashion that won’t lead to violence. It is impossible to draw something that is completely void of controversy because somebody will always find something offensive. Editorial cartoons are not the news and do not have to be fair and unbiased, however, the cartoonists have a responsibility to create their cartoons with care. Cartoonists should not aim to generate tensions which could lead to violence, but should present their cartoon in a tasteful manner. On the other side of the paper, the readers of the cartoon need to be responsible in viewing and analyzing the image. It is important for readers to keep in mind that the point of the editorial cartoon is to make people think. Sometimes the images or content may be offensive, but the cartoonist is not drawing an image to target anyone or group in particular, rather to express a message that is relevant to events and situations. Readers must remain critical viewers of these images. Emotional Response People are constantly being tested by outside stimuli such as the media and are faced with images and advertisements that can sometimes be shockingly controversial. In some cases, such controversial ads do not feature the product, but rather an idea. United Colors of Benetton, a clothing company discussed earlier in the chapter, is known for their emotionally stirring advertisements. During the peak years of their controversial campaigns, many of their advertisements have been a topic of discussion. A popular technique for the United Colors of Benetton is to take a unique but daring approach in their advertisements by featuring sensitive issues rather than people wearing their product. One year, an advertisement ran with a picture of a dying AIDS patient branded with the company’s logo. Companies taking the shock approach in their advertisements do so in order to ultimately drive up product sales. Companies know that controversy receives much publicity and thus creates attention. How does the shock approach in advertising and images correlate to a customer making a purchase? These images and advertisements are created by companies to spark debate and discussion among buyers in the hopes that the emotional response the advertisement provoked was strong enough for people to make a purchase. People are naturally inclined to pass judgment but are often psychologically influenced by the complexities of emotions. Each individual has differing sets of emotions which stem from his or her life events and experiences. Because such a range of emotions can exist, it allows room for differing interpretation. With this in mind, it is difficult to create any broad assumptions when it comes to how one should view a shocking, irritating or controversial image. But there are certain factors, both internal and external, that should be taken into account when understanding ones emotions towards these visuals. People are also influenced by their environment. It might be easy to say that consumers are able to perceive an object or person without interference from the perception of the physical and social surroundings of that object or person; however this is not always the case. People bring their personality to the things they do in their daily lives which involve other people whether it be through work, school, nightlife, or church. Past experiences shape an individual’s personality which can further influence and be influenced by one’s environment. Lastly, people are influenced by their social centers. Social groups have a huge impact on how images and advertisements are perceived. A common interest is usually the core of what brings a social group together. However, differing opinions may arise which can change United Colors of Benetton AIDS Campaign Image http://press.benettongroup.com/ben_en/about/cam people’s opinions and beliefs. It isn’t just the image or advertisement that is being interpreted, it is the brand. The opinions that come from social circles can impact how one is influenced into purchasing behavior. We have discussed many mediums where controversial images may appear. However, this list is far from comprehensive. Controversial Images can appear in a wide variety of public and private spheres. As an informed consumer of the above mentioned mediums, you are responsible for the ethical standards you hold for the visuals you view. As said before, the amount and severity of controversial images in the public sphere has continued to increase, and in turn the ethical standards of said images has been slowly decreasing, and the proverbial ethical bar is following. For the time being, no public policy change will occur regarding this issue. Informed consumers must act as the vigilante. Works Cited Cannon, Sara. "Controversial Cartoons Lead to Worldwide Concern For Speech, Press Freedom, and Religious Views." Silha Center. 18 Apr 2007 . "Ctrl-Alt-Del Designs Parody of Sony’s Controversial Ad." www.playfeed.com. 07 July 2006. 12 Apr 2007 . "Dr. Cosmo's 1999 Photoshop Gallery." www.doctorcosmo.com. 15 Apr 2007 . Foss, Sonja K. "Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric: Toward a Transformation of Rhetorical Theory." Defining Visual Rhetorics. Ed. Charles A. Hill, Marguerite Helmers. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2004. Kienzler, Donna (1997).Visual Ethics. Journal of Business Communication. 34, 171. Lester, Paul M. 4th ed. United States: Holly J. Allen, 2006. 68-70. McNally, Greer. "What Makes a Photograph Controversial?." www.photgraphyblog.com. 2003. Photography Blog. 12 Apr 2007 . Merryman, John. Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts. 2. New York: M. Bender, 1979. "Sony pulls controversial PSP ad campaign." Citycynic.net. 06 Aug 2006. 12 Apr 2007 . Stroupe, Craig. "The Rhetoric of Irritation: Inappropriateness as Visual/Literate Practice." Defining Visual Rhetorics. Ed. Charles A. Hill, Marguerite Helmers. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2004. United Colors of Benetton. “Our Campaigns.” Campaign History. Internet. Accessed 12 April 2007. . Willenz, Pam. "Personality Influences the Brain's Responses to Emotional Situations more than Thought, According to New Research." American Psychological Association. 4 Feb 2001. Internet. Accessed 12 April 2007. . Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Visual_Rhetoric/Ethics_of_Controversial_Images&oldid=3221886" This page was last edited on 25 May 2017, at 10:09. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Visual Rhetoric/Cultural Theories of Visual Rhetoric Cultural Theories of Visual Rhetoric Introduction Social structure often has a major influence on the ways of communication, the impact, and style of all rhetoric. Visual rhetoric is not different in its impact and being impacted by society and different cultural values, ideology, and styles. Symbols and other components of visual rhetoric vary in meaning from culture to culture, and even sometimes within subgroups of cultures. This is reflected in the study of semiotics. Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric are in summary, signs that can have different quantifiers such as color, perspective, line, etc. These are dictated to a culture through different vehicles, the medians of rhetoric. Cultural rhetoric is defined by the standards or values that culture attaches to things. This sort of value attachment can even vary within a culture and amongst different groups of people. We see in modern society in America that culture defines the roles of its entire membership and where an acceptable place in society is for these people. The struggle between sexes is one in particular that is perfect for this example. Culture has dictated in the past the placement of men above women, and therefore the power of men’s rhetoric over that of a woman. Gender and Visual Rhetoric roles are an ideal example of cultural rhetoric viewing the two genders as sub groups of the American culture. Simply put, cultural rhetoric is a way of framing the words or ideology of a group through a lens that filters or can judge another group’s rhetorical power and value. Cultural rhetoric theories state that a culture is able to dictate values and standards through cultural rhetoric practice. With an interdisciplinary approach to understanding cultural theories of visual rhetoric, below is a more in-depth explanation of culture as understood by sociologists and communications scholars. Sociological-Cultural Theories Culture affects how we see things. Different cultures perceive things differently. According to Laura Desfor Edles' Cultural Sociology in Practice, “Culture” can be defined in several capacities; (A) humanistic and artistic activities, (B) the manner in which a particular group of people live, their way of life, (C) systems or patterns of shared symbols (1). It is this last method of defining “culture” with which we are most concerned. It is through these systems of shared patterns and symbols that individuals understand their environment, their reality, their life and everything related to their life. Cultural Frames Each individual has their own subjective frame through which they see reality. These frames are created through unique cultural experiences specific to the individual. Cultural frames reject an objective reality. Cultural frames shape how we see ourselves, others and our world. Cultural frames are cumulative they accumulate over time with experience and are constantly changing based on these experiences. The sum of our cultural frames is called our cultural prism. Because each individual experiences life through their own cultural frames, it can be said that there is no one universal objective reality. Each person has their own reality. How does this relate to visual rhetoric? Often, the focus in both learning as well as teaching visual rhetoric is the need to make certain universal claims regarding its power, uses and meanings. However, if we consider visual rhetoric from the “cultural frames” perspective, there is no universal application of visual rhetoric. Each individual’s cultural frames dictate how they use as well understand visual rhetoric. For example, consider traffic signs. Traffic signs vary from country to country and even sometimes from region to region. Depending on an individual's cultural background, he or she will understand traffic signs differently. A Japanese "bumpy road" sign [1] (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese_Road_sign_%28Bumpy_road %29.svg) looks strikingly similar to the European sign for "dip" in the road [2] (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ima ge:Zeichen_112.svg). Two different concepts represented by the same image in different geographical locations. The interpretation of these signs therefore will vary based on the cultural prism from which an individual views them. Language is Arbitrary and Culture-Specific The language we use to describe our world is completely arbitrary. There is no reason that certain words represent certain things. There is no clear connection between the signifier (word/symbol) and the signified (“object in world”). But more importantly, the construction of language is extremely culture-specific. Not only do varying cultures use different words but also these cultures see words differently. For example, consider a tree, a tree can be seen many different ways from varied subject positions and cultural frames. For an environmentalist, a tree is something to be preserved, a relic. For a timber company, a tree is profit. For a politician, a tree can represent a political platform. How does this relate to visual rhetoric? Visual rhetoric can be considered a language, a visual language and similar to verbal language it is often arbitrary and definitely culture-specific. Consider brand logos. A company's logo is often well-recognized as representing a particular brand but it's actual connection to the brand is somewhat arbitrary. For example, the Starbucks logo ; [3] (http://common s.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Starbucks_in_Nagoya.jpg#file)a green and white Nordic goddess has no relation to coffee products, the brand logo is arbitrary. In addition to being arbitrary, often logos are culture-specific as well arbitrary. While Starbucks is probably a universally recognized logo, an image such as the Duke Dog, James Madison University's mascot is not. The Duke Dog [4] (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:James_Madison_University_3.jpeg)is a culturally-specific symbol, easily understood and recognized by the James Madison University (JMU) culture as their noble mascot and spirit guru, yet most likely considered just a dog to individuals outside the JMU culture. Hegemony “The ideas of the ruling class are, in every epoch, the ruling ideas: i.e. the class, which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force (Edles 33).” This description of Hegemony is quoted by Edles from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' German Ideology. Although the description sounds somewhat convoluted, Marx and Engel touch upon the important idea of the connections between the ruling class and the ruling intellectual force. Hegemony is a fairly simple concept with very complicated definitions. In essence, Hegemony is a theory regarding how dominant classes control the order of society by making their own views appear to be the accepted views. Subordinate classes accept certain ideas, actions or structures as natural when in reality they are actually social constructs created by the dominant classes. “Hegemony is thus the sum of the cultural processes through which ruling groups universalize their own worldview in order to emerge as dominant (Rumbo).” How does this relate to visual rhetoric? Deconstructing hegemonic constructs is extremely important when investigating any form of rhetoric. To understand certain forms of visual rhetoric, it is necessary to be aware of any potential hegemony. In addition, when participating in visual rhetoric one should be sure not to further any hegemonic constructs that may exist within the culture. Often, media perpetuates hegemonic structures by portraying individuals, the world and life as a particular way. While cultural groups such as African Americans, Hispanics and Asians continue to flourish within the United States, television, movies and advertising continue to portray America as a dominantly White society with little diversity. By constantly being exposed to often "colorblind" media, we accept it is as natural the Hegemony that The United States is a dominantly White country. In interpreting and creating visual rhetoric, it is important to keep in mind the potential Hegemonies. Communication-Cultural Theories Culture (from a communications standpoint) deals mostly with the rules that govern the understood, misunderstood, acceptable, unacceptable, expected