-----

16 Responses to “Here are some things I’ve learnt in this term’s photographic theory classes” 

1. 1 Jane Henry  Nov 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am

   Oh glorious. Glorious. I have four children. Does that mean I now possess four penises? And they’re all girls. Oh my god. What have I done to them? Thank you for confirming my long held prejudice that Freud is full of bull….

2. 2 Paroxysm  Nov 28th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

   Stop taking these theories so literally. Artistic criticism is simply the application of interpretative frameworks to an already subjective form. When we look at the arrangements of plains in a picture, why does it move us so? There are a number of theories, all pefectly valid, which bleed into one another in many varied ways. Now we can break down scientifically - image - response in region of brain - chemical release - positive reinforcement etc. but none of these REALLY account for what people find beautiful. This is not a criticism of your work Andrew because I find some of it very interesting but you seem to be interested more in the technical aspects of photography as opposed to subjective or interpretative aspects (see snowflake post above). There is great beauty in the material world and the science of nature but there is great beauty in the abstract also.

   Abstract art and theory I find so much more interesting BECAUSE it’s removed from fallibility, it doesn’t even fall into accountability because it is a product of art. Tis’ neither useful nor needs to be. The proposed dramatic transition from a Euclidean to a Cartesian perspective is absolutely unverifiable - but who cares, that’s art! You wouldn’t try to interpret Duchamp’s sculptures that way so why the theory which regards them? It seems to be ‘abstraction’ where your quandary lies. As soon as it steps out of the verifiable or the real it seems to lose some gloss for you which as Jameson will tell you is ironic considering it’s a piece of shiny paper or a matrix of code. Yes, yes postmodernist bullshit but how many times have you heard similar accusations levelled at Damien Hirst and Emin? Inexplicably their work still sells and is deemed of great cultural relevance.

   You’re studying a subject which bridges the divide neatly between technical, measurable skills and how artistic you can be with them. If you want to photograph for NatGeo then keep ranting. Even if neuroscience mapped the brain in it’s entireity (it never will) - you still wouldn’t be able to account for individual interpretation of how and why there is such massive difference in the appreciation of the beautiful. There are some things science will never answer, for everything else there’s Mastercard.

3. 3 PooterGeek  Dec 1st, 2008 at 11:19 am

   Stop taking these theories so literally.

   It would be nice if undergraduates studying for non-science degrees were permitted not only to stop taking such “theories” literally, but to treat them with the derision they deserve. Sadly, the people teaching them often didn’t get where they are by pointing and laughing at the Emperor’s tiny penis, but by envying it.

4. 4 Paroxysm  Dec 1st, 2008 at 5:29 pm

   But Pooter undergraduates ARE permitted to do this, in fact they are encouraged. My dissertation was largely focussed on the dismantling of psychodynamic theory in it’s application to Modernist Poetry - and it was received very well. It may simply be a case of stubborn tutor or poor institution in the cases you refer to but I’ve found the most admirable teachers tend to be the ones who actively encourage debate amongst students on such contentious theories/works.

   Your argument that these theories ‘deserve’ derision would be accepted and discussed as a valid viewpoint. But again I’d be interested to know how you can ever apply an interpretation to a piece of art that DOESN’T have derisible aspects to it. It is, at least in my opinion and experience, impossible. Unless of course you want to reduce ‘art criticism’ to ‘art description’. Any ‘criticism’ or ‘interpretation’ of art is ALWAYS open to dispute.

5. 5 PooterGeek  Dec 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 am

   But Pooter undergraduates ARE permitted to do this, in fact they are encouraged.

   I doubt many of them would be awarded a First for doing so, though I’m sure, as you say, there are examiners who are more open minded; I just don’t believe they’re in the majority.

   Any ‘criticism’ or ‘interpretation’ of art is ALWAYS open to dispute.

   Dispute and derision are two different things. All scientific theories are open to dispute. Indeed, it’s possible to demolish them with a single, repeatable experiment. But if you proposed, in the absence of good evidence, that your brain was controlled by millions of tiny fairies then you’d be laughed at by scientists—and rightly so.

   We know now that Freud wasn’t just wrong; he was a fraud. (Interestingly, some scientists whose insights we celebrate to this day turned out to be right, but were also frauds.) Both Freud’s methods and Freudian psychoanalytic theory are long discredited. No scientist takes them seriously—to the extent that serious university departments style themselves centres of “experimental psychology” to distinguish their work from Sigmund’s quackery.

