Visual Culture- First Draft

7/27/2019 Visual Culture- First Draft

1/5

Visual Culture: First DraftIconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion, and Art by Bruno Latour; PeterWeibelReview by: James Elkins

Art Journal, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Autumn, 2003), pp. 104-107Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3558525 .

Accessed: 28/10/2013 09:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArt Journal.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3558525?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3558525?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa


2/5

Visual Culture:First DraftJames ElkinsBruno Latour and Peter Weibel, eds.Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars inScience, Religion, and Art. Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,2002. 703 pp., 300 colorills., 535 b/w. $45 paper.It'sheavierthanArnason'sHistoryfModernrtand largerthanRem Koolhaas'sHarvardDesignSchool uideoShopping.t was the bane of myexistence the six times I carried it with meon a flight acrossthe Atlantic,trying to readit in economy-class airplaneseats (it fits onthe traytables,but you can't turn the pages).This behemoth of an exhibition catalogueisone of the most importantbooks yet pro-duced on the intersection of images as seenfrom the vantagepoints of arthistory,artcriticism,religious studies, and science stud-ies. It is the FragmentsoraHistoryftheHumanBodyor the present decade: like that earlierbook-which was, incidentally,even larger,at threevolumes-Iconoclashsamplesa num-ber of widely divergent approachesandideas around a concept of pressing impor-tance.Backthen, the concept was the body-a subjectthat is still undertheorized-andhere, the concept is the power of images ofall sorts and the desire they incite to destroyor multiply them.

I begin in this unserious way becausethe contributorsthemselvesoften adopt alight touch. The principaleditors, BrunoLatourand PeterWeibel,have treated theirmateriallike absentminded but expert shep-herds.The book began in an exhibition inthe CenterforArt and Media,Karlsruhe,butit is more than just a record of that exhibi-tion. Some essayistswere allowed to stray,and others-the ones whose contributionsmakepoints closest to the exhibition'stheme-were kept tightly controlled.Latour'sapproach s catholic and generousto a fault: n fact it can appearthat he ishappyjust to let everyoneply their own"iconophilic"tradeswhile he observes theemerging collage. But this book is also muchmore serious, both in its potential claimsand in its actualaccomplishments.To mirrorthatmixture of pleasureand work, I willstartby looking at what's scatteredand work

my way toward the features I think makeIconoclashn essential text.I. Ancillaryontributions.uch of the book istakenup with essaysthat don't so muchcontributeto the centralprojectas build asense of how the projectmight be support-ed in some future forum.AdamLowe,apainter,contributes a short essayonBurmese Buddhistvotive paintings that hasmore to do with Surrealism han iconoclasm(72-74); there is a weak essayby MichaelTaussig-author of the interestingbookDefacementStanfordUniversityPress,1999)-on appearancesof the flagafter9/ i(82-83). The physicist and culturalcriticJean-MarcLevy-Leblondcontributes a pageand a half on the "reliquary" ontaining thegilded middle finger of Galileo'sright hand.The essayis unremarkable,and it ends withthe startlingnotion that "when it comes toscience, we are all idiots" (147). A numberof essaysdocument cases thatcould be con-nected to the theme, but aren't.Peter Geimerhas a quirky essayabout the Stadtschloss nBerlin (384-85); there are a complicatedhistory of the Cathedralof Christthe Saviorin Moscow (386-88) and a number ofcatalogue-style essayson individual artworkssuch as CarstenH6ller and RosemarieTrockel's House orPigsandChildren(421-22). Acouple of essaysarereally just jeuxd'esprit,ikeRichardPowers'sessayon the play-pretendcorruption of his digital file of VanGogh'sBedroomtAries476-78) and an essay,suspi-ciously credited to one "MichelJaffrennou-by way of Bruno Latour,"which proposesthat a picture that looks a lot like one ofErro'scollages is actually"not a picture"(479-82). Essays ike these, the silly andserious alike,arerelativelyuntheorized andoften disconnected from wider historicalissues: they are rawmaterial for futureinquiries into iconoclasm.2. Asurveyf conoclasmndiconophilia.here arealso essaysin Iconoclashhatcan, if they arereadby themselves, comprise a good intro-ductory surveyof iconoclasm as it is docu-mented in arthistory and anthropology.PemaKonchok'sessayis a good introductionto iconoclasm in modern Chinaand Tibet(40-59); it could be supplemented byOlivierChristin'sbrief piece on French six-teenth-centurymutilations of images of theking (66-68), Simon Schaffer'sessayon

seventeenth-centuryiconoclasm and idolatry(498-515), AndreasMeyer'sand LydiaMarinelli'spocket histories of Jean-MartinCharcot'smaterialism and Freud's etishism(465-69), LorraineDaston'sAlbumblattnnaturalimages found in stones (136-38),JerryBrotton'ssurveyof the iconographyof St.George (155-57), Hans Belting'sgrace-ful, abstractessayon Hiroshi Sugimoto'sTheatersnd their sense of memory and space(423-27), Pierre-OlivierLechot'sbrief texton the erection of a monument in Neuchatelto the iconoclastWilliam Farel(214-17),CatherineLucas'swell-written demonstra-tion that the prohibition against images incontemporaryIslam is not lifted only for theelite (224-26), Boris Groys'ssurveyof mis-cellaneous iconoclasms in film (282-95),Hans Ulrich Obrist'sdetailedhistory of theiconoclastic occupation of the XIVTriennaledi Milano in 1968 (360-83), and especiallyPeterGalison'scompact surveyof his recentwork on images in nineteenth- and twenti-eth-century physics-an essaythatcan pro-vide an introduction for those unfamiliarwith his work (300-23). Iconoclashs enor-mous; I could go on listing anotherten orfifteen essaysthatwould be partof suchan anthology.A handful of essays also con-tribute to iconoclasm beyond vision-inPatriciade Aquino'saccount of the synesthe-sia of Afro-Brazilianworship (234-35) andin Denis Laborde'svery entertainingsurveyof political and institutional "iconoclashes"that havebeen provokedby music fromBach to Daniel Barenboim'sperformanceofexcerptsfrom Tristannd solden Jerusalem(254-80). Thereare even threeessaysdevotedto the destroyedBuddhas of Bamiyan,Afghanistan,which togethermake a fasci-nating, concise introduction to the subject(75-77, 218-20, 221-23).Otheressayswould be deficient aselements in a survey,usuallybecause theylack scholarlyapparatus.BrigitteDerlon'sreview of the displayof New Irelandobjectssuffersfrom a total lack of notes, and itrepeatsmaterialwidely discussedelsewhere(139-42); despite its philosophic acumen,PeterGeimer'sessayon the history of pho-tographsof the Shroudof Turin suffersfroma similarlack of connection to the relevantliterature (I43-45). Here especially, and inMarieJose Mondzian'sessayon the samesubject (324-35), it is a pity thatGeorgesDidi-Hubermandid not participate n

104 FALL 2003

This content downloaded from 140.122.127.100 on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:16:46 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

Iconoclash.MayI propose thatBrunoPinchard'sahistoricalprose poems on theHypnerotomachiaoliphilind on Freud'sreadingof Michelangelo'sMoses ould have been cut(15I--54, 456-57)? Pinchard'sbiographicalnote at the end of the book observes thathe"thinks of Italyas a very beautifulwoman:he visits her,he pilfersher,he cries for her"(697). Likeany good partyconversation,sometimes Iconoclashgets a bit lost.3. Theorizingn conoclasm.n making thesefirst two points, I have not even managedtoname one-fifth of the essaysin the volume.Iconoclashs certainlya clash of historicalmaterial,philosophy,vignettes,Albumblitter,and feuilletonsf various sorts, and in thatsense it is effectivelyunreviewable.Yetmanyof the texts also contain elements for anexpanded sense of iconoclasm. Konchakmentions "econo-ideo-icono-clashes" (45).William Pietzproposes that iconoclash isreallyimpure iconoclasm, sullied by theusual "merelyhuman" motives (65).HeatherStoddard,speakingof Buddhism,distinguishesbetween inner and outer icon-oclashes (436-55). There is passiveicono-clasm,when statues are left to crumble(458-59), and maskediconoclasm, in whichmaskssignify an end to the transparencyof childhood (462-64). There is self-icono-clasm, in EugenSch6nebeck (84-85), andthere is iconoclasm as an insight into thenew kind of "idol" (470-72). Latourhimselfimplies that the remains of iconoclasmcan be useful but empty by reprintingHans ChristianAndersen's"Emperor'sNewClothes,"which ends when the monarchrealizes his errorand says,"Now I must bearup to the end" (161-62). Galisonpositsiconophilia and iconoclasm as acontrastbetween "theconcrete and the abstract"(323). There is even a theory,couched in avery fancy allegory,that the incommensura-bility of culturesmight preventany theoryof iconoclasm (this is MiguelTamen's dea,1i8-60).

"Simple" conoclasm is revealedto beforeversplit from itself, or foreverin antici-pation of itself, or foreverwedded to itsopposite.The three areblended in manyessays,but also distinct.First s the claimthat iconoclasm is split from itself, that"iconoclasts'hammers always seemed tostrikesideways,estroying something else"(i5). Iconoclasm also seems to anticipate

itself, redouble onto itself,repeatitself.PierreCentlivres,for instance,notes thatthe Buddhas n Bamiyanwere intentionallyfaceless,which folds theTaliban conoclasmonto an originary one and connects thesculpturesto the earlyaniconic phase ofBuddhism (77). In addition, iconoclasmis also wedded to its opposite.A long andsomewhat wandering essayby DarioGamboniargues mainly that modernistimages are"indestructible"because theyspring up afterinnumerableiconoclasms,blending the two motivations (88-135).Gamboni, Latour,and others note that

iconoclasts, "theoclasts,"and "ideoclasts"haveproduced "afabulouspopulation ofnew images, fresh icons, rejuvenatedmedia-tors:greaterflows of media, more powerfulideas,trongeridols"(I4-I5). In other words,iconoclasm is already ts opposite.Readingsthat investigatethe ambiguityof iconoclasm arein line with Latour's nitial

definition. "Iconoclasm,"e writes, "iswhenwe know what is happening in the act ofbreaking... iconoclash,on the other hand, iswhen one does not know, one hesitates,oneis troubled"because it's uncertain whetherthe act is "destructiveor constructive"(14).Iconoclashis "theenigma, the hesitation,the visual puzzle,"between the idea thatimages are"dangerous"(and yet we have somany of them) and that they are "innocent"(and yet they excite "such enduring pas-sions") (i8). Most of the intellectual workon the ambiguity of the concept of icono-

clash takesplace in the introductionbyLatour,n a long and beautifullyworkedessay by Joseph Koerner,and in a short con-tributionby CarolineJones (more on thatunder heading 4). Koerner's ext is nothingshort of brilliant,and it is worth the book'sprice all by itself.He puts the centralambi-guities of iconoclasmquite succinctly:"Longbefore thehammer strikesthem,religious images arealready self-defacing.Claimingtheir truthby dialectically repeat-ing and repudiatingthe deception fromwhich they alone escape, they are,each ofthem, engines of the iconoclash thatperiod-ically destroysand renews them" (I67). Thecentralinsight, and the moment of highestabstraction,comes midway through theessay.Koerner s considering the claim, oftenmade in "imagewars,"that iconoclasts aresecretlyidolaters.In a sense idolatryis only afiction, because no one is an idolater in thesense that iconoclastic gesturesimply."Ifidolatryis indeed but an accusationmadeby iconoclasts to caricaturecertain uses ofpictures,if (as this exhibition contends) itis less a belief than a fiction of naive belief,what function is served by accusing theaccusers of their [own] accusation?" 179,182)The answer leads Koernerto what Iconsider a centralinsight: "behevers nbelief"-that is, in this case, iconoclasts-"do not confuse representationswith per-sons (the idolater's mputed error).Rather,they confuse representationswith facts.Imagining that iconophiles know the woodfalsely (as God, not wood), they hit thewood but instead strikerepresentation....owonder the criticalgesturerebounds" (183).This is an abstractargumentbut, I think,extremelycogent. It can stand as an Ur-explanationfor the ambiguities in icono-clash that areplayedout throughout thebook, because the "wood"-the materialand substanceof the icon-is always repre-sentationin the discourse of iconoclasm,and it repeatedlybecomes explicitlyepresen-tation, and thereforeliable to furtherattack,each time it is seen as specious. Iconoclasts'hammers strike"sideways,"and scholars'argumentsveer into ambiguities, and theresurgenceof icons following iconophobicattacksseems to be interestingand in needof explanation,all because the realBildersturm