and unexpected ways messages are relayed within a certain community. This community can be as small as an intimate group of friends or as large as a continent. The community is the culture. The message and it's delivery methods is the rhetoric. While theories on cultural rhetoric are usually explained in regards to verbal communication, they adapt well into visual rhetoric. When verbal literacy is used, it follows guidelines set forth by the governing body and is designated as the national language. Visual literacy is also governed by culture specific values, but which are set for by national groups, they can vary. To be completely visually literate, one must understand all cultural aspects that may play a role in the interpretation of the image. This is where the knowledge and understanding of semiotics is important. The role of nonverbal communication in visual rhetoric connects closely to semiotics and the understanding of a visual argument. Nonverbal behavior is typically analyzed in-depth in regards to communication. Nonverbal communication itself is culture-based. The cultures one associates with will influence their interpretation and use of non-verbal codes. Nonverbal cues, as explained by Mark P. Orbe and Carol J. Bruess in Contemporary Issues in Interpersonal Communications, can be split up into seven categories, four of which translate well into visual rhetoric (138). Facial and eye communication Facial and eye communication through expressions can tell a lot about the message a person is conveying in a picture. The importance of the face can be traced back to the simple fact that when communicating verbally, a person typically looks at the communicator’s face for extra feedback. However, much of facial communication is culture bound (Orbe 142). The seven common facial expressions (sadness, anger, disgust, fear, interest, surprise, and happiness) are innate in people as children. Yet, as a person is socialized into their cultures as adults, these expressions are sometimes hidden or accentuated. For example, Asian cultures teach one to hide any highly emotional thoughts such as sheer excitement. In a painting, it is important to take note of the cultural setting of the characters because their facial expressions may be skewed to fit the culture. Proxemics Proxemics study the use of space in communications (Orbe 145). Proxemics are also highly culture bound. A photo of a mother and child in each other’s personal space, embraced in a hug automatically brings thoughts of intimacy to an American. This is because intimate distance (touching up to 18 inches apart) is considered primarily inappropriate in U.S. culture. A good example of the extent to this used in recent popular culture is the film, Borat, where a foreign man from Kazakhstan tries to introduce himself to Americans by invading their intimate space [5] (http://flickr.com/photos/mattro thphoto/382360271/). Borat is not welcomed by Americans who see this as an invasion of their personal space. Proxemics tie in closely with visual rhetoric because the distance between the two objects in a narrative representation may give clues to the relationship and argument conveyed. Physical appearance and artifacts Physical appearance and artifacts affect communications on a cultural level similar to facial and eye communication. This includes the choice of dress, choice of objects, decoration and the like. Even certain colors are more important than others in a culture (Orbe 154). For example, red, white and blue will have a different emotional connection to an American, Britain or Frenchman than to an Iraqi or South African. To an American, a photograph of a woman in a revealing dress will stimulate a different reaction than the reaction to the same photograph by a group of men from India. Similarly, in this photo [6] (http://flickr.com/photos/webmink/71651/) of a Japanese wedding ceremony, the bride has her hair covered. Understanding that this has the same effect as wearing a wedding veil in western culture adds to the viewers understanding of the image. Environment The environment can be affected by culture in visual rhetoric. Architecture, room arrangements and colors fall into this category (Orbe 150). This relates closely to time and space in regards to visual rhetoric. Different cultures will react differently in certain environments. A person who grew up in the culture of the "city that never sleeps", New York, will react to a painting of the Swiss Alps differently than a person who travels the world hiking and mountain climbing. Conclusion Culture is both influential in how a reader interprets visual rhetoric as well as how a writer composes visual rhetoric. Understanding how cultural theories can influence visual rhetoric is essential. Although this discussion included only Sociological as well as Communication-based theories of culture and visual rhetoric, these theories can be considered the underlying base upon which other cultural theories are developed and understood. Works Cited Edles, Laura D. Cultural Sociology in Practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2002. Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers., 1965. Orbe, Mark P. and Carol J. Bruess. Contemporary Issues in Interpersonal Communications. London: Oxford UP, 2004. Rumbo, Joseph D. [Lecture]. Vocabulary Weeks 1-8. Sociology/Anthropology 368-Contemporary American Culture, James Madison University, 2007. Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Visual_Rhetoric/Cultural_Theories_of_Visual_Rhetoric&oldid=2244281" This page was last edited on 27 December 2011, at 20:38. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. O Henri Cartier-Bresson/Magnum Photos JOHN Berger John Berger (b. 1926), like few other art critics, elicits strong and contradictory reactions to his writing. He has been called (sometimes in the same review) "pre­ posterous" as well as "stimulating,""pompous" yet "exciting." He has been accused of falling prey to "ideological excesses" and of being a victim of his own "lack of objectivity," but he has been praised for his "scrupulous" and "cogent" observa­ tions on art and culture. He is one of Europe's most influential Marxist critics, yet his work has been heralded and damned by leftists and conservatives alike. Although Berger's work speaks powerfully, its tone is quiet, thoughtful, measured. According to the poet and critic Peter Schjeldahl, "The most mysterious element in Mr. Berger's criticism has always been the personality of the critic himself, a man of strenuous conviction so loath to bully that even his most provocative ar­ guments sit feather-light on the mind." The first selection is Chapter 1 from \Nays of Seeing (1972), a book that began as a series on BBC Television. In fact, the show was a forerunner of those encyclo­ pedic television series later popular on public television stations in the United States: Civilization, The Ascent of Man, Cosmos, The Civil War. Berger's show was less glittery and ambitious, but in its way it was more serious in its claims to be educational. As you watched the screen, you saw a series of images (like those in the following text). These were sometimes presented with commentary, but sometimes in silence, so that you constantly saw one image in the context of another—for example, classic presentations of women in oil paintings inter­ spersed with images of women from contemporary