   Outside science faculties, students are still made to study Freudianism as though it merited more than historical interest. Like you, I don’t object to people doing this as a leisure activity, but it’s not scholarship. Without basic rigour the non-scientific academy is hostage to fashion and the prejudices of people rich enough to be able to afford postgraduate study in “lifestyle” subjects—what one professor of art history memorably called “the Henrietta problem”. If, as you imply, truth and reason don’t really matter to critical study of the arts then its students might as well wipe their arses with their exam scripts and be done with it.

6. 6 Paroxysm  Dec 2nd, 2008 at 11:51 am

   I have a problem with you assigning scientific methods to the study of art in the first instance. It’s not that I don’t believe truth and reason are worthwhile pursuits but that in the interpretation of art it is impossible to establish the ‘truth’ at all. I suppose the truth ‘matters’ to the arts student and critical reasoning should always be used when arguing a specific viewpoint in an essay, in fact the search for the truth is what keeps them going. But how can you ever ‘truthfully’ and ‘reasonably’ interpret Dali’s works when they spring from an artistic sensibility which is not accountable to ‘truth’ and ‘reason’. Where is the ‘truth’ in art? It is impossible to establish!

   We’re not discussing two rocks bouncing down a hill here, we’re talking about the subjective elements of a mind, the tastes of culture, the whimsy of Hamsun’s ‘Hunger’ protagonist. The gathering of evidence in art is totally different to the scientific method, period. There are two ways:

   1) Quoting/using other people’s ‘interpretations’ of the work. Completely subjective.
   2) Historical sources e.g. interviews, events, contemporary works etc. Completely subjective.

   Biographies are coloured by the bias of time, trend, skill. Same with any historical source. Even words taken directly from the mouth of the artist are open to a thousand interpretations. Does Freudian theory not warrant discussion if the artist themselves thought it spoke to them in a particular way? I believe Fascism to be a derisible (not just disputable) political system but if you want to understand Ezra Pound you need to study it! Now, the application of Freudian theory to today’s works of art still has to be taken seriously if you take into consideration the ‘history of the discipline’ which include subject matter, effect, influence of admired artist, or just plain disregard (shock, horror!) to the reason or rhyme of the scientific method.

   If you can construct (or point me towards) an essay discussing something as simple as ‘The Meaning’ of a Picasso canvas without drawing on one of these already subjective elements I would love to read it. Unfortunately it cannot be done. As I indicated before the discussion of an individual’s subjectivity demands all subjective opinions to be taken seriously and discussed. Truth matters but it is unattainable and this is the crux of the artist - his method. But by God if some beautiful creations don’t come out of it in his struggle.

7. 7 PooterGeek  Dec 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm

   I have a problem with you assigning scientific methods to the study of art in the first instance.

   I never assigned scientific methods to the study of art. I merely pointed out that a bogus theory is as irrelevant to the analysis of art as it is to the analysis of science. Even the looniest of academics has yet to publish a critique of an artwork based on, for example, the teachings of Scientology. There’s a good reason for that.

   Where is the ‘truth’ in art? It is impossible to establish!

   Agreed. I’m not talking about art. I’m talking about scholarship (as is Andrew). Whether you’re an engineer or a professor of English literature, you still have to respect factual and historical truth or you’re just running an expensive scam.

   Does Freudian theory not warrant discussion if the artist themselves thought it spoke to them in a particular way?

   Absolutely, but that’s not why most art critics discuss it. They believe, wrongly, that Freud’s theories offer plausible explanations of human behaviour, including the making of art. They don’t.

   Now, the application of Freudian theory to today’s works of art still has to be taken seriously if you take into consideration the ‘history of the discipline’

   Which is exactly what I said. Freud, Marx, L Ron Hubbard—all the last century’s influential con artists are of historic interest to those studying that period’s artefacts. That’s not what I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is the contention that Freud’s theories have any value in themselves—they don’t—or that they can useful be applied to art or artists not influenced by them—they can’t.

   As I indicated before the discussion of an individual’s subjectivity demands all subjective opinions to be taken seriously and discussed.

   No. It does not. One of the most important skills an undergraduate must acquire is the ability to discriminate between those opinions that are worth taking seriously and those that are not. There simply isn’t time for anyone to grapple with everything said about a particular subject. The inherently subjective nature of aesthetics is no excuse for discarding academic discipline. If a student wrote an essay claiming that Dali painted the things he did because he was abducted by aliens, but offered no evidence for his claim, then he would, rightly, receive no marks for it. Bleating that “truth in art is impossible to establish” and “Well, it’s all completely subjective anyway” wouldn’t be a defence; it would, like his essay, be bullshit.

8. 8 Paroxysm  Dec 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm

   ‘Whether you’re an engineer or a professor of English literature, you still have to respect factual and historical truth or you’re just running an expensive scam’

   Respect the factual and historical truth? As outlined previously this is impossible to establish in nearly every case. Even if you could establish these facts to the best of your ability, making the jump between this information and your application of it is going to be problematic outside of the most rigid methodological constraints.

   Secondly, the way in which scholars go about collecting their evidence for the arts is, as pointed out, very different from the way scholars from other disciplines (such as chemistry for example) do. There’s no controlled conditions, variables etc. so applying the same rules to both areas, labelled under ’scholarship’, is absurd. Even if I incorrectly gave you credit for the distinction between these methods, it still stands as an important point.

   Thirdly, where is your evidence, since we’re on the subject, to suggest ‘most critics’ discuss Freud from a non historical perspective? This has not been my experience in either tuition or research. Seems you’re attributing a very specific gripe to large swathes of scholars across many subjects.

   To clarify, Andrew’s initial gripe was surrounding the subject matter he was being taught suggesting it was ‘a waste of time’. My argument was simply that the teaching of this theory DOES have value in that it can give us an insight into the cultural consciousness of the time. So it’s not a waste of time. Glad we’re in agreement.

   Finally…Freud. Perhaps the reason I was inclined to read your criticism of Freud as an ode to the scientific method was because of the ‘testibility’ of his theories. You claim a lot of them have been ‘discredited’. I see a fundamental problem in the interpretation of Freud’s ideas through testibility as I see a problem with the testibility of the theories of say,Shakespeare. When Shakespeare talks of love, death, friendship I don’t say ‘Hey! wait a minute, that was discredited in xyz journal, 1988′ because it is a purely subjective experience and opinion of these concepts. That was what I meant by taking ideas so literally. If you view ‘Civilisation and its Discontents’ purely as a proposed scientific paper as opposed to social or cultural commentary, I would call you mad. I view Freud’s Psychoanalytical theories very similar to Wilde’s Theory of the Aesthetic, simply a lens through which we can view products of culture.

9. 9 PooterGeek  Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm

   [Before I disappear, I'd like to straighten out one thing I wrote: Karl Marx died before the 20th century began, but his work was most influential during the 20th century.]

   If you can’t see the fundamental qualitative difference between the works of Shakespeare—I have to confess I’m unfamiliar with his “theories”—and the works of Freud then I’m wasting my time trying to explain to you the other, slightly finer, distinctions I’ve been trying to make here. Thanks for the discussion. I’ll leave it to Andrew’s readers to decide which of our respective opinions are worth taking seriously.

10. 10 Paroxysm  Dec 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    How ironic that you seemed to back down when asked for evidence. Way to go. You got any scientific/sociological studies looking into the habits or dispositions of academic staff? Or is this whole thing based on, hang on let me take a wild guess, your own perception of a discipline you’ve had no involvement in.

    I don’t really mind what readers think as much as the institutes under discussion handing me a first and a Masters in a subject which I am qualified to discuss.

    It’s normally customary to sign off on a discussion by at least answering some of the concerns raised by the other party than just idly smoothing over them with ‘I’ve made some slightly finer distinctions’ which you don’t seem to grasp so ‘bye bye.’

    But if we’re going to step out of the discourse for a moment let’s get it right: You have no evidence for your assertions, they are biased and uninformed, you didn’t address a single question of mine nor directed me towards evidence requested. If you have a finer grasp of the topic under discussion pleeeeaassseee oh wise one point me towards the tools I need so I can learn to be more like you. It pains me at night to think that a guy studying bioinformatics had more of an insight into those who actually experienced the courses under discussion.

    There’s a smugness that permeates your comments PooterGeek which I know you’re perfectly aware of. Even if it was the case that you had a better handle on this than I, your approach to closing the discussion really is one of self-congratulation. It is in these moments that I seem to lose my composure (as evidenced) with people such as yourselves because you purposefully attempt to undermine me at the expense of the discourse. In real life I would give you the finger, but a simple ‘fuck you’ will have to suffice in this instance.

