…retroactively. I have to admit, I’ve been somewhat remiss in my duties as a student – I have yet to blog about my reactions to the readings we’ve been assigned for class.
First off, I just want to say that this textbook is so much easier to read than my psychology textbooks. That said, it is a bit redundant, though that makes it easier to recall what I’ve read thus far.
The primary lesson the authors of our text seem to want us to learn is that looking is a social practice and that the attribution of meaning to an image is a socially-, culturally-, contextually-, ideologically-constructed phenomenon; that is, the meaning we may find in an image cannot be the very same as that found by another person, particularly if that person comes from a different culture. That does not mean that meaning is purely subjective, however; if that were the case, it would be excruciatingly difficult to transmit any sort of message through art. There are shared, mutually-agreed upon rules and conventions in every society. It is by these that we are able to communicate meaningfully with each other. These conventions play out in art as they do in other forms of communication.
We’ve had some very interesting class discussions on the readings. Of particular note have been our conversations on myth and the impact of social power and ideology on meaning. Every society has their myth that explains how and why they do and believe as they do. Within these societies, the myth operates on such a common and pervasive level that it seems natural and therefore true to all who live by that particular myth. Not only does it seems true for them, however, they also – as do we all – have a tendency to expect their truth to hold…well, true…for other societies, as well. Confused? We all are. That’s part of our unfolding – enfolding - cultural myth ;o)
It was interesting to read that some forms of art and imagery tend to carry more weight in our society than others. For instance, we tend to view photographs as embodying greater truth than drawings or paintings, particularly because we like to think of them as unbiased snapshots of a very specific scene contained in a very specific period of time. But the reality is that photographs contain a great deal of bias; the photographer’s biases are played out in the selection of the scene, in the settings used to snap the photo, in the framing of the object, etc. And, of course, with new photo editing software comes the opportunity for greater distortions in reality.
So, to recap: meaning is fluid…it changes from time to time, culture to culture, person to person. BUT, fret not, it does exist, both as something we individually define and as something defined beyond ourselves that we have agreed to adhere to. The author is not dead, but nor is s/he the only fount of meaning.
In our weekend reading, I appreciated the discussion on aesthetics and taste. They seem like such subjective concepts – to each his (or her) own – but really, we must consider that we have agreed upon somewhat set definitions of what is of good and bad taste, based on…again…social convention, or in this case social strata, high- and low-culture. But even so, it is a process that involves all, not just those of higher social status. Plus, artistic expression has tended to seep from high- to low-culture and vise versa. Consider jazz and hip-hop which developed out of the marginalized lower classes but have become quite well-suited to even those in the higher social strata.
I also enjoyed reading of bricolage and counter-bricolage, using objects in ways other than their original intended uses. I’ve discovered that I am personally interested in finding creative ways to reinvigorate old items, turning them into something useful in a way not previously considered. Of course, I’m not presently very highly skilled ;o)
Alright, I think that’s all the blogging I can stand for the moment. Be back later.