art, advertising, movies, and "men's magazines."The goal of the exercise, according to Berger, was to "start a process of questioning," to focus his viewer's attention not on a single painting in isolation but on "ways of seeing" in general, on the ways we have learned to look at and understand the images that surround us, and on the culture that teaches us to see things as we do. The method of Ways of Seeing, a book of art history, was used by Berger in another book, A Seventh Man (1975), to docu­ ment the situation of the migrant worker in Europe. After the chapter from Ways of Seeing, we have added two brief passages from a beautiful, slight, and quite compelling book by Berger, And Our Faces, My Heart, Brief as Photos (1984). This book is both a meditation on time and space and a long love letter (if you can imagine such a combination!). At 140 1 mmm 141 WAYS OF SEEING several points in the book, Berger turns his (and his reader's) attention to paintings. We have included two instances, his descriptions of Rembrandt's Woman in Bed and Caravaggio's The Calling of St. Matthew (and we have in­ cluded reproductions of the paintings). We offer these as supplements to Ways of Seeing, as additional examples of how a writer turns images into words and brings the present to the past. Berger has written poems, novels, essays, and film scripts, including The Success and Failure of Picasso (1965), A Fortunate Man (1967), G. (1971), and About Looking (1980). He iived and worked in England for years, but he cur­ rently lives in Quincy, a small peasant village in Haute-Savoie, France, where he wrote, over the course of several years, a trilogy of books on peasant life, titled Into Their Labours. The first book in the series. Pig Earth (1979), is a collection of essays, poems, and stories set in Haute-Savoie. The second. Once in Europe (1987), consists of five peasant tales that take love as their subject. The third and final book in the trilogy. Lilac and Flag: An Old Wives' Tale of the City (1990), is a novel about the migration of peasants to the city. His most recent books include three essay collections. The Shape of the Pocket (2001), Selected Essays (2001), and Portraits: John Berger on Artists (2015); Here Is Where We Meet: A Fiction (2005), a series of autobiographical vignettes; Hold Everything Dear: Dispatches on Survival and Resistance (2007), a meditation on poiitical resistance; Why Look at Animals? (2009), essays on the relationship between humans and animals; and Bento's Sketchbook (2011), a meditation on the practice of drawing. Note: The paintings referenced in Berger's essays are, of course, in color, while our reproductions are in black and white. Ali of these im­ ages can be found online in full-coior reproductions. We recommend that you track down at least some of them. II I. I. It h Ways of Seeing Ren4 Magritte, "The Key to Dreams," 1927 © bpk, Berlin/Art Resource, NY/© 2016 C. Herscovici/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak. 142 But there is also another sense in which seeing comes before words. It is seeing which establishes our place in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words, but words can never undo the fact that we are sur­ rounded by it. The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled. Each evening we see the sun set. We know that the earth is turning away from it. Yet the knowledge, the explanation, never quite fits the sight. The Surrealist painter Magritte commented on this always-present gap between words and seeing in a painting called The Key of Dreams. The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we be­ lieve. In the Middle Ages when men believed in the physical existence of Hell the sight of fire must have meant something different from what it means today. Nevertheless their idea of Hell owed a lot to the sight of fire consuming and the ashes remaining — as well as to their experience of the pain of burns. When in love, the sight of the beloved has a completeness which no words and no embrace can match: a completeness which only the act of making love can temporarily accommodate. Yet this seeing which comes before words, and can never be quite covered by them, is not a question of mechanically reacting to stimuli. (It can only be thought of in this way if one isolates the small part of the pro­ cess which concerns the eye's retina.) We only see what we look at. To look is an act of choice. As a result of this act, what we see is brought within ____ ___ our reach —though not necessarily within arm's reach. To touch some­ thing is to situate oneself in relation to it. (Close your eyes, move round the room and notice how the faculty of touch is like a static, limited form of sight.) We never look at just one thing; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves. Our vision The Key of Dreams by Magritte [1898-1967]. is continually active, con- 143 WAYS OF SEEING tinually moving, continually holding things in a circle around itself, con­ stituting what is present to us as we are. Soon after we can see, we are aware that we can also be seen. The eye of the other combines with our own eye to make it fully credible that we are part of the visible world. If we accept that we can see that hill over there, we propose that from that hill we can be seen. The reciprocal nature of vision is more funda­ mental than that of spoken dialogue. And often dialogue is an attempt to verbalize this — an attempt to explain how, either metaphorically or liter­ ally, "you see things,” and an attempt to discover how "he sees things." In the sense in which we use the word in this book, all images are man-made [see below]. An image is a sight which has been recreated or reproduced. It is an appearance, or a set of appearances, which has been detached from the place and time in which it first made its appearance and preserved — for a few moments or a few centuries. Every image em­ bodies a way of seeing. Even a photograph. For photographs are not, as is often assumed, a mechanical record. Every time we look at a photograph, we are aware, however slightly, of the photographer selecting that sight from an infinity of other possible sights. This is true even in the most casual family snap­ EVERY IMAGE EMBODIES A WAY OF shot. The photographer's way of seeing is reflected in his choice of subject. The SEEING. EVEN A PHOTOGRAPH. painter's way of seeing is reconstituted by the marks he makes on the canvas or paper. Yet, although every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing. (It may be, for example, that Sheila is one figure among twenty; but for our own reasons she is the one we have eyes for.) JOHN BERGER 144 Images were first made to conjure up the appearance of something that was absent. Gradually it became evident that an image could outlast what it represented; it then showed how something or somebody had once looked — and thus by implication how the subject had once been seen by other people. Later still the specific vision of the image-maker was also recognized as part of the record. An image became a record of how X had seen Y. This was the result of an increasing consciousness of individuality, accompanying an increasing awareness of history. It would be rash to try to date this last development precisely. But certainly in Europe such con­ sciousness has existed since the beginning of the Renaissance. No other kind of relic or text from the past can offer