Skip to main content

ahlect031

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">

<TEI.2><teiHeader>

<fileDesc>

<titleStmt>

<title>"Contemporary Approaches to the History of Art 2: Postcolonialism, Semiotics, Psychoanalysis"</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>

<idno>ahlct031</idno>

<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any

way</p>

<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>

</publicationStmt>

<sourceDesc>

<recordingStmt>

<recording dur="00:48:25" n="7560">

<date>03/11/1998</date><equipment><p>video</p></equipment>

<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>

</respStmt></recording></recordingStmt></sourceDesc></fileDesc>

<profileDesc>

<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

<language id="fr">French</language>

</langUsage>

<particDesc>

<person id="nf0096" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="f"><p>nf0096, main speaker, non-student, female</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="3"><p>number of speakers: 3</p></personGrp>

</particDesc>

<textClass>

<keywords>

<list>

<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">History of Art</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG</item>

<item n="module">Methods in Art History</item>

</list></keywords>

</textClass>

</profileDesc></teiHeader><text><body>

<u who="nf0096"><kinesic desc="slide projector is on showing slide" iterated="n"/> so you know this is the last lecture of this unit # and i really hope you will enjoy the other modules and you know that # <pause dur="0.4"/> whenever there's a problem with a particular module and you feel you can <pause dur="0.2"/> clarify <pause dur="0.2"/> the problem <pause dur="0.2"/> with the the the the tutor the <trunc>c</trunc> your course tutor <pause dur="0.2"/> then do so if there's a more <pause dur="0.2"/> fundamental problem or you feel you can't go to the course tutor <pause dur="0.3"/> please by all means come <pause dur="0.3"/> always come back to me i need to know if there's a problem <pause dur="0.5"/> so don't have any inhibition <pause dur="0.3"/> come and see me <pause dur="0.5"/> my office hours shall be from <pause dur="0.4"/> ten till eleven on Wednesdays <pause dur="0.2"/> from this week onwards <pause dur="1.0"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> the last lecture <pause dur="1.0"/> let me <pause dur="0.3"/> briefly review where we've come from so far <pause dur="1.1"/> if you remember in the first lecture i looked at one artist <pause dur="0.2"/> Turner <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> tried to sort of run the gamut of all the different approaches really to show you <pause dur="0.6"/> how different meaning can look <pause dur="0.2"/> from <pause dur="0.2"/> you know whatever angle you approach the work of art <pause dur="0.3"/> so i really tried to show you <pause dur="0.4"/> the differences of of of meaning

you generate by just simply the way you approach a work of art <pause dur="0.6"/> and then <pause dur="0.7"/> in the last two weeks <pause dur="0.3"/> i gave you an account of <pause dur="0.3"/> art histories <pause dur="0.2"/> from the nineteenth century to the twentieth century really and the early twentieth century <pause dur="0.4"/> all of which in one way or another <pause dur="0.4"/> tried to <pause dur="0.7"/> give a causal account of # why an artwork looks the way it does <pause dur="0.3"/> a causal account which at once <pause dur="0.3"/> is specific to the historic time in which the artwork is generated <pause dur="0.3"/> as well as being superhistorical so that this cause is also something which determines the way we perceive the world nowadays or the way <pause dur="0.3"/> artworks are produced nowadays <pause dur="0.3"/> because only when you have that <trunc>super</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>aca</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> emphasizing that superhistorical point of view <pause dur="0.4"/> did you really have a means of assessing the work of art in the past you had a connection to the past a legitimate connection <pause dur="0.7"/> now <pause dur="0.7"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> Hegel that was the world spirit for <pause dur="0.3"/> Wölfflin and Riegl it was the evolution of human perception <pause dur="0.4"/> then for <pause dur="0.2"/> Panofsky and

and iconography <pause dur="0.2"/> it was <pause dur="0.5"/> the way that thoughts throughout human societies always try to conceptualize the world <pause dur="0.2"/> the sort of constant <pause dur="0.5"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> which # Panofsky saw as something which constantly stayed in societies <pause dur="0.4"/> and then <pause dur="0.2"/> with Marx it was <pause dur="0.2"/> the way that the means of production <pause dur="0.2"/> differently structured the economic societies <pause dur="0.4"/> and it was always the means of production which and and the way they were distributed which changed over time but stayed <pause dur="0.3"/> you know that <pause dur="0.3"/> as a sort of economic base state stable <pause dur="1.5"/> so all of these accounts <pause dur="0.3"/> gave this you know <pause dur="0.2"/> gave you in the proper sense an art history one which you could write but you which you could write throughout the ages <pause dur="0.3"/> when i came then to weaker form of Marxist analysis to social history and to feminism <pause dur="0.4"/> i said <pause dur="0.3"/> that they really don't have that any more <pause dur="0.3"/> they can give you a specific account of a <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> a work of art in its historic <pause dur="0.2"/> time <pause dur="0.6"/> from a critical viewpoint but they don't claim that they have this sort of superhistorical cause

or have discovered that superhistorical cause <pause dur="0.4"/> which gives you continuity throughout the ages <pause dur="0.5"/> now that's for a variety of reason i mean for various of reasons <pause dur="0.3"/> particularly Hegel and Panofsky's <pause dur="0.2"/> way of explaining it <pause dur="0.4"/> had just become <pause dur="0.8"/> quite suspiciously metaphysical and nobody can really hold to that nowadays <pause dur="0.4"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> Wölfflin and Riegl's account of the evolution of human perception <pause dur="0.2"/> is just simply not borne out by psychology so people don't really believe that into in that any more <pause dur="0.6"/> and also <pause dur="0.2"/> of course <pause dur="0.2"/> they felt it was just too reductive it was just giving an account of the formal changes rather than the content <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> with Marxist of course that you know all yourself i mean people can't really quite believe in the Marxist trajectory any more after the wall came down in <pause dur="0.3"/> in in Germany and Berlin in eighty-nine <pause dur="0.3"/> because this trajectory of the an evolution from # a capitalist society to communism <pause dur="0.3"/> was just simply not borne out <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> for <trunc>var</trunc> <trunc>variet</trunc> various <pause dur="0.2"/>

reasons art historians nowadays feel very suspicious of these sort of superhistorical causes and this endeavour to give an account there <pause dur="0.6"/> and they have <pause dur="0.2"/> resigned themselves to give quite a specific account of an artwork in its specific <trunc>toci</trunc> society <pause dur="0.3"/> from <pause dur="0.2"/> # a critical viewpoint formulated nowadays <pause dur="1.5"/> and of course <pause dur="0.8"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> aspect that they embed the artwork deeply in its society is really what all those accounts all these contemporary approaches <pause dur="0.3"/> which i started with last week and i will continue today <pause dur="0.3"/> really share <pause dur="0.9"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> of course what does it mean it means that there's a multiplicity of viewpoints possible because of course if you say well <pause dur="0.3"/> we don't really have a authoritative viewpoint any more <pause dur="0.3"/> then you have a variety of approaches which are possible <pause dur="0.4"/> but <pause dur="1.1"/> any single one of them is really rid of authoritative conviction <pause dur="0.2"/> so you have this multiplicity of legitimate approaches coexisting next <pause dur="0.2"/> to each other <pause dur="0.5"/> but not <pause dur="0.2"/> one single one which can really claim