105 artjournal



4/5

takesplace within and periodicallyagainstthe emergence of representationas anexplicit theme.Koernerends by saying,very boldly,that an interest in religious iconoclasm, in"theimpulse to pass beyond representation"or to do without representation altogether,"entrapsus in a world that is only epresenta-tion: religion as nothing but what peoplecustomarilydo" (213). It'sa bold admissionbecause it means that the entire subjectoficonoclash tends, by minuscule degrees andwithout our notice, awayrom the religioustruthsthatit seeks to understand.How muchmore interestingand honest art-historicalscholarshipwould be if it could find a wayof acknowledging that truthwhenever itturned its attention to religious images.4. Beyondconoclash.here is also the possibilityof escaping the conceptual frameof icono-clash altogether.Latouraskshow it mightbe possible "to go beyondhe cycle of fascina-tion, repulsion, destruction, [and] atone-ment" that is generated by iconophilia andiconoclasm (i5). "Ourbet,"he concludes,is that"interference"between scientificimages, religious images, and artimages"should move us beyond the image wars"(21). The subtitle of Iconoclashs BeyondheImageWarsnScience,eligion,ndArt,making akind of escapeor transcendencepartof theexhibition'spurpose. In my reading, theonly essaythat seriously addressesthatpos-sibility is CarolineJones's.For a numberof years,Latourhas been braveenough toswearallegianceto a methodological flag hecalls mediation: the inevitableinterpositionof layersof representationbetween the see-ing self and the original object.The concepthas appeared n various guises in post-structuralist hought; in Derrida'swriting, itis the critique of presence-but for Latourit is a particularlypragmaticoncept. He hasmapped the sequence of representations hatlead from a scientific instrument to the truthit appears o generate,and in one lovelyshort essay,he has mapped the cascade ofrepresentations hatled researchers romclods of earth samples takenin the Amazonto the printed pages of journals published inFrance.No one these dayswould arguethatimages are not mediated-no one, that is,except iconoclastswho need to frame idol-aters n those terms.The argumentwould beabout the mediation itself. Latoursaysmedi-

ation "requires-why abstainfrom theword?-spirituality" (34). Mediationalsois the new spirituality,and the limits to amediator's awarenessof mediation are theterms themselves-seeing self, originalsubject,nature,presence, abstraction,con-cretization-that arenecessaryin order tospeakabout mediation in the firstplace.Aladder or cascadeof schematicrepresenta-tions, leading from the obdurateworld tothe abstractionof science or art,needs torest somewhere: it needs to be plantedinthe soil and to lean againstthe wall ofabstraction.

Jones'sessayis aimed at one of the prin-cipal concepts that stabilizesthe ladderofmediation, supportingLatour's nterprise."If iconoclash standsfor productivecolli-sions among endless mediations,"shewrites, "thenwhat might be useful is a briefnote on the systematicsof our greatabstrac-tions, an argumentabout how they them-selves areas mediating as the icons theyabjure." n particular he concepts of abstrac-tion and representation,as they were playedout in modernism, were demonstrablyprod-ucts of a series of specific social contexts:they were "human, labored,mediating"(412). We make "culturaland therapeuticuse of our constructed dialectic betweenthese two kinds of mediation-abstractionand representation," o they cannot functionin anysustainedway as supportsfor laddersof othermediations.

I agreewith Jones'sargumentand withher unease about Latour'sopenness: "Hisfatiguewith criticalityworries me," shewrites at the end of her essay (416). Shehasin mind the necessity of continuously andvigilantly critiquing the "appealingconcoc-tions" of Hollywood cinema. I would extendthatbeyond the critique of common culture:Latour s so open, so interestedin conversa-tions of all sorts, that he has alwayshad abenign weaknesswhen it comes to concert-ed critique.I would be surprisedif he tookJones'sargumentabout the mediated natureof abstractionas a serious problem:shiftthe ladder to include abstraction tself andyou have a new scale of mediation. Peoplelike Latourare so rarein academia thatI amloath to pursue any criticism too far.(I oncerecognized Latour'swriting in an anony-mous reader'sreport,because it containeda good-naturedjoke:who else managestokeep the good humor that should be part

of any democraticconversation?)YetI thinkthe path toward thatcritiqueis clearenough:cascadingmediations areinherentlyweakpreciselybecause they aresupple and adapt-able.As soon as interpretationslows to whatLatourcalls the "freeze-frame" "extractingan image out of the flow, and becoming fas-cinatedwith it"), allegiancesform, stanceshardeninto positions, and criticality beginsto make sense.The ultimateproblem foran iconophile of the sort Latourdescribes,swimming in "a world filledwith activeimages, moving mediators" s that angerandfear areincomprehensible (26). Latour'sposition is nothing if not wise, but it pointsto a final unbroachableproblem with study-ing iconoclashes, a problem he shareswithJones'scloser-grainedattentionto media-tion: what happens,as Koernermight ask,when it comes time to take beliefseriously?In i99i, the Universityof ChicagoPresspublished Fundamentalismsbserved,partialrecord of an enormous conference on fun-damentalreligious practicesaround theworld. In the prefacethe editor,MartinMarty,observesjust in passing-as if it werean object of only slight concern-that in factnot a single practicingfundamentalisthadcontributed to the book.All the conferenceparticipantswere more or less lapsed,andthereforecapableof talkingto one another-capable of becoming, in Latour'sword,iconophiles. In the spectrumof attitudestoimages, fundamentalistsoccupy the ultra-violet of pure belief. The many spectral inescrowded at the other end of the spectrumareiconophiles of various sorts, closelyspacedbecause that is where the groundremainsto be contested.5. Whatmattersorvisual tudies.conoclashassignificance beyond its theme, importantas that is to arthistory and neighboring dis-ciplines. It representsvariousdisciplines thatarecurrently converging on the field vari-ously known as visual studies,visual culture,and image studies.At least two essays,MosheHalbertal's 60-62) and Dorte Zbikowski's(428-34), are written from a religionist'sviewpoint. Others arewritten from anthro-pological, linguistic, political, and art-criticalstandpoints.Those disciplines arecurrentlyconverginginto the new amalgamknownvariouslyas visual studies,visual culture,orimage studies.The convergenceis uneven,reflectingour uneven interests.I note, for

106 FALL 2003



5/5

example, that science is inexactly representeddespite the curators'best efforts: the essayson scientific images are not explained at thesame level of detail as in the texts that con-cern art.An essayon autoradiographybyHans-J6rgRheinbergerbarelyexplainshowsuch images areproduced (g16-19), and oneon digital images of particle physics experi-ments by JorgHuberhardlytouches on thecontent of the images (520-22). Iconoclashis the diametricopposite of Jean-FrancoisLyotardandThierryChaput'si985 exhibi-tion Les mmateriaux,n that Iconoclashromotesmediation and social context;but the twoexhibitions arenot entirelydissimilarin thedisparitybetween the detail accordedto thehistory of artand thataccorded to science.The inequalityis not a flaw so much as it isa map of people's concerns.I am not entirelyhappywith Latour's easonsfor includingscience-he saysthat the "patternof confi-dence, belief, rejection,and spite is entirelydifferent" for scientific images and artimages (19). Nor is it wholly convincingthat the exhibition's third component, con-temporaryart,is included because it isagainsttranscendenceand offers "no accessto truth or to the divinities" (2I).The reasonfor including "science,religion, and art"(in the book's subtitle) can'tbe as it is putin the introduction, to find a way past icon-oclasm and iconophilia. Rather t's a matterof beginning an open-ended conversationabout allimages-all together,all talkingatonce. That is Latour's ery generous conceptof "a world filledwith active images, movingmediators,"talkativeand inventiveicono-philes, who like to "move fast from oneimage to another" and who no longer"dream the impossible dreamof jumpingto a non-existent original" (26-27). Thosepeople are us:academics interestedin imagesin our particular, onflicted way.We areunwilling to subscribeto the notion thatimages can capturethe truthbut unableto tearourselvesawayfrom the last faintechoes of thatpossibility,wary of imagefanaticsbut fascinatedby their histories,skepticalof the possibility of directly repre-senting divinity but nearlyhypnotized bythe many attempts that have been made todo just that.The most important problem for theemerging field of visual studies may not bethe triangulationof science, religion, andart,or even the twin themes of iconoclasm