such a direct testimony about the world which surrounded other people at other times. In this respect images are more precise and richer than literature. To say this is not to deny the expressive or imaginative quality of art, treating it as mere documentary evidence; the more imaginative the work, the more profoundly it allows us to share the artist's experience of the visible. Yet when an image is presented as a work of art, the way people look at it is affected by a whole series of learned assumptions about art. Assumptions concerning: Beauty Truth Genius Civilization Form Status Taste, etc. Many of these assumptions no longer accord with the world as it is. (The world-as-it-is is more than pure objective fact, it includes consciousness.) Out of true with the present, these assumptions obscure the past. They 145 5 > -< cn O “n 1/1 m m Z C\ Regentesses of the Old Men's Alms House by Hals [1580-1666]. mystify rather than clarify. The past is never there waiting to be discov­ ered, to be recognized for exactly what it is. History always constitutes the relation between a present and its past. Consequently fear of the present leads to mystification of the past. The past is not for living in; it is a well of conclusions from which we draw in order to act. Cultural mystification of the past entails a double loss. Works of art are made unnecessarily remote. And the past offers us fewer conclusions to complete in action. When we "see" a landscape, we situate ourselves in it. If we "saw" the art of the past, we would situate ourselves in history. When we are pre­ vented from seeing it, we are being deprived of the history which belongs to us. Who benefits from this deprivation? In the end, the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a his­ tory which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms. And so, inevitably, it mystifies. Let us consider a typical example of such mystification. A two-volume study was recently published on Frans Hals.^ It is the authoritative work to date on this painter. As a book of specialized art history it is no better and no worse than the average. The last two great paintings by Frans Hals portray the Governors and the Governesses of an Alms House for old paupers in the Dutch seven­ teenth-century city of Haarlem. They were officially commissioned por­ traits. Hals, an old man of over eighty, was destitute. Most of his life he had been in debt. During the winter of 1664, the year he began painting these pictures, he obtained three loads of peat on public charity, otherwise he would have frozen to death. Those who now sat for him were administra­ tors of such public charity. The author records these facts and then explicitly says that it would be incorrect to read into the paintings any criticism of the sitters. There is 146 V3 CE IM no evidence, he says, that Hals painted them in a spirit of bitterness. The author considers them, however, remarkable works of art and explains why. Here he writes of the Regentesses: Each woman speaks to us of the human condition with equal importance. Each woman stands out with equal clarity against the enormous dark surface, yet they are linked by a firm rhythmical arrangement and the subdued diagonal pattern formed by their heads and hands. Subtle modu­ lations of the deep, glowing blacks contribute to the harmonious fusion of the whole and form an unforgettable contrast with the powerful whites and vivid flesh tones where the detached strokes reach a peak of breadth and strength. [Berger's italics] The compositional unity of a painting contributes fundamentally to the power of its image. It is reasonable to consider a painting's composi­ tion. But here the composition is written about as though it were in itself the emotional charge of the painting. Terms like harmonious fusion, unfor­ gettable contrast, reaching a peak of breadth and strength transfer the emotion provoked by the image from the plane of lived experience, to that of disinterested "art appreciation." All conflict disappears. One is left with the unchanging "human condition," and the painting considered as a mar­ vellously made object. Very little is known about Hals or the Regents who commissioned him. It is not possible to produce circumstantial evidence to establish what their relations were. But there is the evidence of the paintings them­ selves: the evidence of a group of men and a group of women as seen by another man, the painter. Study this evidence and judge for yourself The art historian fears such direct judgment: As in so many other pictures by Hals, the penetrating characterizations almost seduce us into believing that we know the personality traits and even the habits of the men and women portrayed. 147 What is this "seduction" he writes of? It is nothing less than the paint­ ings working upon us. They work upon us because we accept the way Hals saw his sitters..We do not accept this innocently. We accept it in so far as it corresponds to our own observation of people, gestures, faces, institutions. This is possible because we still live in a society of comparable social rela­ tions and moral values. And it is precisely this which gives the paintings their psychological and social urgency. It is this — not the painter's skill as a "seducer" — which convinces us that we can know the people portrayed. The author continues: cn This, he suggests, is a libel. He argues that it was a fashion at that time to wear hats on the side of the head. He cites medical opinion to prove that the Regent's expression could well be the result of a facial paralysis. He insists that the painting would have been unacceptable to the Regents if one of them had been portrayed drunk. One might go on discussing each of these points for pages. (Men in seventeenth-century Holland wore their hats on the side of their heads in order to be thought of as adven­ turous and pleasure-loving. Heavy drinking was an approved practice. Etcetera.) But such a discussion would take us even farther away from the only confrontation which mat­ ters and which the author is determined to evade. In this confrontation the Regents and Regentesses stare at Hals, a destitute old painter who has lost his reputation and lives off public charity; he examines them through the eyes of a pauper who must neverthe­ less try to be objective; i.e., must try to surmount the way he sees as a pauper. 