it is the one and exhaustive explanation <pause dur="1.0"/> that i think you have to bear in mind when you <pause dur="0.3"/> continue in this course <pause dur="0.9"/> you really again and i come back to that <pause dur="0.2"/> are left to choose what you feel is the most plausible to yourself bearing in mind this is the most plausible to you and it could be <pause dur="0.2"/> something else could be entirely plausible to someone else <pause dur="0.4"/> and you can <pause dur="0.2"/> really construct the history of art <pause dur="0.3"/> from your own viewpoint from your own interests <pause dur="0.2"/> from your own approach <pause dur="0.3"/> but really can't <pause dur="0.2"/> go as far as claim that that is really the exhaustive explanation and you have an authoritative account <pause dur="0.4"/> and can really indeed give <pause dur="0.2"/> an authoritative survey <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>course on the history of art <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/></u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0096" trans="pause"> today i will talk about <trunc>cos</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> post-colonial approaches <pause dur="0.4"/> semiotics <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.7"/> finish with the psychoanalytic approach <pause dur="1.2"/> it's obvious let me start with the post-colonial <pause dur="0.2"/> account <pause dur="0.3"/> it's obvious there's <pause dur="0.4"/> that a post-colonial account <pause dur="0.5"/> is # asking <pause dur="0.2"/> # or is # # considers the outward is deeply embedded

and deeply imbricated by what's going on in society <pause dur="0.5"/> and particularly a post-colonialist <pause dur="0.2"/> # or someone who <trunc>m</trunc> # adheres to that <pause dur="0.6"/> discourse # <pause dur="0.7"/> would ask <pause dur="0.3"/> what does it mean for works of art that <trunc>societ</trunc> western European societies in particular or western societies <pause dur="0.3"/> have continued to <pause dur="0.7"/> absorb and dominate other non-western societies non-European societies <pause dur="0.9"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> post-colonial discourse also means that it's not just a recuperation into the canon of # # recuperation of non-western European societies' artefacts into the canon of art <pause dur="0.5"/> but it also <pause dur="0.3"/> tries to critically inflect <pause dur="0.6"/> what it means to have this canon what it means to <pause dur="0.5"/> to to <trunc>m</trunc> to be <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> faced with a with a domination by western societies <pause dur="2.8"/> it really <pause dur="0.3"/> post-colonial <pause dur="0.6"/> approaches in the history of art really took off with two exhibitions in the eighties <pause dur="1.3"/> one <pause dur="0.2"/> was staged <pause dur="0.4"/> in the <trunc>mu</trunc> in the Museum of Modern Art in New York in <trunc>eighti</trunc> in nineteen-eighty-four <pause dur="0.9"/> and what people tried there what set out to do there was to show

that far from <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>sh</trunc> # from completely developing without any contact with other societies <pause dur="0.2"/> western art was deeply influenced by <pause dur="0.2"/> what happened what what was produced in other societies and other cultures non-western cultures <pause dur="0.6"/> so in the wake of <pause dur="0.3"/> nineteenth century colonialism artefacts from <pause dur="0.8"/> all over the world and other cultures reached the western museums and of course as you know from the seminars already was studied <pause dur="0.2"/> by artists in particularly <pause dur="0.7"/> by Picasso as we've seen in the seminars <pause dur="0.5"/> i'm <pause dur="0.2"/> quite surprised yes here <trunc>o</trunc> obviously <pause dur="0.5"/> did it wrongly <pause dur="0.3"/> here i show you <pause dur="0.2"/> which you probably all recognize by now as a <pause dur="0.4"/> as a <pause dur="0.2"/> as a <pause dur="0.3"/> as a picture very closely related to the Demoiselles d'Avignon <pause dur="0.3"/> then he also produced the two <pause dur="0.2"/> females nudes were <trunc>p</trunc> produced in nineteen-o-six <pause dur="0.4"/> now you can see that <pause dur="0.3"/> Picasso here has <pause dur="0.2"/> taken or is influenced by the mask which he saw the Iberian mask in particular he saw <pause dur="0.4"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> the museums in in Paris <pause dur="0.2"/> so you have this almond the almond-shaped eyes the dark contours <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> it's sort of propped

onto those female nudes what he also has taken and this is what the exhibition catalogue in the MOMA emphasized <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> what he'd taken from the artefacts of other societies and other cultures particularly African and Iberian cultures <pause dur="0.3"/> was that # <pause dur="0.5"/> # that <pause dur="0.3"/> fragmentation of forms <pause dur="0.4"/> so forms didn't have to <trunc>f</trunc> to like <pause dur="0.2"/> the breast of the right nude for example is sort of propped on rather than in a sort of continuous <pause dur="0.3"/> plausible <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>three-dimensional <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>space of a female body <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> they really argued that <pause dur="0.3"/> what made Picasso such a hero in contemporary # in in twentieth century art the shattering of the three-dimensional <trunc>in</trunc> illusionistic # picture space <pause dur="0.3"/> was really something which he took <pause dur="0.5"/> from <pause dur="0.4"/> other cultures from non-western cultures <pause dur="0.6"/> and learned from them <pause dur="2.0"/> but soon <pause dur="0.2"/> after the exhibition opened and this characteristically voluminous catalogue was issued <pause dur="0.3"/> this exhibition came under heavy criticism from people who were influenced by <pause dur="0.3"/> post-colonial discussions <pause dur="1.2"/> they <pause dur="1.2"/> accused the exhibition

of simply <sic corr="continuing">contintinuing</sic> the exploitation of non-western cultures <pause dur="0.5"/> in this case of simply continuing <pause dur="0.3"/> an account which says <pause dur="0.3"/> look <pause dur="0.3"/> we're going and taking <pause dur="0.3"/> the means and resources from other cultures <pause dur="0.2"/> in order to advance our own aims <pause dur="0.2"/> in this case twentieth century art history or the twentieth century art <pause dur="0.3"/> the shattering of the picture space is something <pause dur="0.3"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> has significantly happened in twentieth century art <pause dur="0.3"/> but it is something <pause dur="0.2"/> which is <pause dur="0.6"/> on the ground on the base of # <pause dur="0.3"/> artistic articulations in non-European cultures <pause dur="0.4"/> so they say this is really just a continuation of colonization it doesn't give any of those cultures proper recognition <pause dur="1.9"/> so another exhibition opened <pause dur="0.7"/> five years later <pause dur="0.2"/> in nineteen-eighty-nine in Paris <pause dur="0.8"/> and that exhibition was called La Magicien De La Terre <pause dur="0.4"/> the magicians of the earth and in this exhibition modern art was shown alongside contemporary achievements by other cultures non-western cultures <pause dur="0.6"/> and the aim in this show was <pause dur="0.2"/> to

show <pause dur="0.2"/> that such productions <pause dur="0.4"/> were not simply a source <pause dur="0.3"/> for western art as it had been in the primitivism <pause dur="0.2"/> exhibition <pause dur="0.3"/> but actually equalled <pause dur="0.3"/> western art <pause dur="0.4"/> in the in their achievements in the aesthetic beauty they could generate <pause dur="1.0"/> now again this exhibition came under heavy fire and criticism <pause dur="0.3"/> because <pause dur="0.2"/> it was argued <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> not only <pause dur="0.5"/> did this exhibition <pause dur="0.4"/> show <pause dur="0.3"/> the work <pause dur="0.4"/> from other cultures completely disconnected from their contexts so <pause dur="0.5"/> that decontextualization was heavily criticized <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> they furthermore said <pause dur="0.2"/> these critics of this exhibition said <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> it is perceived <pause dur="0.5"/> in in a mould <pause dur="0.2"/> aesthetic beauty which is really very very intrinsic to western cultures and very very foreign to other cultures <pause dur="0.2"/> and therefore <pause dur="0.2"/> it is another <pause dur="0.2"/> sign of an appropriation <pause dur="0.2"/> rather than a proper recognition <pause dur="1.8"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> underlying all those criticisms <pause dur="0.3"/> these <pause dur="0.2"/> two two those exhibitions <pause dur="0.2"/> was really <pause dur="0.2"/> what is properly <pause dur="0.2"/> a post-colonial approach <pause dur="0.4"/> and that was influenced <pause dur="0.2"/> by a rather wonderful book by the literary critic