example, that science is inexactly representeddespite the curators'best efforts: the essayson scientific images are not explained at thesame level of detail as in the texts that con-cern art.An essayon autoradiographybyHans-J6rgRheinbergerbarelyexplainshowsuch images areproduced (g16-19), and oneon digital images of particle physics experi-ments by JorgHuberhardlytouches on thecontent of the images (520-22). Iconoclashis the diametricopposite of Jean-FrancoisLyotardandThierryChaput'si985 exhibi-tion Les mmateriaux,n that Iconoclashromotesmediation and social context;but the twoexhibitions arenot entirelydissimilarin thedisparitybetween the detail accordedto thehistory of artand thataccorded to science.The inequalityis not a flaw so much as it isa map of people's concerns.I am not entirelyhappywith Latour's easonsfor includingscience-he saysthat the "patternof confi-dence, belief, rejection,and spite is entirelydifferent" for scientific images and artimages (19). Nor is it wholly convincingthat the exhibition's third component, con-temporaryart,is included because it isagainsttranscendenceand offers "no accessto truth or to the divinities" (2I).The reasonfor including "science,religion, and art"(in the book's subtitle) can'tbe as it is putin the introduction, to find a way past icon-oclasm and iconophilia. Rather t's a matterof beginning an open-ended conversationabout allimages-all together,all talkingatonce. That is Latour's ery generous conceptof "a world filledwith active images, movingmediators,"talkativeand inventiveicono-philes, who like to "move fast from oneimage to another" and who no longer"dream the impossible dreamof jumpingto a non-existent original" (26-27). Thosepeople are us:academics interestedin imagesin our particular, onflicted way.We areunwilling to subscribeto the notion thatimages can capturethe truthbut unableto tearourselvesawayfrom the last faintechoes of thatpossibility,wary of imagefanaticsbut fascinatedby their histories,skepticalof the possibility of directly repre-senting divinity but nearlyhypnotized bythe many attempts that have been made todo just that.The most important problem for theemerging field of visual studies may not bethe triangulationof science, religion, andart,or even the twin themes of iconoclasm

and iconophilia: in otherwords, the nameIconoclashay end up being ancillarytowhatever concerns the new field turnsoutto have.Let me propose anothertitle, andtherefore anotheruse, for Iconoclash:wouldcall it Visual ulture:irstDraft.JamesElkinssprofessorntheDepartmentfArtHistory, heory, ndCriticism tthe Schoolof theArt Institute f Chicago.Hisresearchnter-ests include heoriesof images, on-artmages,connections etween he Renaissancendmod-ernism, onnections etweenscienceandart,and hehistoriographyf arthistory.Hisrecentbooks ncludePicturesndTears: HistoryfPeopleWhoHaveCriednFrontf Painting2001),WhyArtCannot eTaught2001),andStoriesfArt(2002). VisualStudies:A Skeptical ntroductionisforthcoming.

and iconophilia: in otherwords, the nameIconoclashay end up being ancillarytowhatever concerns the new field turnsoutto have.Let me propose anothertitle, andtherefore anotheruse, for Iconoclash:wouldcall it Visual ulture:irstDraft.JamesElkinssprofessorntheDepartmentfArtHistory, heory, ndCriticism tthe Schoolof theArt Institute f Chicago.Hisresearchnter-ests include heoriesof images, on-artmages,connections etween he Renaissancendmod-ernism, onnections etweenscienceandart,and hehistoriographyf arthistory.Hisrecentbooks ncludePicturesndTears: HistoryfPeopleWhoHaveCriednFrontf Painting2001),WhyArtCannot eTaught2001),andStoriesfArt(2002). VisualStudies:A Skeptical ntroductionisforthcoming.

The Shifting Lens:Orientalism andRepresentations ofChinatownDavid BrodyAnthony W. Lee. Picturing Chinatown:Art and Orientalism in San Francisco.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,2001. 361 pp., 8 color ills., I59b/w. $45.AnthonyLee'sPicturinghinatown:ArtndOrientalismn SanFranciscoescribes how aseries of "paintingsand photographsattemptedto produce a suitableimage ofChinatown and its population for thosewho lived elsewhere" (7). Lee is not onlyinterestedin finding out ways in whichChinatown was representedfrom the out-side; he also investigatesthe production ofart done by Chinatown's"actual nhabitants"(7). The "two organizingmotifs" thatbringthe case studies of each chapter together are"desire"and "difference."San Franciscansoutside of Chinatown found themselvesattracted o and desirous of what was hap-pening within Chinatownwhile they alsoneeded to create "the means and markers odistinguish those people, places, or things"(7). The authorconnects this organizationalmatrix to EdwardSaid'sunderstandingofOrientalism.Said,as has been well rehearsedin countless academic treatises,claims thatthe West has historicallybeen prone tohyperbolic forms of representation n rela-tion to the East.TheWest, in other words,has used language,both written and visual,to establisha hierarchyof knowledge thathas led to an imperialistmindset that Saidbelieves is the cornerstone of our modernera. Eventhough the case of Chinatowntranspireson a local scale,Leeunderstandsthat "thebody of images produced byChinatown'svisitors has considerably essto do with life in the quarterthan it doeswith 'our world"' (8).Lee'sprojectis not the firstart-historicallook at the connections between Orientalismand visual culture.Linda Nochlin's ground-breakingessay"TheImaginaryOrient,"published in 1983,suggests that nineteenth-centuryFrenchpainting,which includescountless examples of Orientalistthemes incompositions by Jean-LeonGeromeand

The Shifting Lens:Orientalism andRepresentations ofChinatownDavid BrodyAnthony W. Lee. Picturing Chinatown:Art and Orientalism in San Francisco.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,2001. 361 pp., 8 color ills., I59b/w. $45.AnthonyLee'sPicturinghinatown:ArtndOrientalismn SanFranciscoescribes how aseries of "paintingsand photographsattemptedto produce a suitableimage ofChinatown and its population for thosewho lived elsewhere" (7). Lee is not onlyinterestedin finding out ways in whichChinatown was representedfrom the out-side; he also investigatesthe production ofart done by Chinatown's"actual nhabitants"(7). The "two organizingmotifs" thatbringthe case studies of each chapter together are"desire"and "difference."San Franciscansoutside of Chinatown found themselvesattracted o and desirous of what was hap-pening within Chinatownwhile they alsoneeded to create "the means and markers odistinguish those people, places, or things"(7). The authorconnects this organizationalmatrix to EdwardSaid'sunderstandingofOrientalism.Said,as has been well rehearsedin countless academic treatises,claims thatthe West has historicallybeen prone tohyperbolic forms of representation n rela-tion to the East.TheWest, in other words,has used language,both written and visual,to establisha hierarchyof knowledge thathas led to an imperialistmindset that Saidbelieves is the cornerstone of our modernera. Eventhough the case of Chinatowntranspireson a local scale,Leeunderstandsthat "thebody of images produced byChinatown'svisitors has considerably essto do with life in the quarterthan it doeswith 'our world"' (8).Lee'sprojectis not the firstart-historicallook at the connections between Orientalismand visual culture.Linda Nochlin's ground-breakingessay"TheImaginaryOrient,"published in 1983,suggests that nineteenth-centuryFrenchpainting,which includescountless examples of Orientalistthemes incompositions by Jean-LeonGeromeand

107 art journal07 art journal


Visual Culture- First Draft

Documents

Transcript of Visual Culture- First Draft