'This is the drama of these paintings. A drama of an "unforgettable contrast." Mystification has little to do with the vocabulary used. Mystification is the process of explaining away what might otherwise be evident. Hals was the first portraitist to paint the new characters and expressions created by capitalism. He did in pictorial terms what Balzac did two centuries later in literature. Yet the author of the authoritative work on these paintings sums up the artist's achieve­ ment by referring to Hals's unwavering commitment to his personal vision, which enriches our consciousness of our fellow men and heightens our awe for the ever-increasing power of the mighty impulses that enabled him to give us a close view of life's vital forces. That is mystification. In order to avoid mystifying the past (which can equally well suffer pseudo-Marxist mystification) let us now examine the particular relation Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem,The Netherlands/ Peter Wllli/The Bridgeman Art Library In the case of some critics the seduction has been a total success. It has, for example, been asserted that the Regent in the tipped slouch hat, which hardly covers any of his long, lank hair, and whose curiously set eyes do not focus, was shown in a drunken state, [below] JOHN BERGER 148 which now exists, so far as pictorial images are concerned, between the present and the past. If we can see the present clearly enough, we shall ask the right questions of the past. Today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before. We actually perceive it in a different way. This difference can be illustrated in terms of what was thought of as perspective. The convention of perspective, which is unique to European art and which was first established in the early Renaissance, centers everything on the eye of the beholder. It is like a beam from a lighthouse — only instead of light traveling outwards, appearances travel in. The con­ ventions called those appearances reality. Perspec­ tive makes the single eye the center of the visible world. Everything converges on to the eye as to the vanishing point of infinity. The visible world is arranged for the spectator as the universe was once thought to be arranged for God. According to the convention of perspective there is no visual reci­ procity. There is no need for God to situate himself in relation to others: he is himself the situation. The inherent contradiction in perspective was that it structured all images of reality to address a single spectator who, unlike God, could only be in one place at a time. After the invention of the camera this contradiction gradually became apparent. I m an eye. A mechanical eye. I, the machine, show you a world the way only I can see it. I free myself for today and forever from human immobil­ ity. I'm in constant movement. I approach and pull away from objects. I creep under them. I move alongside a running horse's mouth. I fall and rise with the falling and rising bodies. This is I, the machine, maneuvring in the chaotic movements, recording one movement after another in the most complex combinations. Still from Man with a Movie Camera by Vertov [1895-1954], 149 The camera isolated momentary appearances and in so doing destroyed the idea that images were timeless. Or, to put it another way, the camera showed that the notion of time passing was inseparable from the experi­ ence of the visual (except in paintings). What you saw depended upon where you were when. What you saw was relative to your position in time and space. It was no longer possible to imagine everything converging on the human eye as on the vanishing point of infinity. This is not to say that before the invention of the camera men believed that everyone could see everything. But perspective organized the visual field as though that were indeed the ideal. Every drawing or painting that used perspective proposed to the spectator that he was the unique center of the world. The camera — and more particularly the movie camera — demonstrated that there was no center. The invention of the camera changed / tHE INVENTION OF THE CAMERA the way men saw. The visible came to mean f something different to them. This was im\ CHANGED THE WAY MEN SAW. mediately reflected in painting. For the Impressionists the visible no longer presented itself to man in order to be seen. On the contrary, the visible, in continual flux, became fugitive. For the Cubists the visible was no longer what confronted the single eye, but the totality of possible views taken from points all round the object (or person) being depicted [below]. The invention of the camera also changed the way in which men saw paintings painted long before the camera was invented. Originally paint­ ings were an integral part of the building for which they were designed. Sometimes in an early Renaissance church or chapel one has the feeling that the images on the wall are records of the building's interior life, that Still Life with Wicker Chair by Picasso [1881-1973], WAYS OF SE E IN G Freed from the boundaries of time and space, I coordinate any and all points of the universe, wherever I want them to be. My way leads towards the creation of a fresh perception of the world. Thus I explain in a new way the world unknown to you.^ JOHN BERGER 150 together they make up the building's memory — so much are they part of the particularity of the building [at left]. The uniqueness of every painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where it resided. Sometimes the painting was transportable. But it could never be seen in two places at the same time. When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings. This is vividly illustrated by what happens when a painting is shown on a television screen. The painting enters each viewer's house. There it is sur­ rounded by his wallpaper, his furniture, his mementos. It enters the atmosphere of his family. It becomes their talking point. It lends its meaning to their mean­ Church of St. Francis at Assisi. ing. At the same time it enters a million other houses and, in each of them, is seen in a different context. Because of the camera, the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting. In its travels, its meaning is diversified. One might argue that all reproductions more or less distort, and that therefore the original painting is still in a sense unique. Here [on the next page] is a reproduction of the Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci. Having seen this reproduction, one can go to the National Gallery to look at the original and there discover what the reproduction lacks. Alternatively one can forget about the quality of the reproduction and simply be reminded, when one sees the original, that it is a famous paint­ ing of which somewhere one has already seen a reproduction. But in ei­ ther case the uniqueness of the original now lies in it being the original of a reproduction. It is no longer what its image shows that strikes one as unique; its first meaning is no longer to be found in what it says, but in what it is. This new status of the original work is the perfectly rational consequence of the new means of reproduction. But it is at this point that a process of mystification again enters. The meaning of the original work no longer lies in what it uniquely says but in what it uniquely is. How is its unique existence evaluated and defined in our present culture? It is defined as an object whose value depends 151 > -c Ln CT> ® National Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY upon its rarity. This market is affirmed and gauged by the price it fetches on the mar­ ket. But because it is nevertheless "a work of art" —and art is thought to be greater than commerce — its market price is said to be a reflection of its spiritual value. Yet the spiritual value of an object, as distinct from a message or an example, can only be explained in terms of magic or religion. And since in modern society neither of these is a living force, the art object, the "work of art," is enveloped in an atmosphere of entirely bogus religiosity. Works of art are discussed and presented as though they were holy relics: relics which are first and foremost evidence of their own survival. The past in which they originated is studied in order to prove their survival genuine. They are de­ clared art when their line of descent can be certified. Before the Virgin of the Rocks the visitor Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci to the National Gallery would be encour­ [1452-1519]. aged by nearly everything he might have heard and read about the painting to feel something like this: "I am in front of it. I can see it. This painting by Leonardo is unlike any other in the world. The National Gallery has the real one. If I look at this painting hard enough, I should somehow be able to feel its authenticity. The Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci: it is authentic and therefore it is beautiful." To dismiss such feelings as naive would be quite wrong. They accord perfectly with the sophisticated culture of art experts for whom the National Gallery catalogue is Avritten. The entry on the Virgin of the Rocks is one of the longest entries. It consists of fourteen closely printed pages. They do not deal with the meaning of the image. They deal with who commissioned the painting, legal squabbles, who owned it, its likely date, the families of its owners. Behind this information lie years of research. The aim of the research is to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the painting is a genuine Leonardo. The secondary aim is to prove that an almost identical painting in the Louvre is a replica of the National Gallery version. French art historians try to prove the opposite. The National Gallery sells more reproductions of Leonardo's cartoon of The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist [on the next page] than any other picture in their collection. A few years ago it was known only to scholars. It became famous because an American wanted to buy it for two and a half million pounds. Now it hangs in a room by itself. The room is like a chapel. The drawing is behind bullet-proof perspex. It has acquired a new kind of impressiveness. 152 V9 e Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci ® National Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY [1452-1519]. Louvre Museum. The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist by Leonardo da Vinci [1452-1519]. The bogus religiosity which now surrounds original works of art, and which is ultimately dependent upon their market value, has become the substitute for what paintings lost when the camera made them reproducible. Its function is nostalgic. It is the final empty claim for the continuing values of an oligarchic, undemocratic culture. If the image is no longer unique and exclusive, the art object, the thing, must be made mysteriously so. The majority of the population do not visit art museums. The following table shows how closely an interest in art is related to privileged education. National proportion of art museum visitors according to level of education: Percentage of each educational category who visit art museums Greece Poland France Holland With no educational qualification 0.02 0.12 0.15 - Greece Poland France Holland Only secondary education 10.5 10.4 10 20 Only primary education Further and higher 0.30 1.50 0.45 0.50 education 11.5 11.7 12.5 17.3 Source: Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Darbel, L’Amour de I'art, Editions de Minuit, Paris 1969, Appendix 5, table 4. The majority take it as axiomatic that the museums are full of holy relics which refer to a mystery which excludes them: the mystery of unac­ countable wealth. Or, to put this another way, they believe that original masterpieces belong to the preserve (both materially and spiritually) of Of the places listed below which does a museum remind you of most? Manual workers Skilled and white collar workers Professional and upper managerial % % % 66 9 45 34 4 30.5 28 4.5 — 7 2 2 2 4.5 Church Library Lecture hall Department store or entrance hall in public building Church and library Church and lecture hall Library and lecture haU None of these No reply 9 4 — __ 4 8 2 4 100 (n = 53) 100 (n = 98) Source: as above. Appendix 4, table 8. 2 19.5 9 100 (n = 99) WAYS OF SEEING Not because of what it shows — not because of the meaning of its image. It has become impressive, mysterious, because of its market value. 154 «9 the rich. Another table indicates what the idea of an art gallery suggests to each social class. In the age of pictorial reproduction the meaning of paintings is no longer attached to them; their meaning becomes transmittable: that is to say it becomes information of a sort, and, like all information, it is either put to use or ignored; information carries no special authority within itself. AAThen a painting is put to use, its meaning is either modified or totally changed. One should be quite clear about what this involves. It is not a question of reproduction failing to reproduce certain aspects of an image faithfully; it is a question of reproduction making it possible, even inevitable, that an image will be used for many different purposes and that the reproduced image, unlike an original work, can lend itself to them all. Let us examine some of the ways in which the reproduced image lends itself to such usage. Reproduction isolates a detail of a painting from the whole. The detail is transformed. An allegorical figure becomes a portrait of a girl. Venus and Mars by Botticelli [1445-1510]. 155 WAYS OF SEEIN G When a painting is reproduced by a film camera it inevitably becomes material for the film-maker's argument. A film which reproduces images of a painting leads the spectator, through the painting, to the film-maker's own conclusions. The painting lends authority to the film-maker. This is because a film unfolds in time and a painting does not. In a film the way one image follows another, their succession, constructs an argument which becomes irreversible. In a painting all its elements are there to be seen simultaneously. The specta­ tor may need time to examine each element of the painting but whenever he reaches a conclusion, the simultaneity of the whole painting is there to reverse or qualify his conclusion. The painting maintains its own author­ ity [below]. Paintings are often reproduced with words around them. Procession to Calvary by Breughel [1525-1569]. This is a landscape of a cornfield with birds flying out of it. Look at it for a moment [below]. Then turn the page. [See page 157]. It is hard to define exactly how the words have changed the image but undoubtedly they have. The image now illustrates the sentence. In this essay each image reproduced has become part of an argument which has little or nothing to do with the painting's original independent meaning. The words have quoted the paintings to confirm their own ver­ bal authority.... Reproduced paintings, like all information, have to hold their own against all the other information being continually transmitted. Consequently a reproduction, as well as making its own references to the image of its original, becomes itself the reference point for other im­ ages. The meaning of an image is changed according to what one sees Wheatfield with Crows by Van Gogh [1853-1890]. 