and Palestinian Palestinian Edward Said <pause dur="0.3"/> called Orientalism <pause dur="0.3"/> which came out actually <pause dur="0.2"/> ten years <trunc>ag</trunc> # twenty years ago in nineteen-seventy-eight <pause dur="0.8"/> now Said <pause dur="0.3"/> in this book Orientalism <pause dur="0.5"/> has very forcefully <pause dur="0.5"/> argued <pause dur="0.2"/> that western societies <pause dur="0.6"/> not only just exploited <pause dur="0.3"/> others' other cultures <pause dur="0.7"/> in their colonial strategies <pause dur="0.3"/> but in fact <pause dur="0.8"/> fabricated those societies in their own image <pause dur="0.8"/> other societies became and actually took on that character <pause dur="0.4"/> simply by being characterized in opposition to western cultures <pause dur="0.3"/> so whatever a western culture <pause dur="0.2"/> isn't <pause dur="0.4"/> # that other culture other cultures non-European cultures had to be <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> for example <pause dur="0.2"/> they were deemed to be <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> much purer somehow much more essential <pause dur="0.2"/> more related to nature <pause dur="0.2"/> less rational <pause dur="1.2"/> much more emotional so you can see it's all constructed in oppositions that was Said's point <pause dur="0.7"/> and he also argued <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> in fact because of the many many years of encounters <pause dur="0.4"/> these societies then took on those characteristics were really shaped in those images <pause dur="0.3"/> and we

really do look in vain for <pause dur="0.4"/> an essential more purer <pause dur="0.3"/> more nature-related society elsewhere <pause dur="0.3"/> it is already our own construct <pause dur="1.9"/><kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> now <pause dur="0.6"/> let me illustrate this by looking <pause dur="0.4"/> at the work here <pause dur="0.2"/> on your left <pause dur="0.7"/> which <pause dur="1.0"/> was produced by <pause dur="0.6"/> someone <pause dur="0.5"/> called Jimmie Durham a contemporary artist <pause dur="0.7"/> in when was it actually it's nineteen-eighty <pause dur="2.3"/> i don't have the <pause dur="0.5"/> date i think it's <pause dur="0.4"/> something in <trunc>th</trunc> in the nineteen-eighties i think it's something in the nineteen-eighties sorry i've forgotten the date of this <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> it's called <pause dur="0.2"/> The Cathedral of Saint John <pause dur="1.4"/> and i think if you look at it # # let me tell you about Jimmie Durham first a little bit Jimmie Durham is what we now would call a Native American artist i mean the they themselves at once stage called themselves the First Nation people <pause dur="0.7"/> and Jimmie Durham also was <pause dur="0.2"/> the representative for the First Nation people at the United <trunc>sta</trunc> # United Nations in Geneva for some time <pause dur="0.5"/> so what is quite typical here is and it's no no accident that i take to

illustrate that point <pause dur="0.4"/> an artist a contemporary artist because contemporary artists and Jimmie Durham <pause dur="0.2"/> is quite a typical example <pause dur="0.3"/> were actually very heavily and much more at the forefront of <pause dur="0.3"/> taking up and articulating <pause dur="0.3"/> theoretical <trunc>con</trunc> and critical viewpoints in the eighties much more than any art critic or art historian <pause dur="1.0"/> so you can see <pause dur="0.3"/> he <pause dur="0.2"/> he was someone <pause dur="0.3"/> who <pause dur="0.4"/> also had a career as a politician apart from being <pause dur="0.3"/> this incredibly famous now contemporary artist <pause dur="0.5"/> and very articulate <pause dur="0.2"/> on the reasons why he <pause dur="0.2"/> produced a work of art in the way he did <pause dur="1.2"/> however we look at it <pause dur="0.4"/> at first hand it probably seems to you <pause dur="0.4"/> or some of you quite raw quite unfinished sort of assembled rather <pause dur="0.4"/> dilettantish perhaps even <pause dur="2.4"/> what we note is there's a skull <pause dur="0.5"/> we see some sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> material from <pause dur="0.2"/> remains from animals the skull the antlers <pause dur="0.9"/> and i think in the way that it is assembled we immediately might think of some sort of totemic figure <pause dur="0.2"/> from non-European cultures <pause dur="0.3"/> perhaps also you know using a skull

using animal remains <pause dur="0.2"/> but also probably in the way <pause dur="0.5"/> that it is painted in this rather <pause dur="0.3"/> garish decorative <pause dur="0.2"/> # way the skull is painted there's blue and then the sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> points dots # of red and and yellow on top of it <pause dur="0.7"/> and that is probably something we do # associate with <pause dur="0.3"/> artefacts now manufactured by <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> say Native Americans <pause dur="0.2"/> for example <pause dur="1.4"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> we also notice i think <pause dur="0.2"/> that there are <pause dur="0.2"/> quite sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> industrially <pause dur="0.2"/> manufactured elements in this <pause dur="0.4"/> in this sculpture <pause dur="0.7"/> the the the the boot <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the <trunc>m</trunc> # the sawmill produced wood <pause dur="0.3"/> which is <pause dur="0.2"/> roughly bolted together <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> with with nails and big bolts at <kinesic desc="indicates point on slide" iterated="n"/> these places <pause dur="0.2"/> and of course <pause dur="0.3"/> the the the metal tubes which form a surrogate antler here <pause dur="0.2"/> at the top <pause dur="1.0"/> another industrial produced <pause dur="0.2"/> material <pause dur="0.4"/> and also <pause dur="0.2"/> industrially manufactured in a way that it <trunc>pu</trunc> it is put together here <pause dur="2.3"/> so what we really have with this sculpture <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.2"/> a number of oppositions <pause dur="0.6"/> culture nature <pause dur="0.6"/> savagery civilization <pause dur="0.7"/> before after <pause dur="0.9"/> the technical <pause dur="0.2"/> the non-technical <pause dur="0.9"/> now if you recall what

i said before <pause dur="0.3"/> about Edward Said and his account of colonization <pause dur="0.5"/> you realize that these kind of oppositions is what he <pause dur="0.4"/> criticized as the West doing when it encounters cultures which are foreign <pause dur="1.1"/> to it or European <pause dur="0.3"/> societies did when they encountered those rather strange to them strange societies <pause dur="0.4"/> in order to understand them <pause dur="0.4"/> they had to shape them in their own image and they gave them <pause dur="0.7"/> characteristics <trunc>s</trunc> which were in opposition <pause dur="0.2"/> to what they were and what they understood <pause dur="0.7"/> and so this is really played out here <pause dur="0.2"/> all those oppositions brought together in one culture <pause dur="1.0"/> # in one sculpture <pause dur="0.3"/> now Jimmie Durham himself is <pause dur="0.3"/> repeatedly emphasizes in his writings <pause dur="0.4"/> that the ease <pause dur="0.3"/> that there was an incredible ease with which Native Americans <pause dur="0.2"/> assimilated and used all those <pause dur="0.2"/> products and materials # <pause dur="0.2"/> which <pause dur="0.5"/> western societies brought to them when they colonized the country <pause dur="0.2"/> America <pause dur="0.8"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> he <trunc>p</trunc> he would make a point that if they came with rifles and they got hold of rifle rifles <pause dur="0.3"/>

these guns were immediately incorporated in the artefacts they # <pause dur="0.3"/> they produced <pause dur="0.4"/> without really you know obviously giving them their proper <pause dur="0.2"/> use they were just incorporated in what was there <pause dur="0.8"/> so that is the first point <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> which i want to <pause dur="0.2"/> to make here that Jimmie Durham says # says <pause dur="0.2"/> look <pause dur="0.3"/> there is <pause dur="0.3"/> there's an incredible ease with which our culture <pause dur="0.2"/> Native Americans have always assimilated whatever was brought to them <pause dur="0.6"/> and secondly he points out <pause dur="0.3"/> that this thinking in opposition is quite foreign to his own culture <pause dur="0.3"/> that in fact and probably that <trunc>r</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> might ring true to you that <pause dur="0.4"/> there is a <pause dur="0.2"/> # a that this is a <pause dur="0.7"/> culture Native Americans have a culture <pause dur="0.3"/> which is <pause dur="0.9"/> much more characterized by blurred demarcations things are not as <pause dur="0.2"/> hard and fast <trunc>f</trunc> are fastly fixed in oppositions <pause dur="0.3"/> so for example <pause dur="0.3"/> there isn't a strict demarcation between animals and humans <pause dur="0.5"/> and this is also borne out in the sculpture <pause dur="0.4"/> you see these animals remains the skull and the antler <pause dur="0.2"/> but they

