In the Course material we are asked to note questions that occur to us as we read through the set reading. I found myself constantly asking where the conclusions drawn by the writers or those whom they quoted had come from. As is common in Psychology a selection of words or terms such as 'devour' are used to support whatever argument the writer is presenting. The question I always ask is it a fair selection in so far as the word is in common use in the same context and can the conclusions offered be verified if other less emotive terms are used. Further questions arise when bald statements are made that suggest that what is stated is a given fact. Whilst it is not surprising for a Freudian to see the eye as the penis or that young boys have a very real fear of castration the evidence is very limited and is an assumption that is carried into the analysis by the analyst so it is not surprising that it is found to be the case. It is often valuable to compare the work and statements by Freud with the followers of Jung or Adler.
Critics of the Freudian approach point out that many of his conclusions are drawn from work with a very limited number of cases that are not typical or representative of the general population. Based on a very small sample the theory is then 'found' in others.A good example is in the final part of the Otto Fenchel 1 extract where he discusses the problems of the psychogenesis of myopia.
My experience is that psychology in general and psychoanalysis in particular has much to offer in individual cases but that extrapolating the findings to the general population is fraught with danger. The differing approaches adopted by those who follow the teachings of Freud or those having Jungian training are in themselves problematic and the differences inside the many disciplines only make the problems worse.
How then is it possible to use the information in the Reader to make any generalised statements about how each individual sees the world and in particular - art? Is there any value in trying to decide if an object is a 'fetish' in any individual case? Seeing a landscape painting as a 'replacement' for real countryside may, in an individual case, be a reasonable view in the particular but I would guess that there are as many if not more that either see it as just something to fill a gap or to complement the general decor. I am a photographer and my favourite genre is landscape and the photographs I display on my walls are of landscapes. Am I to conclude from this that they are a 'replacement' for the real countryside (assuming there is such a thing as 'real' countryside). All I can say is that I live in the country and spend a great deal of my time passing through country that I find outstanding. I am aware that the photographs that I have chosen from many hundreds are those that evoke a particular memory or emotional response within me.
"How does what you have read help your understanding of why and how we look at things in a ritualised way - for instance going to an art gallery?"
There is a built in assumption within the question - that we look at things in a 'ritualised way'. There is no evidence offered to suggest that this is the case . I assume the term is not being used in a psychological sense where it defines a set of actions adopted by a person to relieve anxiety or stress (e.g checking, more than once, that doors and windows are locked before leaving the house) that interfere with that person's life - sometimes described as obsessive compulsive disorder. In a general use of the term 'rituals' i.e. a set of actions, can aid in the creation of group identity. Applying this to a visit to an art gallery it is evident from observation there is an agreed way of behaving that seems to impinge itself on everyone that enters. Certain types of behaviour are frowned upon and those seen stepping outside the norm are judged to be 'not one of us'.
One can usefully compare a visit to a public art gallery to a viewing at a private gallery. In the former case there is no particular form of dress requirement and you are not seen to be not part of the group based on your dress code. There is a general acceptance of not getting into the view line of someone else nor discussing any particular painting in a loud voice. Observation (I worked within walking distance of the Tate and spent many a lunch hour wandering around) suggests that visitors begin to adopt a stance for looking at the pictures that mimics that of those around them. Probably based on the desire to be part of the group and not to be seen as different in some way. A similar phenomenon can be seen in museums that suggests that most of us have a desire to be part of the social grouping that visits places of 'learning' which is probably a sub-set of the desire to 'belong' to a group that is very strong in most humans.
In the latter case - the showing at a private gallery - dress code is exactly that - a code. There are those who see the occasion to dress to show their superiority and possibly wealth. There are also those who dress to emphasise their difference and to reject the norms and values of other groups but frequently find themselves part of a group anyway because there are others who have adopted the same dress code. It is also not unusual to hear very loud discussions of the exhibits that enable the speaker to display their knowledge (or in some cases - ignorance) of the type of art being viewed. Interestingly if one can survive long enough there arrives a point at which views start to coalesce around that expressed by the dominant personality present (again behaviour that is common to many group meetings.).
Group behaviour is a well studied area by a whole range of behaviour analysts. From an early age we learn how to behave within a group and how to be accepted within that group. Initially it may be by direct instruction from parents or significant others, or by painful rejection but gradually we learn a strategy that works in the majority of cases and use it to test the waters in any new grouping with which we are faced. Rebellious teenagers who avowedly reject the norms of their parents or other groups seem always to seek out a group that share their current value set. The elderly who reject all things modern also surround themselves surrounded by similar thinking people. The group provides verification of our identity and through belonging strengthens our convictions that we are right.
It will be fairly evident that my answer to the stated question would be a blunt 'No'. I find that my experience of Freudian thinking and its obsession with sex, whilst in itself may offer solutions to individual problems, offers very little in terms of society and the individual make up of those who are part of that society.
"Do the articles suggest to you reasons for staring at someone being at best bad manners and at worst threatening".