11. 11 PooterGeek  Dec 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    You’re right: I didn’t back up one of my assertions with evidence because I believed that we were both addressing the same actual fact, namely Andrew’s dissatisfaction with his own direct experience of a course in the arts (that matches my own experience of my friends’ undergraduate studies on similar courses). You didn’t seem to think Andrew’s account of its content was in any way atypical when this discussion started. You simply told him that he was taking what he was taught “too literally”.

    As a courtesy to you though—because you have been so nice to me—here are the first hits from Google Scholar for “art”, “Freud”, and “theory”:

    1. Spector, The Aesthetics of Freud

    2. A translation of Freud’s study of Leonardo Da Vinci

    3. Schapiro, Leonardo and Freud, An Art Historical Study

    4. Perls et al, Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality

    5. Lambert, Social Psychology

    6. Bersani, The Freudian Body: Assyrian palace reliefs (amongst other things) “analyzed in terms of Freudian theories”

    7. Freud himself again

    8. Apter, Fetishism as Cultural Discourse, “exploring the post-colonial psyche of nation-states”

    9. Freud again

    10. Rank, The Trauma of Birth

    Of the non-duplicate, non-Freud works above, three out of five treat Freudian theory as though it is still a valid current approach; none is dated earlier than 1970. (I’m leaving out the book by Rank because, although superficially it supports my case, it was written in 1924.)

    Well done on your First and Master’s. Your contributions here perfectly illustrate what happens when claims about the world lack external tests or common standards against which they can be judged: empty credentialism: “I’ve got two degrees, so nerr”; attacks on tone rather than substance: “You’re so smug and self-congratulatory”; and, ultimately, abusive “discourse”: “Fuck you”. Surely my interpretations are “all perfectly valid” as well? Perhaps you’ve been taking my theories “too literally”?

    While I’m on the subject, here’s a lovely review by a friend of mine of another recent piece of Freudian slop written by a full professor of English at a college of the University of London. I hope you can follow the link and that the apparent existence of that book, published by Princeton University Press, isn’t another one of my biased perceptions of a discipline I am not qualified to comment on.

12. 12 Paroxysm  Dec 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    The topic of discussion changed when you started making assertions that huge swathes of the academic world discouraged any form of protest to such theories.

    You’re kidding! You mean when you typed in ‘Freud’ ‘Art’ Theory’ you got hits back for Freud, Art and Theory? No Way!! Well that’s obviously representative of the entire academic world! Just a quick suggestion, ever thought that maybe the other million were interested in an alternative theory? Not to mention the fact that there are hundreds of key words and variables to this search which would throw it into complete invalidation. Maybe my empty credentials would mean more if I’d backed up some of my arguments with your clever self-affirming search techniques eh?

    As I said, I’m perfectly willing to step out of a certain discourse if the person I’m in discussion with throws it down first which you clearly did. Suggesting to the person you’re speaking with that they can’t grasp the ’slightly finer distinctions’ you’re making is presumptuous and condescending. You have no right to be like that with anyone, let alone someone who has been judged by experts in their field to know a thing or two about the subject. I can engage a Doctor of Medicine in debate about a certain treatment but for me to then say to that man, with zero qualifications in the field myself, that he cannot grasp the finer distinctions of what I’m saying, well that’s just ignorant.

    If you believe that I hold empty credentials, you’re entitled to your opinion - but I have to add as a caveat that the knowledge and experience (not to mention evidence) you’ve exhibited on the subject is thus far lacking and so unfortunately your opinion may not be, well, valid at all.
    Anyway Poots I can’t chit chat with you any longer because I think it’s run it’s course and I am afraid when you started being a condescending arse it stepped out of an enjoyable discussion into one where i would quite happily cattle prod you up your arse. I’m sure Freud would have a field day with that one!

13. 13 Andrew  Dec 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    Manners. PooterGeek has argued forcefully and politely, as he always does, but even if you were right the appropriate response would be to rise above it, not to throw a crude tantrum. Don’t be so bloody rude.

    Since I’m here, I said the course sometimes seems like ‘a massive waste of my time’, which is different from the course being ‘a waste of time’. Which I think you know full well.

    It’s odd that so many arguments you’re involved with result in your getting personal without provocation, and launching a volley of ad hominem attacks. I’ve banned you, what - twice? Three times? And you’ve flounced off at least once, vowing never to return, yet curiously doing so. And still I’ve given you chances to make comments usually more about insulting me than responding to anything - I can’t believe you had a strop at someone for their being ‘condescending’.

    There’s no excuse for that kind of behaviour, and you don’t get to do it on my blog. From now on I’ll just delete personal attacks against me or other commenters, as well as general trolling. I will, in other words, actually enforce my commenting policy.

14. 14 Nodster  Dec 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    Have to say watching these comments has been entertaining. If Paroxysm can’t distinguish between literature and scientific theories then I can see why PooterGeek may have given up.

    I don’t pretend to be a psychologist or a critic, nor has an institution found itself worthy as to endow on me any qualification of merit to this discussion. Nevertheless my thoughts in this distinction - where this applies to critiques, follow. I accept that when discussing my opinion I may be factually incorrect and would appreciate any factual corrections which can be provided in order to improve the context in which I understand this subject.

    –

    Literature, in it’s nature is written in context. If someone writes literature, one doesn’t go back at a later date and change the text to fit into a modern understanding. It is understood by the reader that it was written when stated, and the ideas and illustrative instruments it might use are appropriate to the period, both of the setting and also the writer, and in fiction these are also subject to the writer’s imagination.

    One can apply similar thinking to a scientific theory - scientific theories are left untouched - however they can be invalidated and replaced in our modern understanding thus no longer applied to current-day-thinking.

    So scientific theories such as those produced, presented, and utilised by freud, can later be shown to be invalid. They can be appreciated for the history to science that they are, but not applied to cases where a modern understanding should now be applied.

    Thus, one can analyse a critic’s writing where these theories were current, one can even compare and contrast a modern writing’s conclusions with those which have been or might have been evidenced by the previous theories. However time has passed, perception improved - so one should not, for the purpose of critiquing, apply an outdated methodology whilst blindly ignoring the modern understanding.

    This leads to the accepted situation where one could apply the outdated methodology with the precursor “The psychologist Freud would have us believe” but not “Psychology would have us believe”, as the latter implies the use of the modern understanding in a current-day critic, and without this distinction (art) historians of the future could become most confused, as the critique is incomplete.

15. 15 Nodster  Dec 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 am

    My point being, that it is worth learning and understanding the invalidated psychological theories only in conjunction with a modern understanding, in order to best analyse critiques made when these theories were relevant.

    Freud’s invalidated theories do not assist you in analysing or critiquing art for yourself, they merely supply you someone else’s verbs. Students of art seeking enlightenment from Freud would be better off to look within themselves for a means in expressing their own emotional understanding of art.

16. 16 Paroxysm  Dec 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 am

    OK Andrew, I apologise for the manner in which I responded. I do however contest that there was no provocation on his behalf. Saying that someone is not worth talking to because they cannot grasp the finer distinctions of a point is exclusory and dismissive at best and just plain insulting at worst. It is also something which is not generally done in an open discussion. Something I’ve learnt the hard way myself.

    Maybe it’s because of my lesser refined sense of manners or etiquette or whatever but when someone says something like the example above it’s essentially an obscene gesture. It’s a big fat one finger salute cloaked in the guise of debate. Just because I throw that back his way after ripping the cloak off doesn’t change the fact that he provoked me. Perhaps it’s due to my over sensitivity to manners and etiquette that I took such offense. If a guy bites his thumb in public the first question to ask, if not already established, is ‘who is he doing that at’? In fact the opening scene from Romeo & Juliet pretty much says it.

    You’re right in saying I should rise above it though - although I wonder if the very reason why there is an element of condescension in his post is because not enough people have pulled him up and said ‘Don’t be an arse’ about it.

    And I don’t understand where this idea that I can’t distinguish between literary and scientific theories has come from. I simply said that Freud should perhaps be interpreted in a more literary or artistic manner as opposed to being scrutinised the same way a journal article in a scientific journal should be. In the same way you wouldn’t rip apart Wilde’s theories of the Aesthetic you shouldn’t rip apart ‘Freud’s Civilisation and its discontents’; it may belong to a seperate discourse altogether.

-----

Leave a Reply

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.

There was an error with your comment, please try again.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

(comments may take ~20 seconds to process due to anti-spam pixies)