are assembled in a <pause dur="0.2"/> in a rather figurative way in a way that # resembles more an upright human <pause dur="0.8"/> he also points out that there is no no clear <pause dur="0.4"/> demarcation between <pause dur="0.4"/> death and life <pause dur="0.3"/> so the skull he uses here <pause dur="0.3"/> is really a tribute to <pause dur="0.3"/> death as it lives on in the presence <pause dur="2.1"/> and on the basis of all that <pause dur="0.3"/> we can probably also see that the <pause dur="0.4"/> character of assemblage here the sort of raw unfinished state which might have looked or might look dilettantish to you <pause dur="0.6"/> is something which <pause dur="0.2"/> Jimmie Durham does quite consciously <pause dur="0.4"/> in fact <pause dur="0.3"/> he <pause dur="0.2"/> he really does feel that the found object what he finds and assembles <pause dur="0.2"/> needs to be left <pause dur="0.4"/> in its own right <pause dur="0.2"/> must not be homogenized in a sort of entity which loses <pause dur="0.2"/> where all the <pause dur="0.2"/> individual elements <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>u</trunc> <trunc>loo</trunc> use their lose their own characteristic <pause dur="0.3"/> so he really does want an assemblage which looks <pause dur="0.4"/> quite assembled and not really homogenized in a unified object <pause dur="0.3"/> because he thinks <pause dur="0.3"/> that would just simply <pause dur="0.3"/> annihilate <pause dur="0.3"/> the character of the # of all the individual elements

in the way that the colonials annihilated the characteristics of the natives <pause dur="0.3"/> when they arrived in their country <pause dur="0.7"/> or attempted to <pause dur="2.6"/> furthermore actually Durham <pause dur="0.3"/> turns the table on us and he says even our own culture is not as homogenous as we imagine it to be <pause dur="0.2"/> as seamless <pause dur="0.4"/> because <pause dur="0.4"/> this odd title this sculpture has The Cathedral of Saint John the Divine <pause dur="0.3"/> is actually a church in Manhattan some of you might know <pause dur="0.3"/> and it is the biggest <pause dur="0.6"/> and largest Gothic <trunc>achie</trunc> cathedral on Earth <pause dur="0.3"/> except of course <pause dur="0.2"/> that it is not a medieval <pause dur="0.2"/> Gothic church <pause dur="0.3"/> it is <pause dur="0.2"/> it stems from the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="1.1"/> Durham points out that the stonework which gives it the resemblance of the Gothic of # the Gothic style <pause dur="0.2"/> is actually held together <pause dur="0.3"/> with steel <pause dur="0.3"/> which is now as you know it's <trunc>e</trunc> expanding with rust <pause dur="0.3"/> and therefore eventually will destroy that <pause dur="0.2"/> magnificent building <pause dur="2.3"/> so <pause dur="1.1"/> i think <pause dur="0.2"/> the message here is <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> Jimmie Durham says <pause dur="0.2"/> there are differences <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.5"/> there is no essential <pause dur="0.3"/> character to any one culture <pause dur="0.2"/> every culture is a

hybridity in one way or another <pause dur="2.1"/> and this is i think very much <pause dur="0.4"/> what the post-colonial discourse <pause dur="0.5"/> in art history also tries to take on board and give account of <pause dur="0.8"/> and this is also something <pause dur="0.2"/> which the second approach today semiotics <pause dur="0.4"/> is very clear about that there is actually <pause dur="0.3"/> in this case behind language no essential reality <pause dur="0.4"/> that language denotes nothing essential nothing <pause dur="0.2"/> clear but is <trunc>alwa</trunc> what it denotes is already always a construct <pause dur="0.5"/> of the context in which language is used </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0096" trans="pause"> so i come to semiotics now <pause dur="1.4"/> now of course the analysis of our means of communications as a system of science <pause dur="0.3"/> is as old as western civilization as <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> will tell you when it come when when you get to the forth module of this course <pause dur="1.3"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> in the way that semioticians nowadays use <pause dur="0.6"/> the the <trunc>m</trunc> the # the <trunc>l</trunc> the the language of science and the system of science <pause dur="0.2"/> this really goes back to the twenties early twentieth century linguist Ferdinand Saussure who i've mentioned before <pause dur="0.7"/> who stated <pause dur="1.1"/> stated this analysis of

science in in in terms which are still in use so for example he <pause dur="0.2"/> argued <pause dur="0.3"/> that a word <pause dur="0.2"/> is a signifier for something <pause dur="1.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> he called the signified <pause dur="0.3"/> which is already a mental concept and not a object out in # <pause dur="0.4"/> # in the world <pause dur="0.2"/> something which the signifier refers to so there is the signifier and the signified you've heard this now <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>before <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.3"/> and in the seminars as well <pause dur="0.3"/> and the signified <pause dur="0.5"/> that which is denoted by the signifier <pause dur="0.6"/> is already a mental concept <pause dur="1.2"/> and not an <pause dur="0.2"/> objective world out there <pause dur="2.6"/> and it is really only in the <pause dur="0.7"/> in the <pause dur="0.2"/> in the context of the whole sentence <pause dur="0.2"/> of the <pause dur="0.2"/> society <pause dur="0.3"/> that language or words <pause dur="0.2"/> take on their meaning <pause dur="0.4"/> now <pause dur="0.6"/> what does that mean for pictures <pause dur="1.1"/> <trunc>le</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> let's look at <pause dur="2.1"/><kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> this picture here <pause dur="0.2"/> on your <pause dur="0.9"/> on your right <pause dur="0.2"/> this is on your right now yes <pause dur="1.4"/> here's a still life by the seventeenth century artist Caravaggio <pause dur="0.3"/> who worked in Rome in the seventeenth century <pause dur="0.8"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> first we should note the signifiers what are the signifiers in this picture <pause dur="0.5"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> strictly <trunc>s</trunc>

speaking the signifiers in this picture <pause dur="0.2"/> are the brushstrokes so we note <pause dur="0.3"/> the sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> rather luminous background in <pause dur="0.2"/> pinkish this is actually a very pinkish slide it's not as pinkish as that # but # <pause dur="0.4"/> a sort of greyish <pause dur="0.7"/> rather luminous rather cloudy background <pause dur="0.8"/> which at times those brushstroke condemns to some sort of figurative <pause dur="0.5"/> assemblage in the foreground <pause dur="0.4"/> which yet is very pushed <pause dur="0.3"/> into the two-dimensional realm or or really kept or held back i should better say in the two-dimensional realm <pause dur="0.3"/> it seems as if it <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.7"/> it's articulated into some three-dimensional object but if you look very clearly it's not very clear <pause dur="0.4"/> how this object or these sorts of condensation of brushstrokes <pause dur="0.4"/> really <pause dur="1.2"/> take place in a three-dimensional picture space <pause dur="1.1"/> now these brushstroke and i've tried really hard to limit myself to just talking about brushstrokes here because <pause dur="0.3"/> only those are the signifiers <pause dur="0.4"/> these brushstroke <pause dur="0.3"/> then <pause dur="0.2"/> take on some meaning for us or we might associate them