If one accepts the idea that the eye is seen as the penis (I have to admit that this is the first time that I have ever come across this idea) then clearly staring would be seen as both bad manners and extremely threatening. Is this the case for both sexes or is it more threatening for the female who presumably sees it as the start to sexual violation? If the starer is homosexual should a man being stared at respond in a similar way to that of a woman? Is it necessary for there to be awareness of the concept of the penis eye in the viewed before any reaction or is there somehow a genetic element to our make up where sub-consciously we are aware of the phallic nature of the eye? Is there any real evidence, other than in the world of Freud, that such a concept exists or is this on a par with reactions to such things as the 'bogeyman'?
A lot of the myths of our childhood designed to frighten or control have elements of the staring 'monster' or of the 'magic' eye that in some way has the ability to control the victim. It may be the case that these memories remain with us and affect our reactions to someone who stares at us or looks at us longer than is usual. Loss of control is an underlying fear with most and the thought that someone is capable of taking control of our actions just by looking at us is disturbing. These buried memories would be re-inforced by watching the success of the hypnotist in getting people to do something that is not part of their normal behaviour pattern. Films made for children such as Jungle Book re-inforce the message by presenting the snake as having the ability to hypnotise humans (think what happens to Mowgli).
Given such conditioning it is not unreasonable to see why we find staring objectionable.
However there are other elements of learning/conditioning that have to be taken into account. Very young babies pick up their information about the world around them by visual and tactile contact. A long hard stare by an adult is seen to be threatening by most and it can be argued that this is early learned behaviour. Very young infants quickly learn when a situation is threatening by receiving the same messages that on a previous occasion led to its discomfort or possibly pain. If there is an association between the parent or other adult staring and discomfort/pain then this pattern becomes imprinted and carried forward into adulthood.
There is also a cultural element. Different cultures have different 'rules' for eye contact. First meetings between different cultures can be made difficult where one culture sees sustained eye contact as showing politeness and interest whilst seen by another culture as the height of rudeness.
"Can you make any suggestions as to the reasons some people need to avidly watch television?"
I make the assumption that 'need' in this case refers to an irresistible desire to avidly watch television as opposed to someone who has either work that requires that they watch television or, say, an interest in stocks and shares so that the watching has a financial reason. Furthermore I assume that the time spent watching television is out of the ordinary or even could be considered abnormal or all other activities are put on hold in order to watch a favourite television programme.
Presumably the watcher gains pleasure or benefit from the activity greater than he would experience from other activities. Becoming totally absorbed into the world as portrayed in a soap opera to the extent that the characters are 'seen' as real people and that their portrayed lives are real suggests that it is escapism from something in their lives the avid watcher finds difficult to tolerate. It is a feature that existed even in the time of radio programmes that followed the lives of 'ordinary people' as was demonstrated when one of the characters in the Archers died in a fire and many wreaths were sent by listeners to the supposed funeral.
If we describe a fetish as something that takes the place of something in the real world that is seen as unobtainable or unapproachable then avid watching of television can be described as a fetish. An obsessive desire to see a particular person on television either as real or as a character and fantasise about the relationship between the watcher and the watched can also be seen as a fetish whether there are sexual overtones or not.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from the total involvement of a person in computer games for many hours a day to the exclusion of all other activities such as social interaction.
If we live in a world that we see as hostile and uncaring or in which our desires remain unfulfilled then the opportunity to escape offered by 'other' worlds can prove irresistible. In our fantasy world all things are achievable and we remain masters of our own destiny - something that is not obtainable in what we see as the real world.
" What visual fetishes have you noted in everyday life - your own or others"?
As far as I am aware I do not have any fetishes in my own life although presumably this is something I would not know. To me what could be described as a fetish by others is seen by me as a natural part of my life. In others I can only make a judgement based on my belief about how an object is seen by the other person. I can have no direct evidence unless I am happy to assign such a status to everyday objects. For example religious symbols are, by one definition, fetishes. The picture of Christ on the Cross is representative of the suffering he bore for the redemption of our sins; communion is his flesh and blood; and icons of the saints represent the good that we should all aspire to in our lives. To the atheist all of that is just nonsense.
I do not see how this question can be answered honestly or with any conviction because we cannot, for the most part, make a judgement based on what evidence we can acquire.
"Why are people so often so keen to display wedding photos or family portraits."
Photos or portraits act as reminder of certain times or events in the lives of members of our family. We get an emotional reaction to the image that has some links to the event at the time of the photograph. We remember happy or sad times and this can trigger a whole flood of memories linked either to the person shown, the event itself or linked memories such as seeing Aunty Dot may remind us of the time she fell into the sea from Skegness Pier.
We may also surround ourselves with family portraits in order to protect ourselves from the reality of our actual familial relationships. Being able to look back on happier times may help us avoid the sadness of a broken relationship or rift within the family as a whole. We are replacing the reality of the present world with something that brings memories of happier times (or perhaps the opposite situation).
In photos people don't grow old, they don't suffer from crippling diseases, they don't die and the sun always seems to shine. They freeze time for ever. Looking at images of your children as babies reminds you of yourself as much younger person with your hopes and ambition still in front of you. It gives the opportunity to reflect. Whether it is a happy thought process or otherwise is what you are or have become.
References
1 Otto Fenichel (1954) IN: visual culture: the reader; eds jessica evans and stuart hall; Sage Publications Ltd 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment