In which I get uppity in a lecture

March 10th, 2008 - 00:00 | 4 comments

So I’m on the train to London and my book on photographic theory starts relating people’s responses to photographs with Freudian theories of the fetish. The fetish, says Freud, is a male pursuit caused by, wait for it, psychic trauma over the mother’s lack of a penis. The male viewer looks and looks away from the genital region, and this like/not-like dilemma can be related to photographs which produce the same response. Much analysis follows.

I plugged this into my Is-This-Bollocks-O-Meter, and it came out with a resounding ‘Yes, this is Bollocks’.

Now, it’s clearly wrong to jump to conclusions. Proper skeptical reasoning demands I take into account my own biases and lack of knowledge. Have I read Freud? No. Am I an expert in psychology? No. Am I particularly knowledgeable when it comes to photographic theory? No. Do I have a deep suspicion of psychoanalysis anyway? Yes. But, I’ve read modern psychology guides saying psychoanalysis was rejected a long time ago. I’ve seen this from more than one source.

I plugged this new data into my Is-This-Bollocks-O-Meter, and it came out with a resounding ‘Yes, this is still Bollocks’.

This issue was still bouncing around my brain as I arrived at uni the next morning and headed into the weekly theory lecture. It started off very well. On Surrealism and the city, the first half was fascinating and generated much discussion in the cafeteria. The second half, though, went off the deep end rather quickly. Apparently much of Surrealism was intended as an expression of the unconscious mind, and this lead to a discussion of Freud. The unconscious mind was explained, and this somehow resulted in a student interjecting with the theory that our destinies are pre-planned in our heads and we just follow a set path. The lecturer, a perfectly likeable chap, pandered to this by noting (not sure why) curious coincidences in his life - for example, he lives only fifteen minutes from where his parents first met! Could there something else going on?

I thought this was all a bit stupid, but kept my mouth shut. We then heard a brief explanation of the fetish, which mercifully didn’t mention the whole lack-of-penis thing, and then came a powerpoint slide on dream interpretation, claiming that our dreams are full of unconcious meaning. By this point I’d had enough.

In a manner most unlike me, I leapt into a conversational pause and stated that modern psychology rejected Freudian ideas decades ago. It’s not that there are no elements of truth, but we now use a different framework. Dreams aren’t full of unconscious meaning, they’re just random neurons firing in the brain¹. So why is psychoanalysis so prevalent in photographic theory? Is it just because it was around in the 60s and 70s, when much of the initial theory was formulated? I finished my little speech in rather unfamiliar territory, wondering what was going to happen next.

You’ve never seen anyone back away from a theory so fast.

He agreed that the prevalence of psychoanalysis at the time might contribute, and suggested that I’d hit a sore point in regards to modern thoughts on photographic theory. This was nice to know. But his main explanation for the eminence of the theory was that Freud wrote incredibly well - he is apparently a joy to read. The lecturer wasn’t endorsing this as a valid piece of reasoning, but it was quite the astonishing thing to say, given that we’re meant to be taking the theoretical ideas seriously. He didn’t seem annoyed that I’d raised the issue, thankfully

A bit later we somehow got onto the effect of tv/games/films on young people, and the lecturer said he thought it was obvious the rise in knife crime could be attributed to media depictions of violence. I bristled, but decided I’d objected enough for one lecture; thankfully one of my classmates challenged him.

A friend later asked if I was feeling a bit uppity (in a friendly way, though). We all agreed that the lecture had taken a bizarre turn in the second half, and the role of media violence came up in conversation later.

I feel a bit odd about speaking up, as I’m deeply suspicious of anything suggesting I know better than the teachers, especially as I’m in the first few months of my course. I’m happy to be shot down in flames if I am wrong, though, so I think it’s ok. All things considered, I think it was justified.

I think this is actually a bit more complicated, to be fair [↩]

-----

4 Responses to “In which I get uppity in a lecture”

1 Darkwinter Mar 10th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

I think it’s always a good idea to speak up in lectures - there’s only so much you learn by listening to one person’s take on any one subject, even if they’re a leader in the field. There’s always the remote possibility that they hadn’t considered what you’re considering, or that they’re hoping nobody calls them on a particular point. Discussion is the best way to learn, in my books. Besides, if there’s something you’re not clear on, you’re a) doing yourself no favours keeping quiet about it and b) likely not alone in your lack of understanding.
2 Skuds Mar 10th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

I’ll second that. Even if you are absolutely wrong, someone might point out why which could be handy. The only reason not to lob the odd hand grenade in is if you have one of those lecturers who expect, or demand, that you only submit work that repeats their own opinions - and if you have one of them you are not going to be encouraged to think clearly anyway.

But coming back to your original observation… I’m sure there is a technique for establishing the likelihood of something being true by twisting it 180 degrees and seeing how it stands up. So ask yourself whether you would be more traumatised that your mother has no penis or by finding out that she had bigger tackle than the North Sea fishing fleet (to quote Ben Elton) I know which would have me running to therapy!

Whatever your opinions of Freud though , it is fact that his theories influenced the original wave of surrealists and they are the influence for all who come after, so its probably worth knowing about in order to better understand the history of surrealism.

By the way, as an habitual visitor to Tate Modern, what do you think of that whole room exhibit about Freud - the one with the whole wall full of boxes containing odd objects? I think it would have been a better concept if the boxes were all closed so you had to trust the contents were as listed.
3 Andrew Mar 12th, 2008 at 1:07 am

Thanks, guys - was hoping that’d be the consensus!

Yes, it’s definitely strongly related to surrealism so worth studying in that respect. It does keep turning up in general analysis of ‘normal’ photos, though, which is where I get a bit annoyed.

I don’t think I’ve seen that room…damn, I must have missed loads when I went in the summer. Must go back.
4 Paroxysm Mar 15th, 2008 at 9:17 am

You’re going to come across an incredible number of theoretical frameworks which cannot be measured or qualified in any way outisde of your own subjective opinion. Alas, an arts subject. Whenever I came across anything in the arts with the word ‘theory’ attached, I would simply place it in my ‘interesting possibilities’ bin and not take it too seriously. It was important for me to appreciate how people categorized and attempted to manifest ideas which were rooted in subjective opinion. In this sense Freudian Theory was a little like a painting for me; the viewer took away very personal opinions about a generalised framework of value judgements.

Whenever you attempt to write critical examinations or reviews of a piece of art…YOU WILL NOT be able to do so without somebody stepping in and saying, ‘that’s bollocks, where’s the proof?’. Unless of course you write a dry, useless history of a particular school or artist which you could have copied verbatim from an encyclopedia. Even then, people will challenge ‘commonly held beliefs’ about a certain subject. If I ask you why you like Halsman’s ‘Dali Atomicus’ and requested you really drill down into the reasons why it speaks to you in such a way, you would eventually have to deviate from ‘i just like it’ to ‘here are the reasons why i think I like it…’. You are expected to reflect upon your subjective experience of an art piece; and in doing so you cross the threshold you seem so reluctant to cross.

Freudian theory is just a useful tool for analysing certain things. In ‘Civilisation and its Discontents’ Freud makes some incredibly inciteful comments about why the individual acts in a certain way in social situations. What makes them inciteful for me is not the fact that I can say ‘wow that’s been vindicated by the last 70 years of scientific enquiry’ but that I can say ‘That makes a lot of sense FOR ME when considering Munch’s ‘The Scream’ etc.’

-----

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.