with <pause dur="0.4"/> fruit <pause dur="0.9"/> vegetables you know <trunc>ju</trunc> i think it's just fruit and a basket on a table <pause dur="1.0"/> and this is the signified <pause dur="0.4"/> the fruit <pause dur="0.2"/> we we associate with those brushstrokes the concept of fruit <pause dur="0.7"/> and basket <pause dur="1.5"/> now there is another semiotician called <pause dur="0.4"/> Charles Peirce <pause dur="0.5"/> who called <pause dur="0.2"/> the signified what Saussure called the signified <pause dur="0.3"/> an icon and that's been taken on by art historians quite quite rapidly the the the word icon <pause dur="0.3"/> because what Peirce said <pause dur="0.4"/> that the icon or the signified <pause dur="0.3"/> can have <pause dur="0.2"/> various relations <pause dur="0.2"/> with <pause dur="0.3"/> a known world various relations of resemblance with a <pause dur="0.2"/> with a known world <pause dur="0.3"/> so in this case there's a very close resemblance <pause dur="0.3"/> with <pause dur="0.2"/> the concept we have of fruit and basket <pause dur="0.4"/> because <pause dur="0.3"/> you know we we seem to see a fruit and a basket and it seems to be very close to fruits and baskets in our knowledge <pause dur="0.6"/> but there's also a further <trunc>dime</trunc> it can the icon can <trunc>a</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> also be <pause dur="0.3"/> quite # far removed from what we know in the objective world <pause dur="0.3"/> and take on much more abstract thoughts <pause dur="0.5"/> and that's actually <pause dur="0.5"/> present

in this picture as well you might not have thought <pause dur="0.3"/> but if you look very closely <pause dur="0.3"/> and now i'm afraid i have to go here <pause dur="0.6"/><event desc="walks to slide" iterated="y" dur="1"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on slide" iterated="n"/> you can see that the <pause dur="0.4"/> the apple is worm-eaten <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> the leaves wilt <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> on the knowledge of # with the knowledge of seventeenth century thought <pause dur="0.5"/> we <pause dur="0.3"/> know that this is that actually denotes quite an abstract thought <pause dur="0.7"/> I-E it denotes <pause dur="0.3"/> a memento mori a vanitas symbol <pause dur="0.5"/> what it means is that <pause dur="0.3"/> even in the midst of beauty there's death <pause dur="0.3"/> we all will decay <pause dur="0.3"/> the vanitas symbol <pause dur="0.6"/> a memento mori <pause dur="0.4"/> so this is actually in this picture <pause dur="0.7"/> the signified <pause dur="0.7"/> also <trunc>i</trunc> # <trunc>e</trunc> <trunc>m</trunc> # it denotes two things one which is very closely related to <pause dur="0.2"/> what we think is the objective world <pause dur="0.4"/> and one which is <pause dur="0.3"/> a bit more removed from that <pause dur="0.2"/> and takes on abstract thoughts <pause dur="1.2"/> so that is <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>fu</trunc> # fundamental semiotic analysis of a picture <pause dur="3.3"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> you find semioticians like Rosalind Krauss <pause dur="0.5"/> in one of the seminar texts who we've encountered <pause dur="0.2"/> one seminar hasn't quite encountered it yet <pause dur="0.4"/> who concentrate <pause dur="0.3"/> on

how this meaning is constituted within the language of the individual picture <pause dur="0.8"/> like Saussure really who says <pause dur="0.9"/> meaning is only constituted by the syntax by the individual sentence in which a word is found <pause dur="0.5"/> and the sentence in this case is the entire picture so <pause dur="0.6"/> Rosalind Krauss if she looked at this picture <pause dur="0.3"/> would point out <pause dur="0.3"/> how much actually it is a two-dimensional construct it <pause dur="0.3"/> # Caravaggio doesn't actually give us the basket very firmly placed on a three-dimensional <pause dur="0.2"/> table in a three-dimensional room <pause dur="0.3"/> it really is very oddly pressed into two dimensions <pause dur="0.6"/> and she would <pause dur="0.4"/> take <pause dur="0.2"/> and <trunc>di</trunc> discuss that <pause dur="0.3"/> as then constructing the meaning which of course in the end would come close to the meaning i've just discussed <pause dur="0.2"/> the meaning of <pause dur="0.4"/> you know that he obviously wants to not just show us a beautiful arrangement of fruits in a basket <pause dur="0.3"/> but generate some further meaning <pause dur="0.8"/> that of the memento mori <pause dur="0.9"/> there is death in the midst of beauty <pause dur="2.0"/> however <trunc>va</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> after the Second World War another

analysis of language <pause dur="0.5"/> rapidly spread through Anglo-American world <pause dur="0.3"/> and that was one <pause dur="0.3"/> which came from the philosopher the Viennese philosopher who emigrated to England # <pause dur="0.2"/> Ludwig Wittgenstein <pause dur="0.6"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> Wittgenstein's philosophy of language <pause dur="0.2"/> emphasized the context the social context in which language emerged <pause dur="1.1"/> now he <pause dur="0.2"/> held that language emerges within and transforms our social <pause dur="0.2"/> transactions <pause dur="0.2"/> its contents is not some fixed state of affairs in the world <pause dur="0.4"/> but that state of affairs <pause dur="0.4"/> is permanated permeated by the life of speech by the way and the context it which we utter something <pause dur="2.7"/> now by analogy art might be seen <pause dur="0.2"/> as both to emerge <pause dur="0.2"/> out of the context of social activity <pause dur="0.6"/> as well as being irreducible to it and that is <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> really really important characteristic # of semioticians why they are so keen on what they are doing because they say <pause dur="0.3"/> what they do is <pause dur="0.2"/> different from a social historian or art historian <pause dur="0.4"/> because <pause dur="0.3"/> a social # they criticize social art historians as reducing a work

of art as simply reflecting the states of affair in society <pause dur="0.4"/> while a semiotician <pause dur="0.5"/> claims to pay close attention <pause dur="0.2"/> to the irreducible nature of a work of art there is something very specific in a work of art as it comes together <pause dur="0.3"/> and a semiotician <pause dur="0.2"/> and that's characteristic of semiotics is that it tries to <pause dur="0.7"/> keep the balance between <pause dur="0.3"/> the reference to the social society and the context on the one hand <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="1.0"/> the artwork and the nature of the artwork <pause dur="0.3"/> as quite a <pause dur="0.4"/> in quite an quite a characteristic being on the other <pause dur="2.6"/> really the best known <pause dur="1.0"/> advocate of this kind of art history the semiotic approach in art history <pause dur="0.4"/> is someone called Norman Bryson <pause dur="0.7"/> B-R-Y-<pause dur="0.3"/>S-O-N <pause dur="0.4"/> B-R-Y-<pause dur="0.2"/>S-O-N so <pause dur="0.2"/> i'll just give you that name because you will find that <pause dur="0.5"/> that person in Preziozi's collection of essays for example <pause dur="2.0"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/> let me look at an analysis of a painting by Bryson and i will quote Bryson here but i have to <pause dur="0.3"/> give you a little bit more background before i can just <pause dur="1.1"/><kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> launch into this <pause dur="0.9"/> into this quote from him <pause dur="1.4"/>

and i give you two pictures <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> Bryson is really in what i am going to quote to you now <pause dur="0.2"/> is really talking about this picture <pause dur="0.2"/> which is called the Gilles and is in the Louvre <pause dur="0.5"/> but he also refers to a figure <pause dur="0.4"/> which you will find in this picture <pause dur="0.2"/> by the same artist which is <kinesic desc="indicates point on slide" iterated="n"/> this figure and you will see it when i talk about it # <pause dur="0.2"/> so he amalgamates # various pictures by Watteau <pause dur="0.3"/> but really only talks <pause dur="0.3"/> and elicits the meaning of <kinesic desc="indicates slide" iterated="n"/> this one here <pause dur="1.5"/> another point <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to understand that quote is <pause dur="0.2"/> that he alludes to something called the <distinct lang="fr">fête champêtre</distinct> and that came up in the seminar yesterday <pause dur="0.3"/> and that's really a tradition which goes back to Titian but really <pause dur="0.3"/> became very <pause dur="0.2"/> very alive with Watteau in the eighteenth century # oh sorry i've given you the name of the artist now i'll come back to that but with this artist <pause dur="0.3"/> in the eighteenth century in France this is an eighteenth century French artist <pause dur="0.8"/> who placed # <pause dur="0.3"/> aristocratic people parties <pause dur="0.4"/> in nature <pause dur="0.3"/> and the point

here was that <pause dur="0.5"/> that gathering that aristocratic <trunc>na</trunc> # gathering is as natural <pause dur="0.2"/> as nature itself <pause dur="0.2"/> in fact the nature though he places these people in were highly <pause dur="0.2"/> highly cultivated <pause dur="0.2"/> but still <pause dur="0.6"/> nature functions as a backdrop <pause dur="0.2"/> for these <distinct lang="fr">fêtes champêtres</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> the party in the countryside that means # <pause dur="0.3"/> as a sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> naturalizing element which naturalizes the coming-together <pause dur="0.8"/> right we've got that so <pause dur="0.4"/> let me <trunc>l</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> well first tell you <pause dur="0.7"/> about the artist <pause dur="0.5"/> who Bryson is talking about <pause dur="0.6"/> that is Jean-Antoine Watteau an eighteenth century French artist <pause dur="2.2"/> Bryson says <pause dur="0.8"/> <reading>in Watteau <pause dur="0.3"/> a whole narrative structure <pause dur="0.2"/> insists on meaning <pause dur="0.8"/> but at the same time <pause dur="0.6"/> withholds or avoids meaning <pause dur="0.7"/> let us take the example of this characteristic <kinesic desc="indicates slide" iterated="n"/> theatrical costume <pause dur="0.8"/> in the theatre <pause dur="0.4"/> such clothing is part of a general system of conventionalized costumes <pause dur="0.4"/> with exact dramatic and signalling functions <pause dur="0.9"/> the diamond-patterned costume <pause dur="0.4"/> signals Arlecchino</reading> <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="indicates slide" iterated="n"/> that's here <pause dur="0.3"/> on <pause dur="0.2"/> on the on the right <pause dur="0.6"/> <reading>the baggy <pause dur="0.3"/> white <pause dur="0.2"/> ruffed costume <pause dur="0.3"/>

signals Pedrolino or Gilles <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="indicates slide" iterated="n"/> here on the left <pause dur="0.4"/> the black cap and gown <pause dur="0.2"/> signals doctor <pause dur="1.9"/> but outside the frame of the stage in a <distinct lang="fr">fête champêtre</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> such signalling costumes lose their semantic charge <pause dur="0.2"/> and having lost that the original <trunc>meani</trunc> meaningfulness <pause dur="0.6"/> take on all the sadness of the depleted sign <pause dur="1.9"/> a sign <pause dur="0.2"/> that insists on a signified which is absent <pause dur="0.4"/> disconnected <pause dur="0.2"/> from the present signifier <pause dur="0.3"/> at the same time <pause dur="0.3"/> that sign <pause dur="0.2"/> makes the claim for a powerful and <unclear>attractive</unclear> <pause dur="0.2"/> signified <pause dur="0.6"/> in this case <pause dur="0.2"/> melancholy <pause dur="0.6"/> that is nowhere stated in the <trunc>pain</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> painterly signifier explicitly</reading> <pause dur="1.1"/> so what's he saying here <pause dur="0.3"/> he's really saying <pause dur="0.3"/> that Bryson that is that the meaning of the figures in the picture <pause dur="0.2"/> is at once dependent on the original context the theatre <pause dur="0.4"/> yet <pause dur="0.4"/> it's not <pause dur="0.2"/> like Wittgenstein's Life of Speech reducible to it <pause dur="0.8"/> but constitutes something other as well <pause dur="0.3"/> and particularly because it is depleted of that meaning in the theatre it takes on another meaning in this <pause dur="0.3"/> in this picture <pause dur="0.2"/> in

this case <pause dur="0.3"/> the melancholy melancholy of <kinesic desc="indicates slide" iterated="n"/> this picture <pause dur="5.4"/> now here <pause dur="0.6"/> like in all other contemporary approaches i think it is which i've discussed so far and <pause dur="0.2"/> will continue to discuss here <pause dur="0.3"/> the specific social context of a work of art is crucial as you can see <pause dur="0.2"/> Bryson needs to know about the conventions of these figures in the theatre <pause dur="1.4"/> the comedians in the theatre <pause dur="0.2"/> and he needs to know about Watteau so he needs to know about the social context so that is the same <pause dur="0.6"/> as in all other <pause dur="0.2"/> approaches <pause dur="2.0"/> this is also the case and that's perhaps more surprising in the last <pause dur="0.2"/> approach i will come to today the psychoanalytical approach <pause dur="0.7"/> although here the larger context <pause dur="0.5"/> becomes the psychological development <pause dur="0.3"/> common or assumed to be common to all human beings <pause dur="1.1"/> so again <pause dur="0.5"/> because of psychoanalysis broader claims for unveiling general human psychological configurations <pause dur="0.3"/> we do not stand still with <pause dur="0.2"/> an interpretation of an individual artist <pause dur="0.5"/> and his or her work <pause dur="0.7"/> although <trunc>tha</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/>

that <pause dur="0.2"/> would always be the starting point <pause dur="0.4"/> but we are also drawn into <pause dur="0.3"/> how <pause dur="0.4"/> this work is conditioned by society in fact how the individual's <pause dur="0.3"/> psychological make-up <pause dur="0.3"/> is actually conditioned by society </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0096" trans="pause"> i've very briefly looked <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="changes slide" iterated="n"/> at <pause dur="1.2"/> no <pause dur="1.3"/> at this picture <pause dur="0.6"/> last week <pause dur="0.3"/> you remember <pause dur="0.3"/> Renoir's the impressionist Renoir's La Loge <pause dur="0.2"/> of eighteen-seventy-four <pause dur="1.0"/> now let me here now recast that analysis which i i brought it up in discussion of feminist approaches you know the <pause dur="0.2"/> the men are the painters the women are the objects in painting <pause dur="0.4"/> now let me recast this here <pause dur="0.3"/> in a psychoanalytical <pause dur="0.2"/> in psychoanalytical terms and see what <pause dur="0.2"/> what that will generate for this picture <pause dur="0.6"/> but in order to do so i have to tell you a little bit more <pause dur="0.6"/> about <pause dur="0.2"/> Sigmund Freud <pause dur="0.3"/> who i mentioned in connection with Turner <pause dur="0.6"/> now Sigmund Freud <pause dur="0.4"/> the psychoanalyst well doctor in Vienna at the turn of the century <pause dur="1.7"/> advanced a theory <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> castration anxiety which really lies at the heart of psychoanalytical <pause dur="0.5"/> approaches to the history of art <pause dur="1.0"/> now

that theory states that <pause dur="0.2"/> the infant male the infant boy experiences an uninhibited <trunc>pleas</trunc> # pleasure in his relationship with his mother's body <pause dur="0.8"/> until the stage <pause dur="0.2"/> when he realizes <pause dur="0.3"/> that he's actually in competition for it <pause dur="0.2"/> with his father <pause dur="0.8"/> now in particular <pause dur="0.4"/> the male infant <pause dur="0.2"/> fears that his father will deprive him <pause dur="0.2"/> of the penis <pause dur="0.3"/> that gives him so much pleasure <pause dur="1.4"/> now a thought which is actually confirmed according to psychoanalysis in the infant's <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> imagination <pause dur="0.3"/> by the appearance of his mother's <sic corr="genitalia">genitatalia</sic> <pause dur="0.3"/> which look to him like a castrated version of his own <pause dur="2.1"/> what is more the the father appears to be such a powerful figure <pause dur="0.8"/> obviously with a much more developed penis <pause dur="0.4"/> that the infant simply <pause dur="0.2"/> according to psychoanalysis <pause dur="0.5"/> sacrifices <pause dur="0.8"/> his own penis <pause dur="0.8"/> # as a source of pleasure <pause dur="0.3"/> and tries to found his identity on <pause dur="0.2"/> a substitute for that on some kind of what then psychoanalysis calls a phallus <pause dur="0.7"/> that has come <trunc>an</trunc> up in the seminars as well so the phallus is distinct from the