157 WAYS OF SEEING IfUs ihet^ Von pemtecL bejbft, tUL kt'tuj hMTisiJf- immediately beside it or what comes immediately after it. Such authority as it retains, is distributed over the whole context in which it appears. Because works of art are reproducible, they can, theoretically, be used by anybody. Yet mostly — in art books, magazines, films, or within gilt frames in living-rooms - reproductions are still used to bolster the illusion that nothing has changed, that art, with its unique undiminished authority, jus­ tifies most other forms of authority, that art makes inequality seem noble and hierarchies seem thrilling. For example, the whole concept of the Na­ tional Cultural Heritage exploits the authority of art to glorify the present social system and its priorities. The means of reproduction are used politically and commercially to disguise or deny what their existence makes possible. But sometimes individuals use them differently [See page 158]. Adults and children sometimes have boards in their bedrooms or living-rooms on which they pin pieces of paper: letters, snapshots, repro­ ductions of paintings, newspaper cuttings, original drawings, postcards. On each board all the images belong to the same language and all are more or less equal within it, because they have been chosen in a highly personal way to match and express the experience of the room's inhabit­ ant. Logically, these boards should replace museums. What are we saying by that? Let us first be sure about what we are not saying. We are not saying that there is nothing left to experience before origi­ nal works of art except a sense of awe because they have survived. The way original works of art are usually approached — through museum cat­ alogues, guides, hired cassettes, etc. - is not the only way they might be approached. When the art of the past ceases to be viewed nostalgically, the works will cease to be holy relics — although they will never re-become what they were before the age of reproduction. We are not saying original works of art are now useless. 158 so oa L Original paintings are silent and still in a sense that information never is. Even a reproduction hung on a wall is not comparable in this respect for in the original the silence and stillness permeate the actual material, the paint, in which one follows the traces of the painter’s immediate gestures. ORIGINAL PAINTINGS This has the effect of closing the distance in time between the painting of the picture ARE SILENT AND STILL IN A SENSE and one's own act of looking at it. In this THAT INFORMATION NEVER IS. special sense all paintings are contempo­ rary. Hence the immediacy of their testimony. Their historical moment is literally there before our eyes. Cezanne made a similar observation from the painter's point of view. "A minute in the world's life passes! To paint it in its reality, and forget everything for that! To become that minute, to be the sensitive plate ... give the image of what we see, forgetting everything that has appeared before our time__ ' What we make of that painted moment when it is before our eyes de­ pends upon what we expect of art, and that in turn depends today upon how we have already experienced the meaning of paintings through reproductions. Nor are we saying that all art can be understood spontaneously. We are not claiming that to cut out a magazine reproduction of an archaic Greek head, because it is reminiscent of some personal experience, and to pin it to a board beside other disparate images, is to come to terms with the full meaning of that head. The idea of innocence faces two ways. By refusing to enter a conspiracy, one remains innocent of that conspiracy. But to remain innocent may also be to remain ignorant. The issue is not between innocence and knowledge (or between the natural and the cultural) but between a total approach to art which attempts to relate it to every aspect of experience and the eso­ 159 Woman Pouring Milk by Vermeer [1632-1675]. WAYS OF SEEIN G teric approach of a few specialized experts who are the clerks of the nos­ talgia of a ruling class in decline. (In decline, not before the proletariat, but before the new power of the corporation and the state.) The real ques­ tion is: to whom does the meaning of the art of the past properly belong? to those who can apply it to their own lives, or to a cultural hierarchy of relic specialists? The visual arts have always existed within a certain preserve; origi­ nally this preserve was magical or sacred. But it was also physical: it was the place, the cave, the building, in which, or for which, the work was made. The experience of art, which at first was the experience of ritual, was set apart from the rest of life — precisely in order to be able to exer­ cise power over it. Later the preserve of art became a social one. It entered the culture of the ruling class, while physically it was set apart and iso­ lated in their palaces and houses. During all this history the authority of art was inseparable from the particular authority of the preserve. What the modern means of reproduction have done is to destroy the authority of art and to remove it — or, rather, to remove its images which they reproduce - from any preserve. For the first time ever, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free. They surround us in the same way as a language surrounds us. They have entered the mainstream of life over which they no longer, in them­ selves, have power. Yet very few people are aware of what has happened because the means of reproduction are used nearly all the time to promote the illusion that nothing has changed except that the masses, thanks to reproductions, can now begin to appreciate art as the cultured minority once did. Under­ standably, the masses remain uninterested and skeptical. If the new language of images were used differently, it would, through its use, confer a new kind of power. Within it we could begin to define our experiences more precisely in areas where words are inadequate. (Seeing comes before words.) Not only personal experience, but also the essential historical experience of our relation to the past: that is to say the experi­ ence of seeking to give meaning to our lives, of trying to understand the history of which we can become the active agents. The art of the past no longer exists as it once did. Its authority is lost. In its place there is a language of images. What matters now is who uses that language for what purpose. This touches upon questions of copyright for reproduction, the ownership of art presses and pubhshers, the total pohcy of public art galleries and museums. As usually presented, these are narrow professional matters. One of the aims of this essay has been to show that what is really at stake is much larger. A people or a class which is cut off from its own past is far less free to choose and to act as a people or class than one that has been able to situate itself in history. This is why — and this is the only reason why — the entire art of the past has now become a political issue. J. LL. Banus/Age Fotostock Many of the ideas in the preceding essay have been taken from another, written over forty years ago by the German critic and philosopher Walter Benjamin. His essay was entitled The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. This essay is available in English in a collection called Illuminations (Cape, London, 1970). Walter Benjamin NOTES ^ Seymour Slive, Frans Hals (Phaidon, London), [All notes are Berger's.] ^ This quotation is from an article written in 1923 by Dziga Vertov, the revolutionary Soviet film director. We were unable to reproduce all of the images from the original text of "Ways of Seeing." If you would like to track them down, you might look for a copy of Berger's book Ways of See­ ing in your college or university library. You'il find them there. — Eds.
Purchase answer to see full attachment