The

Visual

Culture

Reader

Second edition

Edited by

Nicholas Mirzoeff

~l Routledge

i \.. T.ylo, ,!.F rancts Group

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 1998 by Routledge

11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4 P 4 E E

Simultaneously published In the USA and Canada by Routledge

29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001

Reprinted 1998, 2001

Second edition first published 2002

Rout/edge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

© 1998, 2002 Editorial matter and selection Nicholas M irzoeff © 1998, 2002 Chapters, individual contributors

Typeset in Perpetua by

Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devoll Printed and bound in Great Britain by

T J Tnternational Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall

All rig hts rese rved, No part of th is boo k may be rep ri nted or re produced or uti lized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage 01' retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Britlst: Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Pubfication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN 0-415-25221-0 (Hbk)

0-415-25222-9 (Pbk)

Chapter 1

Nicholas Mirzoeff

lH E SUBJ ECl OF VISUAL CU LlURE

DURING THE fIR T DAYS of the NATO attack on Serbia in April 1999,1 "vas 'watching a CNN live report from Belgrade. The pictures showed a burning building somewhere in Belgrade while the anchor quietly relayed official communiqLICS. A little logo indicated that the pictures were coming from Serbian television. At this point, the surreal calm of the broadcast was suddenly disrupted. Serbian television, realizing that C I were using their feed, switched to carrying the American imagcs designated by the CNN logo. Thus CNN viewers were now watching Serbian television watch them watching. CNN had displayed the Serbian television logo as a waming, iilclicating to its American audience that the pictures were not ntirely t ) be trusted. Well aware that its own viewers shared this skepticism, Serbian television switched reeds in ordcr lo assert to its domestic audience that because they wer' now watching what C N viewers were watching, they should in Fad trust the pictures. Serbian television used the global television station to vindicate its 1;;;;1 co-v~rage. The now angry anchor intervened and CNN stopped shOWing the pictures. The global corporation had lost control of the logos and hence the image. This, then, was a st!:uggle about images as well as a struggle OVe~ITaiIl.

This little incident expressed the formal condition of contemporary visual culture that r callJr..tervisuality, the simultaneous display and interaction of a variety of modes of visuality. eN sees itself as the gl?J8.1 surveillance channel for Western viewers. ike the jailer in th imaginary prison Known as the Panopticon (see P: 97), the CN cam era is supposed toll" invisible to participants in news events. This enables transmission from behind enemy lines or at the heart of an ongoiLlg riot. in fact, this viewpoint is highly restricted, cTeating the opportunity for

erbian television to play its game with the logos. The switch in logos revealed that the images were not pure visibility but h!ghJ-¥_me~ed representation. TheJogo itself is an expression or a chain of images, discourses and material reality, that is to say, an icon, representing both an older and 11 newer form of visuality than the

4 NICHOLAS MIRZOEFF

panopticon - older in the Christian icon, newer in the computer software icon. Finally, the rapid change of feed From Serbian television to C N and back to the studio highlighted that the domain of the contemporary image is literally and metaphorically electric, ATO forces were directing the war using satellite images and photograplls as highly accurate gUides for missiles. However, the effectiveness of this strategy still depended on accurate interpretation of the image, as was made clear by the unintend d bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade - mistaken hy LIS tntelligence for a Serbian facility. The pilots who flew the missions were trained in Aigllt simulators but were only allowed up in clear weather conditions so that they could accurate] y survey the terrain below.

This was a media war in all senses, On April 21, 1999 NATO planes attacked the television station belonging to MaQ@_Milosevic, daughter of Serbian President

lobodan Milosevic, and in so doing also knocked out two other television stations transmitting from the same building. In the tire 123 episodes of The Simpsons as well as new episodes of Chicago Hope and Friends were destroyed, pitting the American armed forces against their own television networks. In a further twist, knOWing that the Western media would carry photos of the damage, the govenllIlent placed a

poster in English directly in front of the damaged Usee bujlding that hous d the television stations. It showed a computer genel'ated image of the Eiffel Tower in Paris seeming to collapse in flames under military attack. The destruction of global tourist symbols that was imagined in the science-fiction film Independence Day (1996) was now deployed in what one would hesitate to call 'reality,' were it not for the all-too-real consequences of the weapons being used on both sides .. Agence FrancePresse duly ensured that the image was seen around the world (New York Times April

J1r ~22 1999: A 15). The caption read 'Just Imagine! Stop The Bombs.' It artfully mixed

t' -: ike 'Just Do It' mantra with Arjun Appadurai's observation that in globaliza-

_o(:\ J '" ,_JIi'on, the imagination is a social fact (Appadurai: all bold-face references are to

../'- t ~ ,_J{ pieces in this Reader). The Serbian government was, of course, no friend to freedom

,,~s' of expression and closed down the independent radio station B-92, whose reports

...., ~ were not wholIy fa orable to the regime~2-qukkly found a new hom' on the

'i'.l Dutch website Nettime. It continued to 'broadcast' but only to those with internet

_ ---

access. It is not too much to say that visuality - the~erse ti in of power with visual

representation - was literally beingtought over here. AU available media from the PIlot's line of vision to satellite-directed ma hinc vision, photography, digitally altered images and the global mass media were arenas of contestation, Visualcultnre is tactic for those who do not ontrol such dominant means of visual production

'f- to negotiate the hypervisuality of everyday life in a digitized global culture,

On September 11, 2001, the world became aware of just hov dramatic the consequences ofthe militarization of the global imagination could be when hijacked airliners were crashed into the World Trade Center. This moment enacted in terrible reality the destruction of a national symbol that had been imagined first in

inerna and then by the renegade Serbian state. t\ full history of the visual dimensions of the terrorist act would locate it as the most extreme possible outcome of the strategic manipulation of the image that b gan with the British government's media strategy during the 1982 Falklands war. It would then look at the wellorch strated representation of the Gulf war of 1991 , which the Kosovo war seemed to confirm as the new standard. Jonat11al1 L. Beller describes 'how in relc-visual

I l

\'-V "'~~

...,..~

f-c G.'tI ... ~ v, J

THE SUBJECT OF VISUAL CULTURE

Figure 1.1 Serbian government poster, after NATO bombing, April 22, 1999 (April 2000 © Agcnce France Presse)

warfare the spectacular intensity of d cstruction as well as the ill..ill!!S>Il of its ollective s~on creates certain subJe(,j_i1'..c effects - a sense' of' agency and l~.2.~ver which cQmp mates for the ge~eralizecl lack of these in dail r life' (Beller 1998. 55-56). War is, then, the .'ill~Lof UlJ~s.eJmuges b~t it is also 3 means o£ Cl*atin~L!Qjf&ts, visual subjects. In the Gulf war strategy, the agenfYbeionged to the 'West, , seen from the point of view of the weapons themselves. Pictures were tr ansrnittod showing their 'view' ofthelr targ~t~ ri ht up until the moment.of impact. This stunning representation of war seem 'd to suggest a new surgical precision of' warfare, the endpoint of Walter B nj_amjn' s famous comparison of the slU"geon and ~camcra operator. On September 11, the West discovered what it is like to_ he on the receivingend of tele-visual war. As millions watched the destruction of the World Trade Center live on television, it must be acknowledged that the sense of cn:!powcrmcnt Beller describes was Felt by some \~w-ers, most notoriously in Pa}estine, where there were public celebrations. This is not to argue that the United States 'deserved' the attack or that it was in any way justified but to call attention to the way in which the Western notion of carefully c,Q.!!tTollcd tole-visual war. was appropriate~cmlargedbytho~lO eng~ered the at_?cks. The glob~i:..:alion of culture turns out to be less predictabl and far mor dangerous than had been suppos d.

~,

Visual events

----

r

r

In the first edition of this Reader, I argued that visuR~ture is conc~~d with

\:isua1 ~vents in which th~f£!I.._seeks. Information- mcaning_Q!" pleasure in an Interface with vlsual technology.Yl'his fo~mula bears re-examination, given the rapid pace

--

5

I VI,.!r

') .J.), J

~I ':7-

c__.... P"~ '9-,

".,

y

of dlange. I continue to think that visual culture - rather than visual studies or other such formulations - is the right phrase for th discursive formation that this Reader seeks tu represent. By retainjng the term culture in the foreground, critics and practitioners alike are reminded of the political stakes inherent in what we do. For otherwise it can and has been argued that there is nO_8artiCll]ar need for visual culture as an academic subfield, Visual culture has come into a certain prominence now because ma;:;), artists, critics and scholars have felt that the new urgency of the visual cannot be fully considered in the established visual disciplines. One way of connecting these different disciplinary dilemmas - whether in art history, film studies or cultural studio - is to emphasize the continuingly dynamic force of feminism (taken in the broad sense to incorporate gender and . xuality studies) to challenge disciplinaritv of all kinds.

From these beginnings, visual culture is now an increasingly important meeting place for critics, historians and practitioners in all visual media who are impatient with the tired nostrums of their 'home ' discipline or medium. This convergence is above ill enabled and mandated by digital technology (Cartwright). The emergence of multi-media has created an apparent state of emergency in North American universities at the level of criticism, pedagogy and institutional practice. Responses include the creation or new centers and programs; the organizing of conferences and

ymposia; the installation of as-yet-unprofitable on-line courses; and the publication of a seemingly endless stream of papers. Behind all this activity lurks the fear of an emergent contra"Jiction: ·digffal culture promotes a form of empowered amateurism - make your OWl1 movie, cut your own CD, publish your own website - that cuts across profcssionalization and specialization, the twin justifications of the liberal

, arts uni versi ty. Vi sual culture is not a traditional di scip] i ne, then, because before vcry long there may not be anything like the current array or disciplines. Rather it is one among a number or criticaJly engaged means to work out what doing postdisciplinary practice might be like and, further, to try and ensure that it is not simply a form of pre-job training. That might mean, for example, b-ying to find ways to think about what"djgital culture docs and why, rather than Simply teaching software, either as practice 6i=1ls what Lev Manovich calls 'software studies.'

The constituent element of visual culture's practice is the visual event. The event is the .effect of a network in which subjects operate and which in turn conditions their freedom of action. What took place in the battle of logos during the N A TO attack was a small example, and September 11 was thcapogee of all such

events. But as Michel Foucault argued in the 19708, 'the prohlem is at once to distinguish among events, to diITert:ntiate the networks and levels to which they belong, and to reconstitute the lines along which they are connected and engender one another' (Foucault 2000: 116). He suggested that the study 01" events 'works by co~cting around the ~gt.llar event analyzed as process a '~n" 0., rather, "polyh xlron" of intelligibility, the numb r of whose laces is not given in advance

and never properly be taken as finite' (227). That is to say, in what Manu ·1 Caste lis j r has called 'the network society' in whieh we live, events are not always fullv know}\'~III )"' 1 able. As the p~e-rsron ~r_chaos theory has it, the butterfly Hap~fits-wi,ngs ann

~ ¢ that movement of air later culminates in _a hurricane, but such chains ot. events

lJ cannot always be tracked. In a more everyday context cause and eITecl contrnue to

"\ l / .. work much as they ever did. But today's gLobal society is literally networked in

r

6 NICHOLAS MIRZOEFF

I"G 1---;THE SUBJECT OF VISUAL CULTURE

, 1. V

ways that arc far dearer to the 4.QP-w.illion pe~ worldwide who 11000V have internet access - according to journalistic estimates in June 2001 - than they were to all but the most astute thinkers of the [970s,. with consequences that were not foreseeable at that time.

Let's think about how the televising of the Serbian war might be networked in the dynamically multifaceted way suggested by Foucault. At a theoretical level, we have learnt from the poststructuralist generation that, f,ll" from being an exception to normality, w~ather the clearest expression of that normality, whether in Foucault's analysis of power, Stuart Hall.'s post-Grarnscian call for a cultural war of position, or MlChelde C~rte~u's advocacy or guen!la-sl:yle 'tactics' as a means of engaging with everyday life. Clearly, as Paul Virillo once observed, 'there: is no war without representation' (Virilio.J.2~ 6). But "'ins 1'10 longer Simply the case that war is cinema, as-Virilio-asserted, if by cinema we reFer to the classic Hollywood narrative fi111. The abili ty of eN N and other new s stations to bri ng war to the li v ing room, often on the same monitor used to play 'first person shooter' video games, or to watch Videotape or DVD versions of films, is closely linked to the public sanction of war and its empowering, i r necessari I y transitory, sense of a collecti vc and individual agency. The Serbian disruption of that viewing had to he removed from the audience's view to sustain the comforting illusion that' we' arc in charge and !.hal no risk to any of 'us' (read American) is involved. War is also a gendered activity, Tendering the subject masculine and its object feminine. When war was cinema and cinema war, iCfO]loweu Om the gaze in that cinema was male. The representation of war has recently been a cen tra I issu e for both m i1itary strategy and film in different but related ways. Since the Vietnam war, the US military have dramatically changed their representations of their actions, follOWing their belief that the war was lQst_ln US l!l:lblic opinion rath_e.Lthan on the bi,Lttlcllcld, despite the enormous effort to annihilate the Viet Congo Converging with this military need to represent war differently, Hollywood cinema came to fed itself under threat from c!jgital media, as the entire apparatus associated with celluloid film has become outdated. The Dogma 95 movement in Europe that refuses to use any form of special effect has been one early response to this crisis, which has yet to be played out in global cinema.

Stephen Spielberg's 1998 epic SavinFJ Private Ryan addressed both the military and the cinematic need for a renewed mode of representation, The fi I m was endl ess I y A;"Ped fuIJ.ts I._e:.a lisrn, especi ally in represen tin g the s(:m nd s 9f_ war. While the rediscovery of the epic format appeared to reinvigorate the. f11m tradition, at the level of the plot, 'realism was hard to find. in Saving Private IY'an. The dramatic opening 3e;gment showed Omaha Beach being captured in twenty minutes, an operation that actual] )' took hours to complete and cost 0 ver a thousand American li Yes in the openi ng rn i nutes of the landing alone. 'Realism,' then, was not an accurate depi ction of the landing but the representation of the death of American soldiers with speaking roles. These deaths of the subsequently hyped 'greatest generation' stand in for the now un.imaginable death of a contemporary American soldier-subject. Recent film scholarship has opened up new ways of thinking about the Second World War and its relationship to cinema .. During the war, cinema audiences did not behave like the silent and immobile spectators of classic film theory. William Friedman Fagelson has excavated fascinating accounts of cinema audience behavior in wartime.