penis <pause dur="0.3"/> it really is <pause dur="0.3"/> the object which the infant tries to concentrate on <pause dur="0.3"/> an object which is completely <pause dur="0.3"/> unviolatable which can't be reached by <pause dur="0.4"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> by by the threat of the father can't be reached <pause dur="0.5"/> by any <pause dur="0.4"/> any violation from the father <pause dur="0.6"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> asserting identity and identifying this phallus can take various forms and a <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> number of <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> # of objects <pause dur="0.5"/> but its importance lies in it ability to have a symbolic value <pause dur="0.2"/> as something <pause dur="0.3"/> that stands for presence <pause dur="0.3"/> like <pause dur="0.3"/> the penis and the pleasure the <trunc>preni</trunc> the penis generated was present and <pause dur="0.3"/> and just there <pause dur="0.6"/> as well as <pause dur="0.4"/> power <pause dur="0.3"/> something which can't be hurt can't be taken away by someone else <pause dur="2.3"/> so really all that the male's physical otherness from the female first signified <pause dur="0.2"/> that had to be <pause dur="0.2"/> this phallus <pause dur="0.6"/> this is often why people or psychoanalysts explain why babies or infants actually toddlers i should say <pause dur="0.2"/> acquire language <pause dur="0.2"/> because that language actually stems <pause dur="0.6"/> has this kind of symbolic value it is present and it has power and the father uses

it powerfully <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> it's often explained that <pause dur="0.3"/> children try to identify the with # with that and and take that on as a substitute <pause dur="0.3"/> for <trunc>hi</trunc> for <pause dur="0.2"/> for <pause dur="0.3"/> their own former pleasure <pause dur="0.2"/> with # with the female body and <pause dur="0.5"/> their own <pause dur="0.5"/> actual physical penis <pause dur="1.1"/> now what does that mean <pause dur="0.2"/> what what consequence <pause dur="0.2"/> does that have for this image here <pause dur="0.7"/> now simple argument would simply state <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.8"/> in all men there's a residual fear of castration <pause dur="0.7"/> and that was also there in Renoir when he painted this painting <pause dur="0.6"/> and <trunc>renoi</trunc> Renoir's <pause dur="0.6"/> and it inclined Renior <trunc>n</trunc> Renior to <pause dur="0.3"/> find # <pause dur="0.3"/> to find ways of deferring recognition <pause dur="0.5"/> that the female body is in fact a body castrated <pause dur="1.4"/> and therefore he painted <pause dur="0.2"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> rather fetishized female number of them female bodies <pause dur="0.3"/> as a sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> perfect image something which can't be hurt something which isn't <pause dur="0.7"/> characterized by a lack <pause dur="0.4"/> or by something <pause dur="0.2"/> you know missing <pause dur="0.7"/> and # in this <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>c</trunc> sense you know in this psychoanalytical sense in fact the female body becomes a phallus <pause dur="0.2"/> a <trunc>s</trunc> penis

substitute something which stands for power something <trunc>s</trunc> which stands for <pause dur="0.3"/> perfect <pause dur="0.6"/> unadulterated presence <pause dur="0.7"/> and of course <pause dur="0.2"/> it is <trunc>v</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> and of course in this image <pause dur="0.3"/> and this is where <pause dur="0.2"/> feminists have <pause dur="0.3"/> leaped into this <pause dur="0.3"/> the eroticized major still hangs on in all <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> all penis substitutes and all phalli according to psychoanalysis <pause dur="0.5"/> the that pleasure that initial pleasure the infant <pause dur="0.2"/> experienced <pause dur="0.2"/> that still lingers on <pause dur="0.3"/> and so <pause dur="0.2"/> the female body is <pause dur="0.2"/> eroticized on one hand it still has that it still stands in for the original penis which gave so much pleasure <pause dur="0.4"/> but of course it must never this woman must never become real she <trunc>m</trunc> she has to <pause dur="0.3"/> remain a figment of <pause dur="0.4"/> the <trunc>m</trunc> the male artist's imagination <pause dur="0.2"/> because as soon as she were to become real <pause dur="0.4"/> # the lack <pause dur="0.5"/> would become apparent again <pause dur="1.7"/> the lack the non-perfectness <pause dur="0.3"/> of women <pause dur="1.4"/> so <pause dur="1.2"/> this is <pause dur="0.4"/> i think the <trunc>vu</trunc> # a <trunc>ru</trunc> rudimentary account of psychoanalysis which really <trunc>underli</trunc> # underlies all psychoanalytic accounts <pause dur="0.6"/> and you can

see <pause dur="0.2"/> very clearly <pause dur="0.3"/> in this account <pause dur="0.8"/> which is my last point here <pause dur="0.2"/> in with regard to approaches today # <pause dur="0.7"/> psychoanalytic <pause dur="0.3"/> approach <pause dur="0.3"/> is of course very very conducive to feminist appropriation and this is something i didn't mention last week when i went <pause dur="0.3"/> through all the different <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> ways that # all the different approaches which feminism or feminists question in art history can take on <pause dur="0.6"/> very often you do find feminist art history aligned with a psychoanalytic account <pause dur="0.3"/> for the obvious reasons that it helps <pause dur="0.3"/> feminists to explain why male artists have always depicted women in the way they have <pause dur="2.5"/> indeed <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>mo</trunc> just most of the contemporary approaches can appear in combination with one another and you've seen that in the seminars and in <trunc>v</trunc> variety of the texts there already <pause dur="0.8"/> let me finish <pause dur="0.3"/> today by going back to the start of this lecture series and <pause dur="0.2"/> hopefully <pause dur="0.2"/> wrapping this one up neatly in # as well <pause dur="0.2"/> and this is by <pause dur="0.8"/> going back to the blackboard <pause dur="0.2"/> which i <pause dur="0.7"/> something i did earlier <pause dur="0.5"/> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/><event desc="moves screen" iterated="y" dur="10"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> and i

hope you can read it <pause dur="0.5"/> and something you should <pause dur="0.2"/> recognize <pause dur="1.0"/> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> you think i'm bombarding you with German here now <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> but no <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.6"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> we are here <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> <pause dur="0.9"/> this blackboard do you recognize this this is <pause dur="0.9"/> what <pause dur="0.2"/> i wrote up at the end of the first lecture <pause dur="0.3"/> all the different approaches i had gone through <pause dur="0.2"/> in the course of discussing Turner <pause dur="0.6"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> what i've produced here in my beautiful <pause dur="0.2"/> designer <pause dur="0.3"/> mode <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> very clearly laid out <pause dur="0.4"/> i've <pause dur="0.5"/> taken them put them all down again and you can now recognize we had <pause dur="0.4"/> we really <pause dur="0.2"/> apart from the biographical approach i we i discussed all those approaches in the lectures <pause dur="0.8"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> i drew a very firm line this time between <pause dur="0.2"/> those first four <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> the last five <pause dur="0.6"/> because <pause dur="0.3"/> as i said in the lectures and today again <pause dur="0.4"/> all those last four <pause dur="0.2"/> refuse to accept and really highly criticize those approaches <pause dur="0.4"/> for just standing still there <pause dur="0.2"/> what they really all all these want to show is that <pause dur="0.4"/> an artwork <pause dur="0.3"/> can't <trunc>s</trunc> you can't stand still with a connoisseurial

approach you can't sell still with a biographical approach or a formalist approach <pause dur="0.6"/> or indeed <pause dur="0.2"/> iconography as such you really have to show how deeply embedded <pause dur="0.2"/> the artwork <pause dur="0.3"/> is in society <pause dur="0.2"/> that comes here <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> i'll read it to you in a second <pause dur="0.4"/> and you have to investigate it <pause dur="0.2"/> from a critical contemporary viewpoint <pause dur="0.3"/> so what i've <pause dur="0.3"/> written <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> here i've made an arrow going up from all of these going up there <pause dur="0.3"/> saying <pause dur="0.3"/> they refuse to accept <pause dur="0.3"/> that an analysis of work of art is exhausted by these <pause dur="0.6"/> yet and that is important i think it is fair to say that all of these still need <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> those approaches somewhat as a base <pause dur="0.3"/> you do need a proper <pause dur="0.2"/> attribution to an artist or you <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to really discuss an artwork meaningfulness in its place in its society <pause dur="0.4"/> you do need <pause dur="0.3"/> to look <pause dur="0.2"/> at an artwork first of all the way that it is <pause dur="0.3"/> painted the way or or sculpted or <pause dur="0.2"/> produced <pause dur="0.4"/> in order to really <pause dur="0.3"/> understand its meaning so you do need some kind of formalist appreciation after all so <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> this is this sentence <pause dur="0.2"/>

they do yet <pause dur="0.2"/> they do form these four approaches do form the base <pause dur="0.2"/> for all of these <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.7"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> what these add is that art is <pause dur="0.4"/> very very clearly embedded in social formations <pause dur="0.3"/> and investigated from a <trunc>compe</trunc> contemporary critical viewpoint <pause dur="1.1"/> now then <pause dur="0.3"/> i have some very confusing arrows <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> here <pause dur="0.3"/> and they really show all the combinations possible that # in fact i started off when i thought about this <pause dur="0.5"/> this <pause dur="0.7"/> # <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> this # <pause dur="0.5"/> this <pause dur="0.4"/> graphic <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> outline here <pause dur="0.3"/> that in fact <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> all these four last four approaches really do depend i mean and they have to on some kind of social art history if they all adhere to the <pause dur="0.3"/> # to to the belief that an artwork has <pause dur="0.3"/> is something not divinely ordained on the world but <pause dur="0.3"/> produced by <trunc>soti</trunc> societies <pause dur="0.3"/> so really <pause dur="0.2"/> social history of art not the Marxist one though because that as i said initially <pause dur="0.2"/> has become <pause dur="0.3"/> somewhat <pause dur="0.2"/> suspicious in its fundamental claims but social art history really feeds in all of these <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> and they can all feed into each other and form various and this is why it's sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> then i went from <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> this with arrows into

all three <pause dur="0.3"/> from this <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> # so they're all connected with each other <pause dur="1.0"/> but <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> here at the very end and i think one can and and i have to be a bit more careful <pause dur="0.2"/> i think it's fair to say <pause dur="0.3"/> that a psychoanalytical approach <pause dur="0.2"/> would always have a <trunc>h</trunc> have a special affinity with a biographical approach you do need to if you start from the individual <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> his or her make-up you do need to have some kind of knowledge of the <pause dur="0.3"/> of the not always as my analysis of Renoir showed you can do without it if you take it in very general terms <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> i think it's fair to say that they <pause dur="0.4"/> there is a special affinity to the biographical approach <pause dur="0.6"/> and i also think that there is a special affinity <pause dur="0.2"/> between the semiotic approach <pause dur="0.2"/> and formalists # the formalist approach we saw it with <trunc>ro</trunc> Rosalind Krauss <pause dur="1.1"/> but if you read Norman Bryson you can see that he places a heavy heavy <pause dur="0.4"/> emphasis <pause dur="0.2"/> on the way that the artwork is produced and i said it in the lecture a little earlier <pause dur="0.3"/> that what is specific about a semiotic

approach is <pause dur="0.3"/> that it not only shows that the artwork is part of a context <pause dur="0.3"/> but also tries to account <pause dur="0.2"/> for what is really non-reducibly arty about an artwork <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> and that's where the formalist <pause dur="0.6"/> sympathy comes in <pause dur="0.9"/> there's and you will see this but this will now complicate it a little bit more but you will see it with <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> there's also a special affinity <pause dur="0.5"/> if if you don't have the special <trunc>af</trunc> <trunc>a</trunc> <trunc>a</trunc> affinity with a formalist approach <pause dur="0.3"/> then you might have a <pause dur="0.2"/> special affinity <pause dur="0.3"/> with <pause dur="0.2"/> the iconographical approach and i believe that <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> in his <pause dur="0.4"/> module <pause dur="0.3"/> will take iconography <pause dur="0.5"/> in a <trunc>m</trunc> non in a in a sort of modified non-Panofsky sense <pause dur="0.4"/> and # introduce you # talk about that again and the semiotic approach together <pause dur="1.1"/> so there are various special affinities <pause dur="0.4"/> but i hope <pause dur="0.3"/> that sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> neatly wraps it up and recalls certain things and brings it together <pause dur="0.9"/> and i'm <pause dur="0.2"/> actually for once today <pause dur="0.3"/> we'll finish in time <pause dur="0.3"/> but let me just say <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> that i've <pause dur="0.4"/> you know having come to the end now <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> none of the

contemporary approaches has a clear sense and repeat this again of the underlying mechanisms <pause dur="0.4"/> which connect us with the past <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> is at the same time # <pause dur="0.3"/> working historically specific to that age or context or artwork under in <trunc>dev</trunc> investigation <pause dur="0.5"/> thus <pause dur="0.2"/> all of them are unable to give you a clear authoritative <pause dur="0.2"/> account of the art of the past <pause dur="0.6"/> and how it developed over time <pause dur="1.8"/> now it is however possible to give an account from a particular viewpoint <pause dur="0.3"/> be it social history feminism semiotics or indeed reception theory and all of that of course you will get over the next four modules in this course <pause dur="0.7"/> but of course you also will <pause dur="0.3"/> get a much much deeper <pause dur="0.2"/> knowledge of individual periods <pause dur="0.3"/> than i've <pause dur="0.3"/> produced here <pause dur="0.2"/> and of course you probably noticed and i greatly <pause dur="0.2"/> relish this that i that my account or my use of <pause dur="0.3"/> works of art in these lectures have really stretched right across the civilizations from <pause dur="0.3"/> Egyptian artworks <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> a very contemporary <pause dur="0.4"/> very up to date contemporary artist

Jimmie Durham <pause dur="0.2"/> so if you really think about it you almost had an artwork from <pause dur="0.2"/> almost any very well known period of the of the history of art so we had Egyptian <pause dur="0.4"/> # we had classic Greek <pause dur="0.3"/> we had late Roman empire <pause dur="0.7"/> i referred to medieval cathedrals when i discussed Hegel <pause dur="0.3"/> then we went to the Renaissance with Martène <pause dur="0.3"/> Rubens and Rembrandt again when i <pause dur="0.3"/> discussed Wölfflin <pause dur="0.9"/> again the Baroque with Caravaggio here <pause dur="0.7"/> the eighteenth century is there with Watteau <pause dur="0.2"/> the nineteenth century is there with the with the Impressionists Monet Renoir the twentieth century with Picasso <pause dur="0.3"/> and # <pause dur="0.3"/> and the late twentieth century we're nearly <pause dur="0.3"/> out of it the late twentieth century we're nearly in the twenty-first century <pause dur="0.2"/> that's Jimmie Durham <pause dur="0.5"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/> this is something very unusual i must admit that i really really <pause dur="0.2"/> # it's very rare that one gets an opportunity in a lecture to have that <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>wide a range <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>and <pause dur="0.3"/> oh i've forgotten there was Dürer as well so German Renaissance you had <pause dur="0.2"/> a bit more of the Renaissance <pause dur="0.4"/> and i enjoyed it but i hope <pause dur="0.5"/> it will make more sense to you <pause dur="0.3"/> when you do study <pause dur="0.6"/> particular periods from a particular angle at more depth in the next module so i hope you enjoy it

</u></body>

</text></TEI.2>