Saturday, January 05, 2008
What do pictures want from professor Kalmar?
After I read chapter two of What Do Pictures Want?, I started thinking about how we can separate the desire of the image from that of the artist and the spectator? (Mitchel 2005: 46) It surprises me that Mitchel talks so little about the desire of the artists. I am a painter therefore the way I view a work of art might be very different from the way a social theorist or an art historian might look at an artwork. When professor Kalmar was giving a lecture on how images can take a life of their own, I couldn’t help but wonder how we can interpret images without taking into consideration the motives or perspective of the creator. It is important to acknowledge that each one of us interprets works of art based on his/her own historical background, education, and personality type, however, I also believe that the creative vision and intent of the artist is as important as the spectator’s perspective in the analysis of an image.
When we were looking at the Canadian house with an architectural feature, loggia, professor Kalmar suggested that the house wanted us to perhaps appreciate architecture and especially think of Italian architecture. Now is a good time for me to go back to my title and explain why I have chosen this title. This is what the picture wants from professor Kalmar. For professor, based on his education or perhaps his traveling experiences and most importantly his familiarity with Italian architecture, the house represents a familiar tradition in Italian art history and architecture. I agree that pictures want different things from different people. What we see in an image is a complex mixture of what the artist wanted to convey at the moment of creation, and what we perceive based on our own unique experiences.
It is impossible to look at an image and eliminate the artist, because we are looking at that image through his eyes, from the angle that he/she has chosen. We might not see exactly what the artist wanted us to see because our gaze is colored by our unique experiences and backgrounds. For example, as a Persian, the house reminded me of the tabatabaei house which is in Kashan, one of the cities of Iran. This house was built in early 1800s and is an example of traditional Persian architecture. (You can easily find the image of the house if you type Kashan in wikipedia). However, despite my unique “Persian” gaze, my perspective of this photograph was influenced by the angle that the professor had chosen and of course by what he wanted me to see in that picture. I can go on and on but I would stop here and I would really appreciate if you guys can share what you think about the images and their desires, especially what you think about how images can take a life of their own.
Happy New Years everyone!
When we were looking at the Canadian house with an architectural feature, loggia, professor Kalmar suggested that the house wanted us to perhaps appreciate architecture and especially think of Italian architecture. Now is a good time for me to go back to my title and explain why I have chosen this title. This is what the picture wants from professor Kalmar. For professor, based on his education or perhaps his traveling experiences and most importantly his familiarity with Italian architecture, the house represents a familiar tradition in Italian art history and architecture. I agree that pictures want different things from different people. What we see in an image is a complex mixture of what the artist wanted to convey at the moment of creation, and what we perceive based on our own unique experiences.
It is impossible to look at an image and eliminate the artist, because we are looking at that image through his eyes, from the angle that he/she has chosen. We might not see exactly what the artist wanted us to see because our gaze is colored by our unique experiences and backgrounds. For example, as a Persian, the house reminded me of the tabatabaei house which is in Kashan, one of the cities of Iran. This house was built in early 1800s and is an example of traditional Persian architecture. (You can easily find the image of the house if you type Kashan in wikipedia). However, despite my unique “Persian” gaze, my perspective of this photograph was influenced by the angle that the professor had chosen and of course by what he wanted me to see in that picture. I can go on and on but I would stop here and I would really appreciate if you guys can share what you think about the images and their desires, especially what you think about how images can take a life of their own.
Happy New Years everyone!
# posted by ida @ 4:30 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
you are absolutely right; we might wanna just keep in mind that Mitchell was intentionally polemic (read - a bit biased) in his assertion of "pictures' own will" because he wanted to correct the too common an approach in the history of arts that favors the "artist's" point of view. For example, the obsession with answering "who was Mona Lisa" and "how Leonardo made her smile so enigmatic"; he might have not intended it to be enigmatic at all.
The uniqueness of perspective of the spectator is also a fact; however, a lot of it is common. FOr example, with (im)famous Black Square by Malevich - a surprising number of people said "it is DEath", "it is a door to the Death, that is what it is". And many would probably say that picture wants them to open this door, to peep in...
The interesting question for you as a painter might be - how can an artist predict or change what her picture will want from people?
Post a Comment
The uniqueness of perspective of the spectator is also a fact; however, a lot of it is common. FOr example, with (im)famous Black Square by Malevich - a surprising number of people said "it is DEath", "it is a door to the Death, that is what it is". And many would probably say that picture wants them to open this door, to peep in...
The interesting question for you as a painter might be - how can an artist predict or change what her picture will want from people?
<< Home