7

8 NICHOLAS MIRZOEFF

Films were subject to a 'call-and-response' audience that Time magazine noted: 'howled, hissed, and booed at pictures, demanded Westerns, carved their initials on seats, sometimes even fired buckshot at the screen' (Fagelson 2001: 94). A particularly demanding audience were the tTOOpS th .mselves, who saw films on ships and in rest areas behind the front lines, as well as at home. Soldiers critiqued the technical aspects of the representation of war and indulged in what one reporter called 'a torrent of verbal reaction that accompanies every foot of the film and affords a sp ctaclc far exceeding any film drama in human interest and undistilled enjoyment' (Fagclson 2001: 99). Adding to this study of re eption, [ohn Bodnar (2001) al-gucs that 111m represented Second World War as a 'people's war,' in the phrase of the time. The overt content of the films, although often mocked by the troops studied by Fagelson, created a context in which war goals included expanding d mocracy and prosp ~rity at home. 0 n the other hand, Saving Private Ryan seeks 'to pres rve the memory of patriotic sacrifice more than it desires to explore the causes of the trauma and viol ence' (Bodnar 2001: 81 7), whi Ie at the sam e ti me forgetting 'a farreaching contest over how to recall and forget the war' (815) From the late 19408 on. In LItis emergent view, the classic post-war cinema that generated so much of current theories of the gaze and spectarorship was also a displacement of a certain film practice that was participatory and progressive. After the events of September 11, it might have to be hazarded that it is now terrorism that is cinema. The visual drama of the events in New York played out as if cinematically directed. The largest possibl target was hit with the most explosive force possible to produce the maximum effect on the viewer. At i!--srmbolic level, the disaster was the result of the impact of the two dominant sym~Qf modernity's triumph over the limitations of body and space - ~irplane and thesfyscraper. The scenario made sense to the viewer precisely because we had all seen it before. Hollywood had turned to the terrorist as a substitute for the previousl y all-pervasiv communist as its preferred villain from the collapse of the Soviet system in 1991 right up until the attacks. Many of the eyewitness accounts used the metaphor of cinema to try and verbaliz the enormity of what had happened. Unpacking this metaphor is going to be an important task that will not be possible until the events in Afghanistan and elsewhere are completed.

This xnnplicated, global j;l.lP!-il'eration or gazes and technologies makes i1 necessary to revise f!'l-e~r formulation that vis~~Lculture necessaril i privileges the viewpoint ""cl'the S?IlS11mer in a given visual event. This assertion was motivated by

-~ ~ ~

a political sense, leameCl from -111m theory J social art history and British cultural

stu rues that this viewpoint had historically been obscured for reasons of rae , class and g nd 1". Til difficulty pr sented by thi approach was bow to identify 'the' visual consumer. If one took the approach of ~ Crary, one could work with the ideal observer predicated by W ~m observational science (Crary 1991). This attention to the visual tracks changes in the understanding and interpretation or the processes of sight and seeks to map them onto visual representation. Howe er , in a given moment of representation, all those histo-rical factors necessarily elided by the formation of an idealized observer must come into play. Cultural st-udies work has been so aware of' these problems that it has tended to work with a given group of' observers in a method derived from aJ).tllrOE9logy known as participant observation. That is to say, the researcher does not pretend to the impossible pO"1iition

THE SUBJECT OF VISUAL CULTURE 9

of the ideal observer but involves her Ihimse!f into the group and uses that involvement as the basis for interpretation through interviews and other forms of joint parlic;ipation. A very important variant of this approach has been the representation of a previously marginaljzed point of view by an artist or writer who claims membership in that subaltern group. Remarkably even these oppositional viewpoints have become to some extent absorbed into the global network. The Se!_;;bia]l billboard discussed above attempted to mpb.iJi!-e li~l and left-vYing opinion in Europe for its own ends, even though th..;:Milosevlc rcgirne repressed precisely these points of view in.Yugoslayja. More generally, marketing in the highly competitive environment of late capital seeks out any specific group it can and makes use of formerly resistant techniques to sell products. So Volkswagen produced a series of television ads for cars in the US that were Widely understood to feature gay men, creating a meta-discussion about the ad and Volkswagen that benefited the manufacturer enormously. Meanwhile all kinds of products and services are being promoted 'below the line' - that is to say, using hand-distributed flyers or postcards, or even word or mouth - techniques that were once reserved for underground nightclubs aimed at specific subcultures, or political organiZ<ltions. To be consJJrner~ted is now the mantra of global business, Without losing sight of the individual viewer, visual culture must go back and 1'01"111 across the interface that is now much more multifaceted than the object- screen- vi ewer triptych.

At the same time, it is becoming clear that what Kobena Mercer has called the 'mantra' of rac~,A:render and. class as the ~ lenses with which to study culture

~ ~~...........-... ---..

i~~ ne~d_~evisjon. TfiISis not to say that any of the issues rarsed by these

ariary,~.es have disappeared or are no longer of importance but that the dominant culture has found ways to negotia~e them. To put it another way, the deployment of race, gender and class oS' l_9nger surplises people, whether they are supportive or hostile. I shalt take two examples from the s~Lotics Q.r a~vertising - so I~lrma-

\ tive for visual culture [rom Barthes's il4ytholoBicS to Berger's Ways ~f Seeins and

WHli~m~n's ~in9 Adverrisements - local to where I ~ writing l!2__Ausn·alia. In these ads, racism and sexism can !lOW be evoked directly or-indirectly in ways that are not secret and therefore resistant to decoding in the classic cultural studies fashion. A 2001 ad for drinking milk features two bUilding workers. One tells the other that he has gone soft when he fails to leer at a passing woman, Visually represented by 111c soft man being out of focus. He drinks milk, comes Into focus, and then performs an astonishing range of sexist catcalls, whistles and facial contortions

to another woman, In a discussion in the Sydney Morning Herald CJf this and similar advertising, Julia Baird concluded that it was so over the top that a veneer of irony protected the ad from a feminist critique (Baird 200 I). The 200 I na tiona! e lection campaign in Australia turned on thequestion of asylum seekers that the coalition go,cemment of John Howard successfully porh'a yed as- 'i~al s' threa tenin g the Australian way of life. In a Widely seen fuU-page ncwspaper advertisement, a picture

of Howard taken from below, standing in f!"Ont of two Australian flags, with his jaw jutting was completed with the guotation 'We decide who comes to this country and under what circumstances." The photograph was more than faintly ridiculous, ' reminiscent of Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator. But the message of the under- \ lined 'we' was dear to all: ~ the white people. In an effective strategy of disllyowal, Howard nonetheless repeatedly denied that the m~ssilge was racist and

."' ~

~ .... ).r~ Visual! subjects

Q.\.. ...

rj he 'media-environment' for war and ita cognates In everyday life is the operating

v I P1.r- _ arena for a_:_new visual subj ctivity. This au 'ectivity is what is ultimately ~~

c-, \< .... J,.~:f, fo~~ culture By the visual subject, T mean a person who is b.9th constituted g§__

w'>-t an a~t (regardless ofms or her biological capacity to see) ana as the effect

(. r of a series of cate~es of isual subjectivity. DUI'ing the modern p~J a ~[old visual subject was preclicatcd by ~ disciplinary society. That subject added to Descartes's early modern definition of self - 'I think therefore J am' (Descartes) - a new mantra of visual subjectivity: 'J am sem a;.:.d l~~ tllJt I am seen.' Tins sense of being the su~ect of ~ur....:eillance p~ovokea~ran)ing form~r;:Csistance that were nonetheless, as Michel Foucault has argued, predicted by the operations

of power'. In 1786 the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham invented a perfect prison that he called the pan2E..tip)ll. The panopti on was an inspection house for the reforIY'

mati on or morals, whether of pris mcrs, workers or prostitutes by means of constant

surveillance that the inmates could not perceive, a syste;:;;- Slimmed up by Michel Foucault in the aphorism 'visibility is a tnp.' In Foucault's view, the panopticon was a model [or the discipliMry soc@t)' at large but the practices of visibility w~ not part of his inquir)l. Rather, he simply assumed with Bentham that a st.,taiglrt sight lii1e equated to visibility. For visual culture, visibility is not so simple. Its object of

<! study is precisely the entities that come into being at the points of intel'sec!ion of

I tl· ,~

;t-fI,I'- vi~.j]it' wi 1 50c:1a1 power. - ---

- 70 take two examples: the hI ind became an object of' state concern at the begin-

ning of the panoptic era, leading to the establishment of state institutions for the blind and Louis Braille's invention of a tactile language in 1826 trom within the Paris Institute for the Blind. Panopticism created the blind as what has now become a 'natural' target of social and stale concern pr cisely because seeing and being seen was the cone rn of the disciplinary nation-state If in this instance panopticism was in a certain sense empowering, it wasin many more controlling or repressive. One of the most important examples is 'race,' the visual network in which one person is clesignated as different from another by reason of physical or inherited characteristics. By the beglnning uf the twentieth century W. E. B. Dubois discerned what he famously calle 'th_e....£olor line,' an arbitrary division of people into racial types that took on the status of social fact (Dubois). So powerful was this means of s~eing

1

\j fl

I~

\

10 NICHOLAS MIRZOEFF

t--.

mobilized a degree of working-class resentment against intellectual elites for suggesting that it was. Both these examples suggest that questions or class, gender, sexuality and ethnicity are as important as ever as means of creating and contesting identity. At the same lime by their car eful strategy of at once invoking the forbidden and disavowing it, they anticipate and in a certain sense welcome their critique. Ambivalence a!.;9 ambi gu ity, classic postsrrucruralist figures, are here ill voked by a very a servative administration and an advertisement for milk. In both cases, if there was no frisson of conservative transgression of what have become mainstream norms, the message would not have been so effective. Ironically, then, the oppositional methods of cultural analysis and of visual representation that in many ways led to the emergence of visual culture are now its object of criticism.

\x

y,.,0 ,J..;-:-t ), Prrs

Jt ._~..,_,...

tha t Ralph Ellison famously ann ounced to a segregated United States in 1 952 that the AI'ri~D American was aLL '~c man.' The color line had become impermeable. P'l~sm, then , was a willed form of seeing in "xJ_lic..hJ~he refusaL!,o see certain objects or people was ~o.!!stituti\le of its s~ccesu:s th~~.rc:ptR;n (If self or 01 hers .. This doubled sensa tion 0 r seei ng and being seen was rew orked in a ps yehoap.alYUc context by Jacques Lacan, Lacan internalized the process of surveillance under thecommand of a sense of shame in his famous formula of ~gs:(e as being a process .in, which 'I see mJself fe~ myself'_(!-_acan). In so doing, as his ~ence to Sartrc's Being and JVothinsness made clear, Lacan envisaged tI~suhjcct mOE!!:9ring itself fortr_aJl~g:cssion. In the passage Lacan cites, S~scribes r.iel_on as being Like the voyeuristic pleasure of looking through a keyhole that is then disrupted by the reeling orl'lemg'"'rooked at by someone else,-causi,ng a sense of shame. This shame disciplines the gaze. Lacan turned this surveillance into selfsurveillance, ~aking_ea.ch visual s\ilii~ct the k;cusotq5altQpbc drami"' of' id;;ti'ty. I

In advanced capitalist societies across the planet, people arc now tcad.Jng them- , selves to be media. They attach digital camcorders to their eyes at any event or public or privatE' importance and make endless overlapping records of their memoriesvwhich, like those 01" Blade Runner's replicantsvare given out in advance, As the success of Shrek brought a new wa ve of hvperreal digital anima ted features to North American multiplexes in the summer of 200"1, it seemed that audiences were learning to sec like computcr~. That is to say, following Donna ~Iaraway's famous assertion that we are all now cyborgs, we need to know how the computer sees, to IcarJ1 how to t'ecognize its gaze and then to imitate it. In Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (200'1), the heroes battle the aliens for the possession of spirits, a formula echoed by Ghons if Mars (2001). In short, can humans still be media? As this is still 'IIo]Jywood,' the answer was never in doubt and audicnces stayed away in droves. A younger generation takes the digital gaze for granted. On the Cartoon Channel, the hugely popular digitally animated figures of the Power Puff Girls deal up the punishment of bad guys once reserved for male superheroes alone. The Power Pull' Girls lack the ripped muscles or earlier Avengers but are drawn in the style of Japanese anillle with vast eyes perched on insignificant bodies .. These digital eyes emit blasts of unspecified energy at their enemies, much like the mutants Cyclops and Storm in the 2000 hit film The X-Men, based on a long-standing Marvel Comics series. The Power Puff Girls are pixilated PaJ1opticism, in which the body is a vohiclc for visual surveillance unhindered by a sell' or an identity.

Outside the world of supe.!:!:!~roes andAens, things are les~tajn (jones) ..

The h;:;unaaries of the visual subject are under erasure, from within aqd without. Today it is possible to feel constantly under .s.urveillance and that ~e is watching at all as we move fi'Ol;-the gaze of one camera to the next. For the crisis of the visual subject has been brought into sharp relief under the symbiotic influences of globat~.atlon an~jigital ~lture. In the short life of tile lnlorrnarion Age, this is perhaps the most interesting moment in which to attempt digital criticism .. During the internet boom years, comment seemed almost beside the IJoint as vast sums were raised for ideas that barely filled a cocktail napkin. In 1999, Amazon.com was worth more money than General Motors, according t.o the stock market, despite never hav-ing earned a penny. During this period Allucquere Roseanne Stone argued tbat there were only two responses to the question 'what has been changed

\

THE SUBJECT OF VISUA.L CULTURE

11

xl (

»:.

/'- I

-c

12 NICHOLAS MIRZOEFF

HaUfe 1,2 Digital ghost

(Courtesy of the lnternational Ghost Hunters Society www.iphs.com)

by digital culture?' - everything or nothing. On the 'everything' side were icholas

egroponte. the MfT Media Lab, Wired magazine, endless wcbsites and media commentators, all claiming that life was set to change beyond recognition but oHering only such dreary carrots as smart refrigerators or customized digital n wspapers. This small beer was easily decried by the ·nothing' crowd of academics and commentators, who were also able to point to a variety of technologies that anticipated some of th . features of today's 'new' technology.

As the dust settles From the crash, it may now be possible to resolve some of these disputes. For example, Stone asserted that everyone is transpendered on-line, an assessment hotly disputed by those who pointed to very traditional sexual uses of th net. Yet from the failure of outraged conservatives to drive President Clinton from office, to the success of the film Bop Don't Cry (Halberstam) and the relax cl attitude of many younget- people to experiments with sexual and gender ide ntitv, a hangc docs seem to have taken place. On the other hand, as several essays in this Reader indicate (Churi, Nakamura, Parks), 'race' continues to be stTongly marked in digit.'ll culture. Rather than asking \' hether digital culture has changed everything or not, we can now ask more specifically why it seems to have enabled or been a part of a shift in attitudes to gender and sexuality, but has not resulted in si milar change with regard to ethnici ty and 'race.' It seems that the end less repetition of visual selves bas led to a greater degree of indifference as to sexual and

THE SUBJECT OF VISUAL CULTURE 13

gend T identity, while sustaining 'race' in difFerence. The ebb_and Aow of visual dillercntiation across the boundaries of identity is dis_gri_e_nting (a term thal in itself seems to suggest an ethnic differentiation) and dizzying, a lo~oLditl'eren_c_e...that can end in the loss of the self. Paradoxical as itmay seem, ther is even a certain nostalgia for the sensation of surveillance, the odd pleasures of being watched.

Digiteyes

o the question becomes: what an; the places and means~by which identification and its correlatives such ""5 disidentification, canfinch purchase in the networked cl2.ba1 cultw~_ present? The question of digital identity finds a metonym in the intensely popular webcam format (Campanella). In 1991 a Cambridge Llniversit.y laboratory put a real-time photographic image of its coffee maker on-line so that its staff could know whether coffee was available. Much to their surprise, thousands of other web surfers came to look. In the subsequent decade, webcarns as they have come to be knov n - have become one of th ' 'killer apps' of d1 . net, offering a seeming infinity of views, Webcarns come in two distinct types. First, as a gaze out on a particular view or geographic location, ranging Tram skylifie views, to wilderness ites and traffic stops. These can be seen, as Bolte - and Grusin have argued, as a remediation of television (Boulter and Grusin 1999: 20B). There is nonetheless a faT more personal dimension to such tclcmediation of exterior reality than is offered by television, In Don Del.Jllos novel The Body Artist (2001), for example, a performance artist finds looking at a quiet stretch of road in Finland an etfeetivc balm for the pain of grieving. The choice of location to be viewed seems to be the viewer's not the network's for, although it is not possible to direct an exterior camera oneself, there arc so many choices that no one feels constrained.

The second, more popular variety of wcbcam turns the gaze inwards on itself.

.--. ~

Where Nicephorc N icpcc pointed his prototype camera out of his bc~oom .. vindow

in 1813 to create what is often celebrated as the ~a:st photograph (B~tchen), webcam users make the bedroom interior the scene of the action, On popular sites like jennicam or Anacam, the viewer sees the ostensibly private space of the photographer. The webcam depicts the interior of the closet, the most private domestic space, while camera is itself the Latin word For a room. Queer ulturc has, of course, theorized the closet as a space in which the (lucer subjecthides his or her Identity

[roE!: We disciplinary ga7.e. Comjng out is, then, both a risk and a necessary affir- )

mation of the sclf. 0 stay in the closet is to destroy the self with deception and

guil.t. Webcam users do not come out of the cI~set hut make their c1osc~ble to anyone with internet 3:cr:ess. For a fee, viev ers arc guaranteed constant access, the

pia e of the panoptic jailer for 519.9 a month. Here the closet is nul something

to 'orne nut of but rather the closet-camera serves as a device to val idate the desire

and hence the very existence of the Western visual subject itsel r. J n this evacuated version of visual subjectivity, the suhject simply says: 'J want to he seen,' using the closeted camera to reveal and conceal at once. It is not surprising that ymmg, white WOnJCJl have most quickly adopted the webcam format both because of the hypervisibility of the female body in consumer culture and because women since Lady Hawarden have queered photography by not looking out of its closet (Mavor).

14 N[CHOLAS MIRlOEFF

For [ennlfcr l:Ungley uf jennicam, 'J am cloing Jennicam not because J want other people to watch but because I don't care if people watch.' What matters, then, is the inte_rioriz._ed_se .lla~.~!2..2Lbc.ing monitillCd-bJ<-a digital other that is enabled by the self. Ana, the host of Anacarn, offers her artwork - made with Paint Shop Pro - in her gallery that declares: 'I'll be your mother, mirroring back 2 U.' This apparent parody of Barbara Kruger's already parodic postmodern theurizing of gender and desire creates a digital minor stage. For this self-surveillance and sclfdisplay leads to a digitizing or desire. atacha Merrit, author of the DiBital Diaries (2000») a collection of images of staged sexual encounters in hotel rooms, claims that 'my photo needs and Illy sexual needs are one and the same' (Merrit 2000). Men-it 11.s('5 0111y digital cameras in her pradice, as if analog hlrn is somehow inappropriate to this exchange of gazes. DigitaLdesire di.ssolves the self the II eye so often evoked in theoretical discourse - at the heart of the su >jcet and replaces it with an endlessly manipulable digital screen. A similar erasure was predicted by Foucault in the famous conclusion to his 1967 Order if Thin8s, where he .suggested that the human was about to be 1:Il=<ls@&-lih.a face i~l thesand. Sand, like the digital ~jp, is made oC_silicon. It is the unnerving task of the present-to find out what comes next.

'I am not here and never have been'

r

I

These dramas were remarkably performed in June 2000, when th~ Royal Court Jerwood Theatre Upstairs, London, staged Sarah Kane's piece 4.48 Psychosis ... /·.-18 was a visualized text of extraordinary power, explorinp whether it is possible for the _s_df:!c() sec...i!~clJ when mind and body are not just separated but unrelated. The piece takes its titk from the notion that at +.~8_in the morning the body is at its lowest ebb, the most likely time For a person to kill themselves. In a long meditation on the possibility of" self-kill ing that is written in diFFerent voices hut not as separately named characters, Kane mixes Artaud and Plato, a mix that can only be called performed deconstruction. Three actors perform on a stage whose emptiness was broken only hyatablc. The mise-en-scene, created by director James McDonald and designer Jeremy Herbert, placed a mirror the length of the stage at a forty-five degree angle faCing the audience. The m irror made it possible for the actors to perform l)ing down ami still he seen hy the audience but at the same time it converted the entire performance space into a camera, mirroring the reflex lens. Within this camera space, a video was played at frequent intervals, shOWing the view from a London window, as traffic and pedestrians passed by. It "vas in <.;rfc'ct a webcarn. The wehcam was projected onto the table, fonning a screen that was visible in the minor. The speech of the actors was broken at intervals by the 'white noise of a pixilatccl screen without a picture, like a television set that has lost reception. In short, -t.48 Psychosts played out in the contested spa e of the contempora,'y visual subject represented as a camera, a dark room in which digital, pcrformative and photographic renditions of exteriorit)' were explored, compared and analyzed. In one monologue a character describes:

THE SUBJECT OF VISUAL CULTURE 15

FisuFe 1.3 Sarah KiUlE'

(Courtesy of www.Iainfisher.corn)

abstraction to the point of . dislike

dislo ate

disem hod y

deoo nstru ct .

(Kane 2000: 20)

The visual subject is no longer at home.

For in Kane's vi ew, Cartcsi an reason WaS a barrier to uncle rstand i ng existence: 'And I am deadlocked by that smooth psychiatric voice of reason which tells me there is an objective reality in which my body and mind are one. But 1 am not here and never have been' (6). Kane simply asserts that in the hvpervisua] digital world, the Single person split into two (min I/body) whose dissolution was prevented by U1t' watchful gaze of the Christian Trinity no longer exists. Or in a Lacanian view, it is as if there was no minor stage for Kane to identify herself as an image, only the indifferent reAection of the all-encompassing mirror 01' the mass media. The stagc-I~g mirror is a visualization of hO!)l losses of identity _ Now body and soul do 110t form a milt or even a schizophrenic' network: they simply do not belong together: 'Do YOll think it's possible for a person to be born in the w~lg body? (Silence) Do you think it's possible for a person to be born in uu:!_w=g era?' (13). Kane explores how metaphysical reason, personal love, and pharmacological psychiatry all a.ttempt to dose the gap in which the mind is a camera admitting light all too infrequently and with uncertain results (3):

a consolidated consciousness resides in a darkened banqueting hall ncar the ceiling of a mind whos floor shifts as Len thousand cockroaches when a shalt of light enters as all

thoughts uaite in an instant of accord body no longer expel lent as the cockroaches comprise a truth which no one ever litters.

16 NICHOLAS MIRZQEFF

The camera of the mind is deserted now, inhabited only by parasitic insects. Confronted by th ' indifferent sW·\f~illanS:LQf late capitalist society and an absent god, the su<bject_iisin1&gralcs. At 4.48 'sanity visits/for one hour an twelve minutes' and as the performing voices suicide themselves, 'it is done.' The piece ends 'with a nnal aphorism'

It is myself I have never met whose face is pasted on the underside of my mind.

There is a long pause and then an actor says: 'Please open the curtains .. ' The three performers silent] y move to the sides of the space and pull back black-painted shutters, opening the camera to the quiet West London tight. There is no stage direction to indicate this anti-Platonic gesture whi h may read on th page as a banal coup de theatre but the au~c~ of whi£b I_was a part experien red it a~dc In 1839 Hippolyte Bayard performed a mimicry or mimesis when he photographed his Selfportratt: a.s a Drowned Mall, a Imowing play on photography and death. On February 20, 1999 at thc age of twenty-eight Sarah_ Kane bad killed herself in a small room adjoining her hospital bedroom, her camera, her closet. The networked subject is everywhere on screen but no one is watching, least of all herself.

The transverse glance

Some critics might retort that that crisis afrecting Kane is that of the white visual subject inter'pcllate~ male gaze that has dominated Western thought since Descartes. At the same time, the non-white, queer, or otherwise subaltern subject iSfamiliar with the indifference of disciplinary society. Global capital simply treats the West with the same indifference that it once reserved for its others. Why should the local issues of a British artist concern a globally oriented academy? Globalization cannot mean that Western scholars now have the entire globe as their domain as a

1 form of intellectual empire. As Peter Hitchcock has argued, it is the task of African cinema "to repreent Africans to Africans' (Hitchcock 2000: 271); or by extension

\ any ol' the worlds variously oricntalizcd and subaltern peoples should represent themselves to themselves. What matters is being constantly aware of the global dimensions to the work that one is doing (Appadurai). In visual culture, this means looking with a transverse glance from multiple viewpoints across and a.gainst the imperial perspective. That implies, for example, calling attention to the global aspi-

rations of panopticism itself The panopticon was created when B.£!2!J:tam copied a system his brother had used i~, in order to persuade the British government to !'cplace its rys::...m- of d_eportatio~e new colony of Australia with a system of moral discipline derived From the Jesuit colonies i;.~ (Foucault). That is to say, panoptic modernity was always a global system that affected different parts of the warIEr unevenly.

This current moment of globa.Lzation is especially enacted on, thr01..1gh and by the Female body. Global capital has changed not just relations of c:onsum£!:iol1 but relations ofproduct~n, as Gayatr! Spivak has arguea: 'The subaltern woman is now to a rather larg.c_cxtent the support orproduction,' through piece work, sweat shop labor

(j

r -r .~)

\ )-<->

o f THE SUBJECT OF VISUAL CULTURE 17

"~-tD l I

~) ~- - p

and reproductive labor in low-wage economies. This condition is acknowledged in

the West by displacement. That is to sa)" as in the examples above from Jennicam to Sarah Kane, globa1ization within the West is culturally figured as Feminine, which I take to be a contested cultural category rather than a biological given. At the same time, thiS gendered representation of contemporary culture, while of Western origin, has global effects. The con tradiction of this moment can be expressed in many ways hut here's one that r have used since 2000 that has become vcry acute since September II. The Iranian video artist Shirin Neshat, working in xilc in New York, is rightly l)ccoming a global star for her explorations of the gendercd divide in Islamic cultu r. eshat's video work is lushly cinematic, creating ten -minut epics with casts of hundreds, Black veiled women hired on location pirouette at the edge of the sea in a disidcntHieation with Orientalism that is nonetheless starkly beauti Iul , A t the same time, after their takeover of power, the T~iban in Afghanistan held public dcstruclions of artworks, television sets and videotapes, while forcibly constraining women to the home and making them literally_jr:t..;jsible in public behind the $ . The Talibau's ~odernjty relied 0]1 t~19bal media to disseminate their actions and discipline their own subjects, even as it disavows visual culture. For it was an open secret, reported in the Western media that many Afghans continu 'd to watch teicvision and videos and these were of course the people least convinced by the Taliban, The paradox here is that the apparently head-on collision of contemporary ideologies bet", n the f, !11Jnist artis eshat and the T aliban dictatorship of clerics both reI), on nineteenth-century modes of~alit)', O~]jsm on the one xide, pal(OPticism on the other centered on the figur> of the veiled woman, so familiar from imperial culture (ALlou (all). fn this light, the events of September 11 were literally reactionary, an aucmpt to eliminate transculturc and recreate a starkly divided world of good and evil that has until the time of writing been disturbingly successful.

For all thes haunting reminders of the past, I would still argue now more

than ever - that somcthing new is beillg forged out of these multiple collisions of past with present and future. [ arn deliberately using whal onc might call a strategic optimism here to suggest that this moment that has been called_:.post' so often is in fact a nlOJ.D_e!l~eIor_e..._ This is to say that. the present is what Helen Grace has called a 'p!:-e-hjstory' to an eQ1_<:rgent cq_nflguration that may be more than the constant revolutions of global capitalism (Grace 2000). It is a pre-history under the sign of what Mieke Bal has called the 'pr~osterous,' a curious elision of the post and the pte that can seem absurd (Bal1999). It is what one m.ight call prcforrnative something is begHuwlgto be formed that is intensely performati-v-e. Visual culture can be s~ as a_ host, returning From another moment of prehistory, the late 1950s and early 19608. At that time, capitalism seemed every bit as hegemonic as it docs today, only for a striking wave of change to break in the late 1160s and 1 970s. It was heralded by writers like Daniel J. Boorstin and Marshall McLuhan C:'llling attention to the increaSingly visualized nature or contemporary society. It "vas in fact McLuhan who first used the term visual culture, in the sense in which it is used

'-- -- -

here, in his classic Understanding Media (1964).

If visual culture is a._ghost, how-does itiec.?l ~ke the disciplinary subject that sees itself seeing itselJ,i~host sees thaJ: it is seen and thcreby"'5econ,es visible to itself and others in the constantly weaving spiral of traTIsen lture , a transformjllg eii'coUiiter-that leaves nothing the same as it was beFore.Rather than retreat to the

{ 1,i 1..-'

'.

r~v,_u Iroy

18 NICHOLAS MIRlOEFF

J

'1. , 1

"

djgital closet of isolated being, these multiple view-points can help lTiangulate the vij!w_cr in relation to herself the watchers and the watched. The scholarship of modern visuality has often wanted to constraill tile unpredictable effects of the networked visual event into clear, geometric parameters, whether derived from art historical formalism, panoptic surveillance or Lacari's gaze theory. 1t is time, perhaps past time or just before time, to look with 'double vision' (Thomas and Losche 1999), 'parallax vision' (Mayne 1993) or 'mulgcl_e vievvEQ_ints' (Mirzoef'f). This

\>Cr is the tran~nt, transnational , transgendered wav uJ' sc:eing that visuaf<iiltw:.c._sceks

I - - -- --=----

r w_9cfine, describe ancfOeeonstruct v ith the t~\"~s~Tooi30'- glance ¥~

there have been enough gazes already. There areS'e''''era key---cmi'lponcnts of the \, J 6n~'erse glance. III the view of Fernando Ortiz, transculturc is the product 0. fan

f' ...-------..._._ - --------:---.---

v.'> encounter oct-ween an existing_cultm'e or subcu~ure and a n >~iY ~~ived migrant

/ 'x cUltu.rc .that ,v.ialently tran_:;Tonns them both ai1din .the proc~ss creates a ~eo-cll lure

f" / -J i:l'fat 15 Itself Immediately su J_Jec[ to tre!_l~cu1turatJon (Ortiz 1995"}.""T1lli transcul-

turation is in turn subject to difference and deferral, The djffer.:_ence is what j ames Clifford has called the Squanto effect, named for the Pequot ndian who met the '""Pilgrim Fathers just after his return from Britain, where he had learned English (Clifford 1988). In other words, cultures were never 'isolated islands, developing by themselves. The 9~rral comes from what Emman~ ~}:~nas called _the ethical

'/_ obligatiQl1 t~ the Other that results from the 'face-to-fa c' en ountcr at the heart

( of tTa~~lture(Le"'~1~__!__~7)._1 cannot privil'ge my own culture in this encounter

but must defer and accept my responsibility to the Other. Ortiz wrote on an about 1:11eiii1and of Cuba. Transculture ::mdits accompanying transyness seem closer to Edouard Glissant's formulation of the arj;:hipelago, a series of con~d islands. The virtue 01' the archipelago is that a series of very d!rfercnt en ti Li es can be connected .

..-_ ~ ~.---

The transverse glance is not a gaze because it resists the imperial domain or gendered

sexuality, using what Judith Halberstam calls in this volume 'the trans gaze_' ]J this seems a little utopian, let it also be said that this transvcr ic practice is ~t all times at risk of heing undercut by transnational capital.

For as many of the essays in this volume sllgge.,t, vis1.!_al_ culture will best contribute to the working out of a !lew visual subjectivity by seeking to be active in ways that clo not create additional value for transnational capital. Visual culture needs to retain its links to cultural studies in louking to lind way:; to interact with visual practice and cultural policy in the Wide-ranging area. of its interest. Some m i gh t do this like, lrit Rogoff byworkin g wi th vi sual a rtis ts, others I ike Lisa Parks by visual activism, still others by transnational pedagogy. For Coco Fusco, performance is a medium that transforms viewer and performer, while Kobena Mercer and _~)'se!J have argueJ for the }-iasporic viewpoint. And so on, for each contributor to this volume, another path. The tools 1'01- this work are readily to hand (at least fOJ" hose in the West) in the form of brand-new but obsolescent visual and digitallechnologies such as non-broadcast quality ideo, CD-ROMs, analog photography and all computers not running WinJow~ XP or OS X. 2, These products without r unction, in some cases literally without exdlange value ever tried to sell a four-year-old computer? - can be diverted to other uses beyond those of the global market. As man:' links are created in this network by the engagements of individuals

<. or group5, it rnav be possible to look transversely across the gaze, across the color

~ ~ _.,,.:::::.-..- -- ......-

line, across surveillance and to sec otherwise.

THE SUBJECT OF vrSUAL CULTURE 19 ,~-??-:)(~ .[1,

Introductions/ Provocations /Conversarions

This edition Cit' the Visual Culture Reader offers a diverse group of introductory materials. The field of visual culture is now suFficiently well cstah] i~hed and dynanuc to sustain a plurality of views without fracturing into warring camps. Rather than the [u Lure of v isual cu lture being in ci uestion , there is a ~ I)acc to debate what that Ell turc might he among tlle wide-ranging group of people who take an interest in it. The Iwo Introductions and Provccations from the first (J198) Visual CultUI1!_ Reader by Ella Shob.al and Robert ~.il.!n and by lrit Rogoff have been wiQ_c_lr cited in discussions of lhe- field and an' now indispensable ["0 its rheorization. Aside from the debate with October .!!1agazlnc, what has been so important about these essays has been their suggcstidl1 of complementary avenues for the development of the field. RQggfrs sylJogi~m that 'il· Icmlnist dcconstructive writing has long held the place of writing

as the endless displacement of meaning, then \'i.s.!l.al culture provides the visual artie- I p ~:'

ulation of the continuous djsp~a..:..ement of _il1.YJlRingJn the ~eld of vision and the r I ." I visible;" is amply borne out in this vOlume and elsewhere. By the same token, Ena I .... L

Shoha; and Robert Starn called in 1998 for a reconceptualization ur visual culture 1., Q ~

moving away from -the Eu.~?-american progression of realisrn Zrnodcrnismz' ,I

postmodcrnisrn .. to a polycentric globalized fic!::!_ of study. There is a goOd deal of or-

agreement on these goals now, making it possible to at least envisagcach.icvi.ng their

goal of a 'mutual and reciprocal relativization,' olTering the chance of 'coming not

only to"8CC~ other groups, but also, through a salutary estrangement, to sec how

[each] isitself seen.'

In his remarkable essay 'Kino-I, Kino-World: notes on the cinematic mode of production;' written for this Reader, Jonathan l. ~Icr asks us to reconsider some of ?.1li" most fLlndament~)reslippositions about the place of the visual ill culture. Rather than seeing visual cuftu~> as an offspring of late capitalism ,'Beller argues for a theory of the 'cinematic mode of production" in which 'looking is posited by capit-al as labor.' Beller extends Ma r x ' s classi c theory of value in wh ieh profit is created by the extraction or a surplus val ue of work perl'urn);;1 by the laborer over and above what is required to earn his/her "","ages and benefits. Now work is performed visuall y via the seeking a f human a tten ti on th ink of OIl! those hann cr ad~ wantillg you to 'click here' t.h~t literally cam someone two cents when you do, or the competition for television ratings that direct] y gcner~tc advertising revenues. In tbi$ view, the cinema does nor reflect the social, it ~e social, prOViding that we understand 'cinema' to mean the im1lge-rnaking apparatus in general. However, Beller does not assert that graspi.ng h15 attention l.heory of value provides an answer to the riddle of globalization but simply that it has 'a ger:mina 1 contribution to make

to counter-hegemonic struggle.' Beller controversially argues that ps}choanaJ ysis, for so long the dominant theoretical model is cinema studies, is itself merely a ~m.:pto.m of the ci ncrnati e mode o[l,rod ucti on; .,' Fi lm" can he understood as the 1 ~bcial relation wfilcli s~tes the visual componel~hlln"\an subjective activity frOJn_~e body in its immediate environment, while "cinema" is the systemic organi-

-~ - - ~ ---

zationol' lis productive separation.' [:n this sense, dream-work is in fact real v v ork,

By the same token, deconstructio~.is framed as a historical moment signifying a technological transformation in political economy (an argument in fact close to Dcrrida's own remarks ill his 1994 lreadSe on globalization Specters qf' Marx).

~ ........ -

';

..

20 NICHOLAS MIRZOEFF

ln this essay, there is much excitement, much that needs building on and no doubt much to disagree with, But it is exhHarating to see the long stagnant poolsof critical theory churned up so vigorously and with an energy that is both angry and focused.

These pieces are joined by a meditation on the status of visual culture by W. J. T Mitchell, entitled 'Sho""ing seeing: a critillue of visual culture.' Mitchell's book

\( X. Picture Theory (1994) is widely held to be the fint major publi cation in the fie I d.

"/ ~ H~e he flows widely across theoretical~tutionalaiurPeaagogical Cjucstions in a piece that is bound to provoke wide-ranging discussion. I shall simply restrict myself to being among the first to guote what r suspect will be very often quoted phrases. First, linking logcther aJl these intmductory pieces in some way, is Mitchell's observation that: 'the disciplinary anxiety provoked by visual studies is a classic instance of what Jacques Derrida has called "'the dangerous supplement." DC1:.tida is cited in all the essays in this section showing that - to parody Geoff

hr Bennington-like deconstruction, visual culture is not what you think. At one level,

vr' 'oJ' ,I t IS rare to hear visual eu lture described as a deconstructi ve enterprise. At an other

V"Jr ~ 9 it suggests that the work of visual culture holds a number of surprises ill store.

jv' y ~itchell himself suggests one when he writes in his 'Eight counter-theses on visual

-< tx-: culture' that 'visua.l~pe-is the vi§ual construcnon of the social, n o,i-jus:t-thc...social

(r""",--l' \h c~on ~k",.n.' To suggest Ol"~i) one po~ iri"ferpret'ation of this re~

.-.y L'"1\ it turns (Jut, th.en, that visual culture is not so much the descendant of the social

_..(

-,.V·

history of art as its deconstructor.

Another discussion comes in a multi-authored piece by Raiford Cuins, Joanne

I MOlTa, Marquard Smith and Omayra Cruz, who work in: film studies; a school of art publishing and music; a school of art, film and visual media; and a department of Iiterature Z cultural studies. This pluralism has produced an engaged and engaging approach that urges us to get away from the anthropological guestion 'wh~!l~_!isual culjure?' and instead thjnk'Jbout what it is that visual culture ta,; articulate and for whom. In which 'district,' to use their term, should we work and usin g what archives? They rightly conclude: 'surely for the moment it is not so much what visual culture is, but rather what it can be enabled to do that matters .. '

(r \

Using the VCR 2.0

This version of the Reader has been substantially redesigned and reworked following the suggc~tions of people who have read and used the book in its firstincarnation There arc major changes in content as well as style and so it seemed appropriate to signal an upgrade in the title, meaning to suggest that the basis of the book will he familiar to readers but it offers a new and improved format. In general, this version is more open and wide-ranging than its predecessor. WheQ. __ Oao_ber magazine launched its now notorious and ultimately self-destructive assault on visual culture ~6, it seemed that there might be a repeat of the struggle over cujtural studies i 11 literature departrnen ts concerning visual culture in its various academ ic hom es , Perhaps because vi sua] culture ,is OOL so prccisel y located - at I cast in the Uni ted States - that did not happen. One of the most interesting developments has been

THE SUBJECT OF VISUAL CULTURE 21

the very positive response to visual culture from artists and art schools, despite the oceasional thunderlng from_art historians that visual culture is tl?~id of Ar-l.AIti5ts have of course been working with the end of modernist models of art for over thirty years now, so this is perhaps not so very surprising_ More s",-riollsly, some have charged that visual culture is fall inginto the same trap as cultural studies by being too W~ern, too white and too Anglophone. or course all of Anglophone academia is to some extent guilty of this charge. As visual_s;_ul~lu'e E_n~~:lt~)f classes have been now established to my, no doubt limited, knowledge in the Czech Republic, F.inland, Holland, Hungary, South Africa, Swe~en, T aj!ki stan , Tsll.::;;an-and Turkey, T am hopeful that it is~east to be found a moderate offender. As I argued above, the measure of visual culture's success in this regard will be the extent to which it learns to imagine the global in all aspects or its practice.

Given these positive changes, the model [ have had in mind for this edition was that of a network in which readers and other users would bring their own ideas, readings llndlmages to hear on the selections here. The sections are both intended to be productively interactive with each other and are better balanced among the various visual media. Responding to an often-made suggestion, [ have also added a section of short dips from classic theoretical texts that might not be familiar to everyone and always bear re-examination .. In terms of content, the questions 017 (~gital culture ami globalizatiol1 that loomed large in my introduction have of course had to be reflected in the I] ew velum e. I n[ 995 when the first cd ition was planned even Bill Gates did not think the Internet was all that important. Perhaps by the next edition of this Reader it will not be. I have sougbt out both outstanding younger scholars and well-established figures to contribute essays to the new version, which contains much more original material than its predecessor. NO_$ingJe volume can adequately represent the p()lyrnorph~us ~~:hat visll~l culture is becomjng. I am I' also editing a new series called 'In'Sight: Routledge Visual Culture' which will offer (

r.::__

readers and texts on specific subjects within visual culture. The first volume to be

published will be Feminism and _!'.isua/ Culture, edited by Ame.!0.lones (2002) and many others are planned. In addition the visual culture Iistserv continues to discuss these and other issues on a dai] y basi.~ .. [11 is book has enab)c_d teachers all over the world to qeate courses on visual culture and convince both their students and administrators that there rcaIq_is a subject of this name. That~lonc justifies this renewed enterprise to my mind ..

*'

The presence ol]. . .1 denotes a Cll t rn ade by th e edi tor in the in te rests of length.

Eaeh part has a new introduction and there are updated bibliograpbies and web references.

Note

See my essay 'Ghostwriti.ng: working out visual culture,' the jOll,!!--all?! Y.lillOi r Gil lture, (110 l, 1 no. 2): pp. 239-54, that is in a sense the ghost of tl~s cha pter.

22 NICHOLAS MJRZOEFF

References

Baird, J ulia (2001) . Sex is Back,' Sydney ilt!ornins Herold 12 November 2001.

Bal, Micke (1999) QyoIinS Carovassio. Comemporw], An, Preposterous History, Chicago and London, Chicago University Press.

Bcllcr , jonathan L (1998) 'Identity Through Death/The Nature of Capital: The MediaEnvironment for Natural Born Killers,' Post klemity; vol. 1, no. 2 (Summer 1998), pp . .55-6.

Bodnar, John (2001) 'Savina Private HJ'/11 and Postwar Memory in A rne rica," American Historical Review, vol, 106, no. 3 (J une 2001): pp. 805-17.

Boulter, Jay David and Crusin, Richard (1999) Remcdiat:ion; Understandinp New Media., Camblidge, Mass. and London, MfT Press.

Clifford, James (1988) The Predicament ~Cuh urc: Twentieth CentwJ Literature, Ethnography and iJrt, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Crary, jonathan (1991) Techniques ~f the Observer, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Fagel son, Wi lliarn Friedman (2001) 'Fighting Films: The Everyday Tactics of W orl d War Two Soldiers," Cinema Joumal, vol. 40, no. 2; pp. 94·112.

Foucault, Michel (2000) POIFer, J~mes D. Faubion (ed.), Robert Hurley eo al, (trans.j ,

~ New York: New Press.

Grace, Helen (2000) Bifore Utopia: A ,Von-Officia.! Preliiscors: ~I the Present; CD-Rom, Sydney: Pluto Press,

Hitchcock, Peter (2000) 'Risking the Griot's eye Decolonisation and Contemporary African Cinema,' Socia I ldemities, vol 6, no. 3.

Johnson, Steven (I' 997) Inte:face Culture: HOI\f New Tech n olofl). Transform» the J!)lay Hie c.rcQI.c

and Communicau, San Francisco: Harper Edpe.

Kanc, Sarah (2000) ·~.48 Psychosis, London: Methuen.

Mayne, Judith (1993) Cinema QnJ Spectatorship , London and New York: Routledge. Levinas, Emmanuel (1997) Difficult Freedom. E.~,a)'S in Judaism, Baltimore, Md.: johns

.-- .

-- Hopkins UniVC1"sity Press.

Mcrrit., Natacha (2000) Digi!aI Diaries, New York: Taschen.

Ortiv, Fernando (1995) Cuban Cmmwrpoinr: Tobacco and Sugar, Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press.

Sri vak , Gayan·j (1999) II Criuque t?I Postcolonial lieason, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Thomas, Nicholas and Losche, Dianne (1999) Double Vision: ATI Hiuones and Colonial Histories in the Pac!l!r, Cambridge: Camhridge University Press.

Virilio , Paul (! 989) War and Cinema: The Logisl ics ~f Perception, trails. Patrick Camiller, London: Verso.

Further reading

Barnard, Malcolm (2000) Approaches 10 Understanding Visual Culture, London: Palgravc. Bloom, Lisa (ed.) (1999) With Other Eyes: Lookina at Race and Gender in Visual Culture; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cartwright, Lisa and Sturkcn, Marita (2001) Practice, ~ILookillg· till iruroducuon 10 Visual Culture; Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cooke, Lynne and Wollen, Peter (eds) (1999) Vi.HWI Disph')': Culture 13c)'onJ ,'ll'pearnnces (Discussions in Contemporary Culture, no. 10), New Press.

THE SUBJECT OF VISUAL CULTURE 23

(0)" Gen (2000) Black Visual Culture. Il40demity and Posimodemuy London- LB. Tauris. Evans, Jessica and HaU, Stuart_(2.Q.OO) Visual Culture. The Reader, London: Sage. l-ICYWllOd, Ian and Sandywell, Barry (eds) (1999) lmerprelin8 Visua.l Cu!ture-;-ExploratiOns

" in the' Hermeneutics cd'the Visual, London: Routl!,;_d_gc. --.. ...--;-- -

Min':oclT, Nicholiis (1999) ,·.In Introduction to Visual Culture, London; Routledge.

Mi~tj191, W.J. T" (1 994) Picture Theory: Essay., on )I erbal and Visual Repre:-;:;;wt ion, Chicag~l:

Uniw:rsity of Chicago Press,

Robertson, Georg"., et al . (199f» The Block Reader in Vi.nwl Cli/WIC, London: ROlltledge.

{_(! c. <-;

----

r:

, I

Chaptel' 5

W.J.T. Mitchell

SHOWING SEEING

A critique of visual culture

W J-J A TIS 'V I SUA leu L T U R E' or 'visual studies' (I Is it an emergent discipline, a passing moment of interdisciplinary tu rbu Ie nee, a resea rch topic, a fi.eJd or ~~f_ld of cul.!~ral s!!:-lcLies, media studies, rhetoric and communication, art history, or aesthetics? Does it have a s pe_::illsnbj_ect of research, or is ita, grab- bag of problems left over from respectable, wen-established disciplines? If it is a 6eld, what arc its boundaries and I imiting definitions? Should it be institutionalized as an academic structure, made into a department or !,riven programmatic status, with all the appurtenances of syllabi, textbooks, prerequisites, requirements, and degl·ceS! How should it be taught? What would it mean to 'profess' visual culture in a way that is more than improvisatory?

I have to confess that, after almost tQl years of teaching a ~ou_r.se called 'Visual Culture' at.the Universi!J of Chicago, I still do not have ~;;g(Jr1cal answers to all these questions.:' What I can offeris my own take on where the field of visual studies is going today, and how it might avoid a number of -I2itfalls along the way. What follows is based mainly on OJ}' .9\\'.fi_£9T!TI~tion as a Iitcrary scholar who has been involved as a n~grant worker in the fields oC art hi..rtm·Y;-aesthetics, and media studies. It is also based on my experience as a teacher attempting to awaken students to the wonders of 'visuality,' practices of seeing the world and especiany the seeing of other people. My aim in this course has been to overcome the veil of [amiiiaritv and self-evidence thai surrounds the experience of seeing, and to turn it into a. problem for analvsis, a mystery to be unraveled, In doing litis, J sllspect that J am rather typical of those that teach this subject, and that this is the common core of our interest, however different our method" or reading lists might he. The problem is one or staging a paradox that can be formulated in n number of ways: that vision

<....= "-- ....___

_2~ itself in~'l~i@e; that we s:annot see what seeing is; that the eyeball (pace E31erson)

is nev-ertransparcnt. I take my ~~k as a teacber to -be to !~illKe seeing_show itself, to put it on dlsplay, and make it accessible to analysis, I call this 'showing seeing,'

SHOWING SEEING: A CRITIQUE OF VISUAL CULTURE 87

J variation on the American elementary school ritual called 'show and tell,' and I will return to it at the conclusion of tills paper,

The dangerous supplement

Let me begin, however, with the gray matters the questions of disciplines, fields, end pl'ograms that are in tersccted by visual stud ics.1 thi n k it's useful at the outset to distin~sh between 'visual studies' ami 'vi~..:!:a~ulture' as, respectively, thc Iicld 1)1' ~tl!d)' and the object or targ':,t_of2!JlCly. V~~al studies is t~ study of visual culture. Thi~ avoids the ambiguity that plagucs subjects like 'history,' in which the fiela and the things covered by the Hdrl bear the same name. In practice, of course, we uften I:unf"use the two, and I prefer to let 'visual culture' stand for both the .fidd and its corueut, and to let the context clad f)' the meaning. J also prefer visual culture kcaus!: it is less neutral lhan 'visual studies," and commits one at the outset to a s('1 or hypotheses that need to he tested f()r exam pic, ~ vision is (as we SJy) a 'rultural consrruction;' that it i~ learned and cultivated, nut simply given by nature; th,..t tl1lT~ n_~t have a history I-elated-in some yet Lo be determined way with the history of arts, techno logi cs, m edi a, and social practices of disp I ay and spectatorshrp; and (finally) that it is deeply involved with human societies, with the ethics and politics, aesthetics and epistemology of seeing and being seen. So lar , I hope (possibly in vain) that we are all ~inging the same tune.'

The dissonance begin." as I sec it, when we ask what the relation of visual studies is to exisling disciplines such as art history and aesthetics. ~ At tins point, certain disciplinary anxieties, not to mentron territorial grmnpiness and defensiveness, begin to I!mrrge, If I were a representative 01' cinema and media studies, for instance, I woulJ ask why the discipline that addresses the major new art forms of the twcnbeth century is so often marginalized in Favor of fields that date to the eighteenth and nineteenth con turtcs.' If I were here to rC1)fcscnt 'visual studies' (which I am)

-~

I might see the trian~on of my field in relation to the venerable fields of art

hi~tory and aesth~tic$ as a classic pincer movement, deSigned to___t:_rase visual studies from the map. The logic of this operation is easy enough to describe. Aesthetics and art lristory a 1'0 in a com pic III enta!"y and co II a borative a II lance. A esthetics is the theoretical bran eh of the stu d y 01' art. It raises fun damental question s abou t the nail! re of art, artistic val lie, and artisti c perception W j th in the generulli e lei 01· perceptual experience. Art history is the historical study of artists, artistic practices, styles, movements, and insti unions. T ogcthcr, then, arL history and aesthetics pro v ide a kind C01~tC~SS; they '~~r' any conceivable question one might have about the lilsilaCarts. And if one conceives them in their mostexpansive manifestations, art histol'Y as a gcncraliconology or hermeneutics or visual images, aesthetics as the stud y of SC!] 2!;tlillund perception, then it seems clear that they already-take care of ally issues that a 'visual stU;-hes' mi.ght want to raise. The theory ~ visual experience would be: dealt with in aesthetics; the history of images and visual forms would be dealt with in art history.

Visual stud i C~, then, is from a certa i n f~111l i liar disci p linary poi nt of vie w ,. q ui tc lJ!mecessary, W c cion' t need it. It adds on a vague, i II -defined body of issues that are covered quite adequately within lhe existing ac'aclemk structure of knowledge.

88 W_J.T. MITCHELL

And yet, here it is, cropping up as a kind 0t-q___Uj.\_Si..J1C Id or pseudo-disci plinc, complete with anthologies, courses, debates, conferences, and professors. The only question is: what is visual studies a symptom of? VY..hy_has this mmccessary thing__].p_pg;ared?

It should be clear by this point that the disci ph nary anxiety provoked by visual studies is a classic instance of what Jacques Den'ida called 'the dangenwuupplemerit.' Visual studies stands in an ambiguou~ relation to art history and aesthetics. On the one hand, it functlons as all intern~plcment to these fields, a way or fiLLing in a gap. If art history is about visual images, and aesthetics about the senses, what could be more natural than a subdiscipline that would foc._!Js on visualiry.as.such, linking aesthetics and art histor-y around the problems' of light, optics, visual appa· ratuses and experience, the eye as a perceptual organ, the scopic drive, etc.? But this complementary function of visual studies threatens to hccornc supplementary as well, first, in that it indicates an incompleteness in the internal coherence of aesthetics and art history, as if these disciplines had somehow fai led to pay attention to what was most central in their own domains and, second, in that it opens both disciplines to 'outside' issues that threaten their boundaries Visual studies threat ens to make art history and aesthetics into subdisciplines within some 'expanded fleld' of ingujry whose boundaries arc anything but dear. What, after all, can 'fit' inside the domain of visual studies? Not just art history and aesthetics, but scientific and technical imaging, film, television, ami digital-media, a.~~11 as philosophical inquiries into the epistemology of vision, semiotic stt~ies of images and visual signs, psvchoana I ytici 11 vcsti gation of the scopic 'd ;:rve, , - phcnom enolo gical, phy~iological, and cognitive studies of the visual process, SOCiological 5tudicsof spcctatorship antl

I display, visual anthropolojrv, physical optics and animal vision, and so fortll and so ! on. If the object of 'v~llal studies' is what tJal Foster c~ 'vis~ality,' it is a capa· cious tOj51c indecd, one that may be imp0l:isible to delimit in a systematic way."

Can visual studies be an emergent field, a discipline, a coherent domain of research, even (mirabile dictu) ilil academic department? Should art history fold its tent, and, in a new alliance with aesthetics and media studies, aim to build a larger cdifice around the concept of visual culture? Should we just merge everything iutlLCultural

-Studies? We know vcry well, of course, that institutional cilorts of this sort nave already been under way lor some time at places like Irvine, Rochester, Chicago, Wisconsin, and no doubt others of which I am unaware. [ have been <1. small part of some these efforts, and have: generall} beensupportive ()f~tion-buJldjng efforts. 1 am rninrliu], however, of the: larger Forces i; academic politics which have, in some cases, exploited interdiscipljnarv efforts like cultural studies in order to down-size and eliminate traditional departments and disciplines, or to produce what Tom Crow has called a 'de-skilling' of whole gencratiom of scholars.7 The erosion of the forensic .~ki lis 0 f' connoi sseu rsh i p and authentication am ong art histori am; in favor of a gene ra I ized 'Jc5)!1oiogical 'j nterp rcti~c expertise is a trade -ofl' that ought to-n::c;uble us. [ want hoth kinds of expertise to be available, so that the next generation of art historians will he~skliled with botb the concrete materiality of art objects and prac· til.:e.l;Ql}_d with the intricacies ol' the dazzling Poworf'oint prcsentallon that moves effortlessly across the audio-visual media in search of meaning. I want visual studies to attend both to the specificity of the things we see, and to the fact that most of traditional art history was already mediated by highly imperfect representations such as the lantern slide, and before that by engnv;ng, li thograp hs, or verba] descri ption. 8

SHOWING SEEING: A CRITIQUE OF VISUAL CULTURE 89

So if visual studies is a 'd:mgemll~_s_Ul~plement' to art history and aesthetics, it seems to me important neither to romanticize nor to underestimate the danger, but also important not to let disciplinary anxieties lure us into a siege mentality, cirding our wagons around 'stTaight art history,' or narrow notions of tradition. ~ We might take some comfort from the precedent of Dcrrida's own canonical figure of the dangerous supplement, the phenomenon. qf !yritina, and its relation to speech, to the study of language, li terature , an d phi I osophi cal discou rse , Derrida traces the way that wri_!i!2gJ traditionally thought of as a merely instrumental tool for recording speech, invades the domain of speech once one understands the general condition of Ia.nguage to be its iterability, its ~lIndation in repetition and re-citation _ The authentic pre5en~e of the voice, of the phonocenlric core of language, immediately connected 't01nean.ing ill the speaker's mind, is lo~t in the traces of writing, which [eE}ain_~vhen the speaker is absent - and ultimately even when he is present. The whole onto-theo!ogJCiildomaln of originary self-presence undermined and restaged as all 'effect of writing, of' an infinite series of substitutions, deferrals, and differentials. 10 TI1is was heady, intoxicating and da[lgeroliS news in the_ J 9.lOs_when it hit the American academy. Could it be that not only Ungillstics, but aJl the human sciences, indeed all human knowledge, was about to be swallowed up in a new field called 'grammatology'? Could it be that our own anxieties about the boundlessness of "i:sual studies are a replay of an earlier panic brought on by the news that there is 'nothi I~s>utside th e text'?

One obvious connection between the two panic attacks is their common emphasis OJl visuabty and ,pacing. Grammatology promoted the visible ~ign~ of written language, from pictographs to hieroglyphics to alphabetic scripts to the invention of printing and l1nally or digital media, from their status as parasitical supplements to an oYiginal, phonetic language-as-spcech, to the position olprimacv, as the' general precondition for all notions of language, meaning, and presence. Grammatology chalknged the primacy of language (1.<; invisihlc, authentic speech in

the same way that iconology challenges thc primacy of the unique, original artifact. r /

A g~r~ral condition <:f itera~lity or citatio~ality - the rCW~'lta.hle acoustic image in

nne casc, the visual Image In the other - undermines the pnvlkge of both Visual

art and literary language, placing 0.!:'m inside a la__!"g::r field that, at fir,~t, seemed merely supplementary to them. 'w riting,' net so accidentally, stands at the nexus

of l"ilIlguage and vision, epitomized in the figure tl the rebus or hieroglyphic, the 'p~imed word" 01' the visible language of a gesture-speech that precedes vocal expression. 11 Rot.b._gram rna to I ogy and icon 0 log)" the n, evoke the fear 0 f:_t_hc;_ vi su a I image, an iconoclastic.panic that, in the one case, involves anxieties about rendering

the invisible spirit of language in visible forms, in the other, th« worry that the immediacy ano concreteness of the visible image is in danger of being spirited away

by the dematerialized, visua! cogy a mere image of an image. lr is no accident

that Martin Jay's inv~,:stigation of" the history of philosophical optics is mainly

a ~tor)' of sllspicjon and J.l1Xicty about vision, or that my own explorations of 'iconoJogy' tended to find a .... !5:ar of imagery lurking be~eath cvel)' theory

o f-mtagery . 12

-Defensive postures and territorial anxieties 111<1.y be inevitable in the bureaucratic battlegrounds of academic institutions, but they are notoriously bad For the purposes or dear, dispassionate thinking. M y sense is that visual studies is not quite

Visual culture encourages reflection on the diFfenmces between art and nonart, visual and verbal signs, and ratios between dit'ferent Sf'nsQI-y and- semiotic

mod s --

2 i Visual culture entails a meditation on blindness, the invisible, the unseen, the unseeable, and the overlooked; abo on deafness and the visible langtlage of gesture; it also compel.'; attention to the tactile, the auditory, th- haptic, and tile phenomenon ofsynesthesia.

90 W.J.T. MITCHELL

aS~~rQJ1S as it_!1as been made out to be (as, (or instance, a training ground to 'prepare subjects for the next phase of global capitalism ') I \ but that its own defender! have not been especially adroit in questioning the assumptions and impact of their own emergent field either. I want to turn, then, tq.._a._!et of fallacies or myths about visual studies that are commonly accepted (with different value quotients) by both the oppnnents and P.!QP_90C_nts or this field. r will then offer a set of counter-theses which, in l11y view, emerge when the study of visual culture moves bcvond these received ideas, and begins to define and analyze its object of investigation in some detail r ha ve summarized these fallacies and counter-theses in the FollOWing broadside (followed by a commentary). The broadside may be handy for nailing up on the doors of certain academic departments.

Critique: myths and counter-theses

Ten myths about visual culture

Visual culture entails the liqueon of art, as we have known it.

2 Visual culture accepL~ without ,!uestion the view that art is to be defined by its working exclusively thl"Ough the o_ptical faculties.

3 Visual culture transforms the history of art into a histol)'_t)(_imagcs.

4 V isual culture implies that the difference between a literary text and a paintitlg is a non-problem. Words and images dissolve into undiffcre,~~at~l~resentation,

5 'Visual culture implies a predilection for the disembodied, dematerialized

r--

image.

6 W> live in a predominantly visua] era. Modernity entails the hegemony or vision and visual media.

7 There is a coherent class of things called 'visual merna.'

8 Visual culture is fundamentally about the socialcon .. truction or the visual held.

What we see, and the manner in which we come to see it, is not sirnplv part or a natural ability.

9 Visual culture entails an anthropological and therefore unhistori .al, approach to vision.

10 Visual culture consists of 'scopic regimes' and mystifying images to be overthrown by political cr'itique .

Eight counter-theses on visual culture

SHOWING SEEING: A CRITIQUE OF VISUAL CULTURE 91

-+

3 Vilmal culture is 110t limited to the study of images or media, but extends to cI'eqrday praetices or seeing and showing. especially those that we take to be immediate or unmedlated. lt is less concerned with the meaning of images than with their byes and loves,

The rc are no visual mcdi a. A II media arc mixes] tuccli\!. wi th varying ratios 0 I" senses and sign-types.

The di~cmbodied image and the embodied artifact are permanent clements in the d iale.ctics of vi Sl:Ii! I-co I ture. Images are to pictures and works of art as species are to specimens in biology.

We do not live in a uninuelv xisual era. The 'visual' or 'pictorial turn' is a

........-...... ~ [ ~ -.... ........-- ...

recurrent tTope that displaces mo~ and political .IJanie unto images and so-

called visual media. !magc.~ arl'conveni~nt scapegoats, and the offensive eye is ritually plucked out hy ruthless critiCjue. ~

VicSual culture is the visua] construction of the social, not just the social con.stnigjon (l.rvisiqn. Th;-g~ of visual natu~ is therd~)re a central and unavoidable issue, along with the role- of animals as images and spectators. Tile political task of visual culture is to perform critique without the comforts

of iconoclasm .

5

6

7

8

. \'''te: most of the fallacies above are quotations or close paraphrases of statements hy well-known critics of visual culture, A prize wi II be awarded to an yone who can idcnti/y all of them.

Commentary

If there is a defining moment in the concept of visual culturc , I suppose it would twin that instant that the hoary concept of 'social constructio n' mad e itself central 10 the field. We a re all fam i liar wi ch th is' Eureka!' mo meni, w he n we reveal to ou r students and colleagues that vision and visual images, thlng~ that (to the novice) are apparcntl y automatic, trans parent, and nat u ra I, arc ~tuaJ I y sym bo I ic constructions, like a language to he learned, a system~odes that intcl1JOses an ideolOgical veil between us and the real world.!" This overcoming or what has been called the 'natural attitude' has been crucial to the elaboration of visual studies as an arena for politicn:1 ~1d ethical cri tiq ue, and we sho u It! nut underestimate i 1.:; importance. I:; 13 u 1 i r it becomes an unexamined dogma, it threatens to beco m5-Jl-fa-IJacy j list a~ d isab ling as the 'nal"Ul"alistj_.c fallacy' it sought to overturn. Tofl.;lt extent i~ visiOJL.unlike language, working (as Roland Barthes observed of photography) Like a 'message without a code '?I(, In what ways does it transcend specific or local forms of 'social eonstruotion' to function like a universal language that is relatively free 01" textual Dr interpretive dements' (W c should recall that BisJ:_q,g_ ~~kclcy, who first claimed

that vision was like a language, also insisted that it was a 1!.Q.!V£l:ta!._lallguagc, not a Yy local or n ationa ~ langu~~ Z,...T 0 what extent is vis; 011 no! ,1 'learned' activity, but

11 genetically determined capacity, and a programmed set of automatisms that has

to be activated at the right time, hut that arc ~learned in anything like the way

that human languages are learned?

That visual cui turc means an end to the distinction between artistic and nonartistic images, a dissolving of the history gr art into a histort.;>L images. This might be called the 'democratic' or 'lev~~ fallacy, and it is greeted with alarm bv unreconstructed high modernists land old fashion'd aesthetes, and ~lded as a revolutionary breakthrough by the theorists or visual culture. It involves related worries (or elation) at the leveling_of semiotic distinc:tions betv ... een words and images, digital anti analog communication, between art and non-art;-3ndbetween different kinds of media, or different concrete artifactual specimens.

2 That it is a rcAcx of, and consists in ~'\'i5~J tum' or 'hcgc__mony of the visible' in m oel ern cui ture , a domin~ ce of visl~a~ media and spectacle 0"1; c r the verbal activities of speech, wl'iting, 'tcxtuality, and reading. It is often linked with the notion that other sensory modalities such as hearing and touch arc likely to atroph in the- age of visuality. This might be called the fallacy of tfie ~!?= rial rum,' a de lopmcnt iewed with horror hv i onor hohes and 01 ;!9JlCnts

-r~ culture, who see it is as theCause of'dCc:lin' in literacy, and with delight by iconophiles who see new and higher forms of consciousness emerging fr6l'1'lthc plethora of visual images and media.

3 That the 'hegemony of the visible' is a Western, modern invention, a product

~ - --~

of new media technologies, and not a fundamental component of human

cultures as such. Let's call this the fallacy of technicalmodernity, a received idea which never fail~ to stir the ire of those who ~d)' non- W estern and non-

92 W.J.T. MITCHELL

A dialectical concept of visual culture leaves itself open to these guestions rather than foreclosing them with the received wisdom of social construction and I1nguistic models. It expects that th very notion of vision as a cultural activity necessarily entails an investigation 017 its non-cultural dimensions, its pervasiveness as a sensory mechanism that operates in animal organisms all the way from the flea to the elephant. This version of visual CD lture understands itself as the opening or a dialogue with_vi~naturc. It does not forget Lacans reminder that 'the eye goes back as lar as the species that represent the appearance of life,' and that oysters are seeing organisms. IN I does not content itself with victories over 'natural attitudes' and 'naturalistic fallacies,' but r gards the seeming naturalness of vision and visual imagery as a problem to he explored, rather than a b nighted prejudice to be overcome.!" In short, a d~ca1 concept or visual culture cannot rest content with a definition of its object as the 'social construction of the visual field,' but must insist on exploring the chiastic reversal of this proposition, the visual cOllItwction.f!iJ.hLs0cia! field. It.is, not just that.we see the way we do because we are social animals,..!?.!!t also

that our social a~gemellTs take the forms th.ey do because we aEe seG._iqg..animrus. ~ - Tbe L::tllac), of overcoming the 'naturalistic fallacy' (we might call it 'the naturalistic fallacy fallacy,' or 'naturalistic fallacy2') is not the ooly received idea that has hamstrung the embryonic discipline of visual culture.f" The field has trapped itself inside or a whole set of related assumptions and commonplaces that, unfortunately, have becorn ' the comn;_on-c.urrem:y of both those who defend anj~tack visual studies as a dangerous supplement to art history and ae ·thctics. Here is a r,~~,_ume of what mightbe called the 'constituttve fallacies' Or myths of visual cu ltur ,

~s outlined in the broadside above. ' - -- -r- ----- (~.

SHOWING SEEING: A CRITIQUE OF VISUAL CULTURE 93

5

modern visual cultur s, and which is generally taken as self-evident by those who believe that modern technical media (television, cinema, photogravby, the Internet) simply are the central content and determining instances of visual culture.

That there are such things as 'visual media,' typical! ~~mplilied by film, photo~', I' i~eo 1 television, anath e in ternet, This, the fallaL:Y of the 'visual media,' is repeated y Dot:tnirles as f--jHienoted something real. When media theorists obje l that it might be h tter to think or at least some of these as 'audio-visual' media, or composite, mixed media that comb.i!]~_iJnage and text, the fall-back position is an assertion of the dominance of the visual in the te 'hnical, mass media. Thus it is claimed that 'we~atch television, WI;: don't listen to it,' an argument that is clinched by noting that the remote control has a mut button, but no control to blank out th~pictllrc.

That vision and visual images ar expressions of p~r relations in which the spectator dominates the visual object and images and their producers exert power over viewers. This commonplace 'power fallacy' is shared by oppononts and proponents of visual cult-ure who worry about the compncity of visual media with regime~f spectacle and ~rveillance, the use of advertiSing, propagamla, and snooping to control mass populations and erod e democratic instIii:itions. The split comes over the question of whether we need a discipline called 'visual culture' LO provide an oppo itioEal critique of these 'scopic regimes,' or whether this critigue is better handled by sticking to aesthetics and art history, with their deep roots in human values, or media studies, with its emphasis on institutional and technical expertise.

\ _)

It would ~y pages to refute each of these received ideas in detail. Let me just outline the main theses""(;'fa counterposition that would treat them as 1 have trcated<fhe. naturalistic fallacy fallacy, not as axioms of visual culture, but as invitations to question and investigate.

The democratic or tle_~_~.llilg.: __ f<llla.cy. There is no doubt that many people think the distinction between high art and mass culture is disappearing in our lime, or that distinction between media, or between verbal ahl::rvisual images, are being undone. The question is: is it true? Does the blockbuster exhibition mean that art museums are now miSSinedia, indistinguishable from sporting events and circuses? Is it really that Simple? ( think not. The fact that some

scholars want to open up the 'domain of images' lO-consider both artistic and _ O. ',,--

non-artistic images doe~ot automatically a12.9.lish the differences between ~p,

these domatns.v' One could as easily argue that, in fact, the boundaries of art/zion-art only h come dear when one looks at bo~Etf this ever-

shiftj-ng border and traces the transactions and translations between them. Similarly, with semiotic distinctions between words and images, or between

media types, the opening out of a general field of study does not abolish differ-

ence, but makes it available for lllYestigation, as opposed to treating it as a

barrier that lnust be policed and never crossed I have been working between literature and visual arts, and between artistic and non-artistic images for the

last three decades, and I have never found myself confused about which was

94 W.J.T. MITCHELL

2

which, though I have som times been confused about what made people so anxious about. this work. As a practical matter, distinctions between the arts and media are ready-to-hand, a vernacular form of theorizing. The ~ulty arises (as l,~.:~sing noted long ago in his Laocoon), when we try to make these distinctions systematic and rn .raphysical. 22

The [allacv 6f a 'pjS!~l:n_' Since this is a phrase that 4¥v_c __ m:ined,B I'll try to set the record slraighl on what I meant by it. First, Fdid not mean to make the claim that the modem era is unique or unprecedented in i S olrsession with vision and vi. ual representation. My aim was to acknowledge the perception or a 'turn to the visual' or to the image as a commonplace, a thing that is said casually and umeflc tiv ly about our time, and is usually greeted with unreflective assent both by those who lik· the idea and those who hate it. But . the pictorial ~ur~ is a~e."a figure_of s!)ccch that. has been rcp~~ted many tunes since LlntlgLllty. When tht IsraelIte's turn aside from the invisible god to a visible idol, they are engaged in a pictorial tum. When plato wa~~ against the domination of tJlought h t im~es, semblances, and opinions in the allegory ofthe cave.he is urging a turn a~e pictures that hold humanity captive and toward the rure light of reason. When Lessing warm, in the Laocoon, about the tendency to imitate the effects of visLLaf-art in th c literary arts, he is trying to combat a pic oria] tum that he regards as a degradation 0[' aesthetic and cultural proprieties. When Wilt nstein complains that 'a picture held us captive' in the Philosophical j'1I'.esLioaUons, he is lamenting the rule of a certain metaphor for mental life that has held philosophy in its grip.

The pictorial or visual turn, then, is !!ill...u[L1.que to our time. It is a repeated narrative figure that takes on a very special form in OUitiille, but which seems to be avai lable in its schematic form in an innumerable variety of circumstances. A critical and historical use of this figure would be as a cliagnostic tool to analyze specific moments when a new medium, a technical invention, or a cultural practice erupts in symptoms of panic or euphoria (usually both) about 'tile visual. ' The invention of photography, of oil painting. of artificial perspective, of sculptural casting, of the internet, of vtliting, of mimesis itself arc conspicuous occasions when a new way of lJ:1aking visual images seemed to mark a historical turning pOintlQr Retter or worse. The T~take is to construct a grand binary model of history centered on just one of these turning points, and to declare a sl.!lglc 'great ~dc' betwc'en-t.hl2 'age of~rgcy' (For instance) and the 'age of vi~y.' These kinds or narratives are beguiling, handy for the purposes of presentist polemics, and useless for the purposes of genuine historical criticism.

It should be clear, then, that the supposed 'hegemony of the visible' in our time (or In the ever-flexible p riod of 'modernity,' or the equally flexible domain of 'the West') is a chimera that has outlived its usefulness. If ~ual

~-e is to mean anytJring, rtna~ to be generalized as the study _0" _all th . social practices of human visualitv , and nOL confined to modernity or the West. To livein any culture whatsoever.is to live in a visual culture, except perhaps for those rare instances of societies of the bfin--d, which for that very reason deserve special attention in any theory or visual culture 24 As for the question or 'hegemony,' what could be more archaic and traditional than the prejudice

f

I

\

3

SHOWING SEEING: A CRITIQUE OF VISUAL CULTURE 95

in Favor of sight? Vision has played the I-Ole of the 'sovereign sense' since God looked at his own creation and saw that it was good, or perhaps even earlier

when he began the act of creation with the division of the light from the dark-

nes . The notion of vision as 'hegemonic' or non-hegemonic is simply too

blunt an instrument to produce much in the way 01' historical or critical differeutiation. The important task is to describe the specific relations of vision to

the other s nses, especially heal-ing and touch, as th yare elaborated within particular cultural practices. De~te reganlcd vision as simply an extended

and highly sensitive f'orm...cll~touch, which is why (in his Optics) he compared eyesight to the sticks' d-rmtll uses to grope his way ~bout in real spac e. '1 The history of cinema is in part the history or collaboration and conflict between technologies of visual and audio reproduction. The evolution of film

is in no way aided by explaining it in terms of received ideas about the hegemony of the visible.

4 Whi.ch leads us to the fourth myth, the notion of 'visual media. I understand the USc of this phrase as a orthancl figure to pick out (he difference between (say) photographs and phonograph records, or paintings and novels, but 1 do ub.j(':ct to the confident assertion that 'the' visual media are really a distinct. class or things, or that there- is such a thing as an exclusi vely, a purely visual medium.1!i Let us try out, as a counter-axiom, the notion that all media are m~d media, and sec where thal leads its. One place it will not lead us is into mISguided characterizations of audio-visual media like: cinema and television as if they were exclusively or 'predominantly' (echoes of the hegemoniC fallacy) visual. The postulate of mixed, hybrid media leads us to the specificity of codes, materials, technologies, perceptual practices, sign-functions, and institutional conditions or production and consumption that go to make up a medium. It allows LIS to break up the reitication of In 'dia around a single sCl1.Sory organ (or a single sign-type, or material vehicle) and to pay attention to what is in fl'ont of us. lnstcad of the stunning redundancy of declaring literature to be a 'verbal and not a visual medium,' For instance, I'Ve arc allowed to say what is true: that literature, insofar as it is written or printed, ha an unavoidable visual compun~ni which bears a specific relation to an auditory componnt~ whiCh is why it m~s a.diffcrenco whether a novel is read aloud or Silently. vVe are also allowed to notice that literature, in techniques like ekpl~asis and description, as welt as in more subt1e stntegies of [orrnal arrangement, iJl\;;;rv;.s~'i!~I' or 'imaginative' ex criences of space and vision that ar no les~real fur hCing indir.c._cLly com:._eyed througJ_l language. - -

5 vVc come finally to the Cjucstio;:; of the power or visual images, their cHiL'acy as instruments or agents of dQJ!lmation, seduction, persuasion, and deception. 111i5 topic is importanl because it exposes the motivation for the wildly, varying political and ethical estimations of imagc.~, their celebration as gateways to new consciousness, their denigration as hegemoniC forces, the need for policing and thus reilying the differences between 'the visual media' and the others, or between the realm of art and the wider domain of images.

While there ~s no doubt that visual culture (like material, oral, or literary culture) can be an instrument of dominatioil, I do not think it is productive to .'ingle

\r

96 W.J.T. MITCHELL

r

out visualiry or linages or spectacle or surveillance as the exclusive vehicle of political tyTanny. I wish not to be misunderstood here. I recognize that mUCh orthe intere;ting work in visual culture has come out of politically motivated scholarship, especially the study of the construction-of racial and sexual difference ill the

_ field of the gaze. But the heady days when we were first discovering the :male ga7..e' or the feminine character of the image are now well__h_ehind us, and most scholars 'of visual culture who are invested in questions of identity arc aware of this. Nov crth ilcss, there is an unfortunate tendency to slide hack into reductive treatments of visual images as all-powerful forces and to engage in a kind of iconoclastic critique which imagines that the destruction or eA'P0sure of false images;.:;;Qtints to a political victory. As I've aid on other occasions, 'Pi rures are a pOI ular political antagonist because one can take a tough stand on them and yet, at the end or the day, evet."ything remains pretty much the same. SSqB~c regim~~f:Ml be overturned repeatedly without any visible dIcet on either visua1 or political culture. '26

1 propo~e what [ hope is a more nuanced and balanced approach 10<.:all:d in the equivocation between the visual imag~s instrument and agency, the image as a tool [or manipulation, 011 the one hand, and as an apparently autonomous source of its own purposes and meanings on the other. This approach would treat visual

ulture and visual images as 'gQ-beuveens' in social transactions, as a 1- p rtoire of screen images or templates that structure our encounters with other human heings. Visl.JJ!! culture would find its primal scene, then, in what mmanuel Levinas calls 1ih face q~ Other (beginning, J suppose, with the face of the .. .M21her): the face .... to face encounter, the cvidcrrtlv hard-wired dis . ition to recugnizl thc_j::yes of another o;-gamsm (whlat Laean and Sarn-e call the i!cZ . Stereotypes, caricatures, classifl~ figures, search ill~ages, mappings of "e visible body, of the social spaces in which it appears would constitute the fundamental elaborations of visual culture on which the domain of the image - and of the Other is constructed. As go-betweens or 'subaltern' entities, these images arc the filtCTS through which w~gnize and of course rnisre ogniz other people. They are the paradoxical mediations which make possible what v e call th 'u~diat d ' or '£&:e to face'

1 rela~o.!:lli. !hat l~y_m~ Williams postulates as the origi~ of society as such. And tins means that 'the soci-;]CQi)struction of the visual field' has to De continuously repla 'ed as 'the visual construction of the sgsial field,' an invisible screen or latticework or apparently unmediated figures that makes the effects of mediated images possible.

Lacan, you will recall, diagrams the structure of the scopic field as a car's cradle of dialectical intersections with a screened image at its center. The two hands that rock this cradle arc th subject and i11eo5fect, the Qbsen'cr and the observed. But between them, ro 'king in the cradle of the eye and the gaze, IS this curious intermediarx_ thi~g> the image, and the screen or medium in which il appears. This phantasrnatic 'thing' was depicted in.anr'ient optics as tne 'eidolon, ' the projected temp!atc~urlcd o-utward by the probing, seeking eye, or the simulacrum of the seen object, cast off or 'propagated' by the object like a snake '51~g its skin in

afrtnfinite number of repetitions. See David Lindbergh, Ancien/' Op~j Theory: Oplics YOJ]] Al-Kindi to Kepler (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). Both the extramission and intramission theory of vision share the same picture of the visual process, differing only in the direction of the How of energy and information. This

SHOWING SEEING; A CRlTlQUE OF VISUAL CULTURE 97

ancient ~del, while no douht inC6rrcct as an account of the physical and physioIllgiCJ! structure of vision, is still the best picture we have of vision as a psycho-social proce/;s. It provides an especially powerful too! for understanding why it is that images, works of a:!:t~ media, figures and metaphors have 'Iives of their own,' and cannot be oxprafned simpJy a§.. rhetorical, communicative lnsfrumentsor" episterna logical wind ows on to real i ty. The eat's crad lc of i n tersubjectivc vision helps us to SI',' why it is tha Q.bJe.ct~ and ir1}<tgc.'i 'jyo!s..~ck' at us; why th~'eidolon'Jms a tendency to 'become an iEn~all<.ili~ck ~(~.givcs orders, and demands sacrihces, why the 'propagated ' image of an object is so efficacious for propaganda, so I~'cwld in reproducing an infinite number of copies of itself. It helps us to sec why vision i!j..Ja~ stl~e~~, but 11. multiple: int~tion teeming with dialectical linages, ,,,h y the-Cllllcr' s dg.Jl_h_a~ p lay Iu I h1llf:.l.ife on the borders of the animate ami inanimate, and why the fossil traces of extinct lifc arc resurrected in the beholder's imagination. It makes it clear why the questions to ask about.images.are not-just 'what do th-ey-t'Hean?' or 'what do they slQ1' but' what is. the secret of their I'ilalil:y7' and 'wh~ do tbq want?'

Showing seeing

r want to conclude by reflecting on the disciplinary location of visual studies. [ hope it'~ dear that! have no interest in l-ushing out to establish programs or departments. Thr int(J~ol' visual culture seems to me to reside precisely at the.Lransitional puLntS"ill the cclllcilio.n:i\1 process at the introductory level (what we used to call

""""'-

'Art A~iatio~'), at, the p~agc..'"'[a)' from undergraduate 10 graduate edu~ation,

and at the frontiers or ad vanced resea rch. 27 V ISUa! S tudies belongs, then, In the [reshman year incoll ege , in theTl1troduction to graduate studies in the humanities, and in the graduate workshop or seminar.

In all of these locations 1 have found it useful to return to one of the earliest pedagogicalj-ituals in American elementary education, the 'show and tell' exercise. In this case, however, the object of the show and tell performance is the process of secingitse1f, and the exercise could be called 'showing seeing.' ! ask the students to frame their presentations by assuming that th';;)' are ethnographers who come !'tom, and arc reporting back to, a socrety that has no concept of visual culture. They cannot take for granted that their audience has any familiarity with everyday notions such as co lor, I inc, eye contact, cosm etics, cloth:ing, facia] expression s, m irrors, glasses, or vtJycurism, m u eh lcss....._wi th photography, pai n tin g, sculptu re or other so-called 'visual media." Visual culture is thus mUcie to seem strange, exotic, and in need of explanation.

The Msignment is thoroughly paradoxical, 0(" course. The audience docs in fact live in a visible world, and yet has to accept the fiction that it does not, and that evcrything which seems transparent. and self-evident is in need of explanation. I leave it to the stud ents to construct an enabling fiction. Some choose to ask the audience to close their eyes and to take in the presentation solely with their ears and other senses. They work primarily by description and evocation of the visual through language and sound, telling 'as;' rather than 'and' showing. Another strategy is to pretend that the audience has just been provided with prosthetic visual organs,

(

98 W.J.T. MITCHELL

f

but do not yet know how to see with them. This is the favored strategy, since it allows for a visual presentation of objects and images. The audience has to pretend ignorance, and the prese11ter has to lead them toward the understanding of things they would ordinarily take for grant~,d.

The range of examples and objects that students hring to class i.s quite broad and lInp rcdictable. Some things routi n ely appear: (,ye-glasses a re favor itt' objects of explanation, and someone almost always brings in a pair 01' 'min-or shades' to illustrate the situation of 'seeing without being seen,' and the mask[l1g of th ' q'cs as a q!~on strategy in a vis_ual culture. ~~sks and disguises more generally are popu· lar Emps. Windows, binoculars, kaleidoscopes, microscopes, and other pieces or optical apl aratus ar commonly adduced. Mirrors are frequently brought in, gen rally with no hint of an awareness of Lacan's mirror stage, but often with learned expositions of the optical laws of reflection, or discourses on vanity, narcissism, and

~.fJa.;qhioning. Cameras arc often exhibited, not just t'o explain their workings, but to talk about the rituals and superstition,~ that accompany their usc. One student elicited the familiar reflex of 'camera shyness' by aggressively taking snapshots of other members of the class. Other presentations require even fewer props, and sometimes focus directly on the body-image of the presenter, by way 01' attention to clothing, cosmetics, facial expressions, gestLIl-es, and other forms of 'body language.' I have had students conduct rehearsals of a repertoire of racial expressions, hange clothing in front at" the class, perform tasteful (and limited) evocations of a striptease, put on make-up (one student put on white face paint, describing his own s nsations as he entered into the mute world of the mime; another introduced himself as a twin, and asked him to ponder the possibility that he might lJl' his brother -iinpersonarulg himself; still another, a male student, did a cross-dressing performance with his girlfriend in which they asked the question of what the difference is between male and female transvestism). Other students who have gifts with performance have acted out things like blushing and crying, leading to discussions of shame and self-consciousness at being seen, involuntary visual IT;;pon.<;es, and the importance of the eye a. an expressive as well as receptive 0 :gan. Perhaps the simplest 'gadgct-n,- c' performance I have ever witnessed was by a student who led the class thmugh an introduction to the experience of ' 'ye contact,' which culminated in that old first-grac!c game, the 'stare-down' contest (the first to blink is the loser).

Without question, the funniest and weirdest show and tell performance that I have ever seen was by a young woman whose 'prop' was her nine-month-old baby boy, She presented the bab)'.. as an object of visual culture whose specific visual attributes (small body, J5..rge head, pudgy face, hright eyes) added up, in hel' words, to a strange visual effect that human beings call 'cuteness.' She confc/;scd her inability to explain cuteness, but argued that it must De a.r.l important aspect of visual culture, because all the other sensory Signals given off by the baby - smell and noise in particular - would lead us to despise and probably kill the object producing them, if it were not for the countervailing effect of 'cuteness.' Th truly wondrous thing about this performance, however, was the behavior of ~ infant. While his mother was maklng her serious presentation, the baby was wigglingin her arms, mugging for the audience, and responding to their laughter - at first willi fright, but grad-ually (as he realized he was sale) with a kind of delighted and am,'l"essive showmanship. He began 'shOWing off' For the class while his mother tried, with [requcnt

SHOWING SEEING: A CRITIQUE OF VISUAL CULTURE 99

interruptlons. to continue her 'telling' of the visual characteristics of the human infant. The total effect was of a contrapuntal, mixe_i_umdi<l-j3e-Fformancc which stre sed the dissonance or lack of suturing between- vision and voice, showing and tciling, while demonstrating something quite complex about the vel')' narur of the show ann tell ritual as such.

What do we learn from these presentations? The reports of my students suggest that the 'showinv~i?g' performances are the thing that remains most memorable about th£ c~urse, long after the detailsul'-pey pcctive theory, optics, and the gaze have faded from memory. The performances have the effect or acting out the method and lessons of the curriculum, which is elaborated around a set of simple but extreme] dLllicul.t questions: What is vision? What is a visual image? What is a medium? What is the relation of v~i9!1 to the otl~r ~cnse$?ln language? Why is visual er;paience so fraugh with anxiety and fantasy? Docs vision have a history? How do visual encounters with other people (and with images and objects) inform the construction of social life? The performance of 'showing seeing' assembles an archive of practice 1 dcrnonstrations that can be referenced wi thin the sometimes abstract realm of visual theory. It is astonishing how nlllch clearer the Sartrean and Lacanian 'paranoid theories of vision' become after you have hael a few performances that higklHght the aggrcssivily 01' vision _ Mcrlcau-Pontys abstruse discussions of the dialectics of seeing, the 'chiasmus' or the31: and the gaze, and the entangling of vision with the 'flesh of the world ;' bec0!12e much more down to earth when the spectator/spectacle has been visibly embodied and performed in the classroom

A more ambitious aim of 'showing seeing' is its potential as a reflection on theory and method in themselves. A~ should be evident, the approach is informed hy a kind of pragmatism, but not (one hopes) or a kind that is dosed orf to speculation, experiment, and even metaphysics. At the most fundamental level, it is an invitation to rethink what theorizing is, to 'picture theory' ami "pcrforrn theory' as a visible, mbodicd, communal practice, not a, the solitary introspection of a disembodied intelligence ..

The simplest 1esson of 'shovving seeing' is a kind of' de-disciplinary exercise.

We learn to ~t~\y..'lY from the notion that 'visual culture' is 'coverccl' by the mater-

ials or methods of artItistory, aesthetics, and media studies. Visual ulture starts

out in an area beneath the notice: or these diSciplines-the realm or non-artistic, nOl1-at·sthet.c, and unrnediatcd or unmcwate' \1sual images and experiences. lt comprises a. larger field of what I would call 'vernacular visuality' or 'everyday seeing' that is br--;;-azete_<;! __ _yulJ~.I_.!:h~_~.!hcipljncs addressed to visua I arts and media. Lih~ordinar)' language philosophy and :;p~ct theory, it looks at the strange

thiqgs w: do while looking, gazing, shOwing, and shOWing_, orf or while_hiding,

dissembling, and refUSing 10 look. In particular, it helps us to see that even something ali broad as 'the unage' does not exh:l~st the field of visualitv; that visuIDludies 1/ is ~ same thing as 'image studi es;' and that the study of the visU'll image is

just one component of the larger field. Societies which ban images (like the Taliban) ! still have a rigorously policed visual culture in which the everyday practices 0' human Jisplay (especially of v\'o~en's bodies) are subject to ['c ulation. We might even go

so Far as to say that visual culture cmcrges ulshal-pest relief when th~ second ' cE!?mandment, the ban on the production and display qigravert images, is Q_bs~rl'ed most literally, when seeing is prohibited and invisibility is :;J.andalccL\

- - -- ..;::;::::;.." ~,Q \/ .,_-ts..

cJ

)

f

1 '

100 W.J.T. MITCHELL

One final thing the' showing 'cdng' exercise demonstrates is that visuality, not just the 'social construction of vision,' but the visual _9nstruction 0 til£, so ial, is a problem in its own right that is approached, hut never quite engaged by the traditional disciplines or aesthetics and art hi story, or even by the 11 cw disci P Ii nes of media studies, That is, visual studies is nQLroe-J-ety an 'inc:0.£ip-line' or dangel'ous su~menl to the traditional vision-oriented disciplines, but an 'Intcrdisciplinc' that draws on their resources and those of other di.~£!plines to cons~ct a new and distincti ve object of research. Visual culture is, then', a .pectfic domain or research, One whose fundamental principles and problems are being articulated freshly in our tim . The showing seeing exercise is one way to accomplish the first step in the formation of any new field, and that is to rend the veil of familiadty and awak 11 th sense ~f wonder, so that many of the things that are takcntm:- granted about the visual arts and media (and perhaps the verbal ones as well) are put into question. If nothing else, it may send us back to the traditional disciplines of the humanities and social sciences with fr~h eyes, new questions, and open minds.

Notes

2

I am grateful to Jonathan Bordo, James Elkins, Ellen srock, Joel Snyder, and Nicholas Mirzoeff for their valuable comments and advice.

For anyone interested in my previous stabs at them, however, see 'What is Visual Culture?' in Meanin8 in the Visual Arts: Essays ill HOJJor if Erwin Pan?_fsky's lOOtb Birl.hdaJ', ed. Irving Lavin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995) and 'Interdisciplinarity and Visual Culture,' ArE Bulletin 77: 4 (December 1995).

If space permitted, J would insert here a rather lengthy footnote on the many kinds of WOJ k that have made it possib I e to even conceive of a field such as 'visual studies. '

This paper was first written for a conference on 'Art History, Aesthetics, and Visual Studies,' held at the lark lnstitutc, Williamstown, Mass., in May 2001. FOl- a discussion of the peculiar distg,_ncing bet~eo Visual Studies and Cinema Studies, see Anu Koi uncn and Astrid Soderbel"gh Widding, 'Cinema SWdics into VisuaJ Theory?' in the on-line journal lntroducuon, at http:/ /www.utu.fi/hum/ ctvticrlcz'pr eview. htm 1. Other institutional formations that seem notably excluded are visual anthroE_ology (which now has its own journal, with ar-ticles collected in Vizy'!.lizina Theory, ed. Lucien Taylor (New York: Routledge, 1994), cognitive science (high I Y in flu ential ~n contemporary hIm studies). and- cornm.UIl.i&m:i OIlS

~eory and rhetoric, which have ambitions to instal visual studies as a compom:nt oflntroductory college-level writing programs

ln Vision and Vi,wality (Seattle: Bay Press, 1986).

ec Crow's rcsponse to the questionnaire on visual culture in October no. 77 (Summer l 996).

For a masterly study of art historical mediations, see Robert elson , 'The !ide Lecture: The Work of Art History in the the Age of Mec-hanical R production,' Critical InqlliIJ' 26: 3 (Spring 2000).

I'm alluding here to a lecture entitled 'Straight Art history' given by O.K. Werckmeister at the Art In stitute of Chicago several years ago. J have !,JTcal resp~ct for Werckmeisters work, and regard this lecture as a regrettable lapse from his usual rigor.

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

SHOWlNG SEEING: A CRITIQUE OF VISUAL CULTURE 101

IG See Derrida, 'The Dangerous Supplement,' in OJ Grammatoloqv trans. Gayatri Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).

11 For further discussion of the convergence of painting and language in the writt 11

sign, see 'Blake's Wondrous Al1: or Writing,' to Picture Theory (Chicago, 1994). 11 Jay, Downcast Eyes; Mitchell, fcrlll%gy.

13 A phrase that appears in the October questionnaire on visual culture.

14- TIIi' dcfl11ing moment had been rehearsed, of course, many times hy art histodans in their encounters with literary naivete about pictures. One of the recurrent rituals in teaching interdisciplinary courses that draw students Ii-om both literature and art, history is the moment when the art history students '-set slTaight_'__the lite.ra2'--f9lks about the no,!!-tra_l!_:"parcncy of visuaLrepresentation, the need to IlnQerstand tile languages of gesture, costume, compositional anangcmcnt, and iconographi motifs. The second, more difficult moment in this ritual is when the an historians have to explain why all these conventional meanings dun'l sid up to a Ijn~istic or semiotic decodj_ng ~o[ pictures, why there is some non-verbalizable...sl,!_[plus in the image"

15 See Norman Bryson, 'The Natural Attitude,' chapter 1 of Visioll and Painting: The

LOBic if the Gaze ( ew Haven: Yale Llnivcrsity Prcss,,J.283).

16 See Barthes, Camera Lucida, New York: Hill & Wang, 1982. ,.., ()

17 A New Theory rd' Vision (I 709). 1- ,Q I 9

18 Lacan , 'The Eye and the Gaze,' in FOttI Fundametua I Concepts c1 Psyrhoolloipis (N ew York: W.W. Norton, 1977), 91.

19 Bryson's denunciation of 'the natural attitude' which he sees as the common error of 'Pliny, Villani, Vasari , Berenson, and Francastcl ;' and no doubt the entire history of image theory up to his time. Vision and Painting, 7.

20 r owe this phrase to Michael Taussig, who developed the idea in our joint seminar, 'Vital Signs; The Life or Representations,' at Columbia University and NYU in the fall of 2000.

I am echoing here the title of Jaml!~Elkin's r c~nt book, The D.!!main l!llmages. See th discussion of L('~sil1g in l~onoloB.Y' chapter 4_

Picture Theory, chapter 1.

~ -

See Jose Saramago' s m arvelous novel Blindness (N ew York: Harcourt, 1 997),

which xplores the premise of a society suddenly plunged into an epidemic of blindness spread appropriately cnough, by eye contact.

See Picture Theory- for a fuller discussion of' the claim that 'all media arc mixed media,' and especially the discussion of Clement Gre$!J1-@.r-g',; s~ lor optical

purity in abstract pain ti ng. Indeed, unmcdiated vision itself is not a purely optical affair, but a coordination of optical and tactile inlormation,

'Wha do pictures want?' October no. 77.

Jt may be worth mentioning here that the first course in Visual Culture ever offered at the University of Chicago was the 'Art 101' course I gave in the fall

of 122J with the marvelous assistance of Tina Yarborough.

--

21 22 2J 24

25

26 27

y

{

y

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful