Ocular Metaphoric and the Part in Plays in the Lives of the Contemporary American Society - Essay Example

Philosophy and Art Martin Jay has coined the word ocularcentric (1994). It is based on the assumption that language exists primarily as something perceptible; that it can be presented using terms of comparisons with diverse forms of visual occurrences. And that linguistic investigations can be understood as a kind of visual perception, which has been integral to the objects, concepts, data and methodologies that characterize generative inquiry, and is deeply embedded in its conceptual logic.This ocularcentric idea has also been viewed by famous and modern philosopher Descartes. This is evident in the idea of darkness. It is believed that for Descartes, darkness is a nightmare. The opinion held here is that nothing can be learned from entering into its domain.This vision behind this philosopher's ideas was because of his personal opinion. He is a philosopher obsessed with clarity and light.Thus, if a discussion in which light, vision, and its abstract are constitutive of its very logic may be called ocularcentric, then it would be difficult to deny that Descartes' philosophy exemplifies ocularcentrism (Levin 1993). This essay discusses the ocular metaphoric and the part in plays in the lives of the contemporary American society today. It will demonstrate the extent to which vision constitutes the essential analogical figure in the readings of Jay, Bryson and Lacan. The paper will examines the role visual imagery plays in these writers main arguments, analyzes why it is so important to their theoretical framework, and considers the rhetorical work it is used to carry out. This essay will attempt to discuss how ocularcentrism shapes the understanding of what is central to the American society and what is peripheral; what is "visible" and "invisible" within the theoretical framework, and what the nature and limits of it are. Thus, the inherited advantages and disadvantages of this belief in ocularcentrism will be discussed, along with its effect on visual art. It is impossible to separate personal experiences and other components of society to better understand visual culture. Martin Jay raises skepticism over the idea of a singular and modern method of vision (Scopic Regimes of Modernity). Asking for modernity to be changed in its concepts, Jay asks for it to be seen as a diverse and complex body rather than a harmonious body of theories and practices. This essay claims that maps and plans are necessary to explain the components of modernity. He goes on to divide the body of the essay into three parts: Cartesian perspectivalism, seventeenth century Dutch art and baroque art. In his essay Jay refutes the concept of Cartesian perspectivalism to be the reigning form of any kind of visual model for modernity. While this claim is amongst the first to be made by critics, it does have its flaws. For starters, Jay refuses to create an argument that can fit into a specialized field of visual presentation. It aims at acknowledging local and international ideas which touch a large cultural stratum. The scale implied by Jay is coarse in its ability to touch such a large and dynamic field which is known not only for its various models but because of the centuries of art it covers. Thus, while Jay's argument can be considered inspiring in its attempt to break the routine form of ideological thinking, it is flawed in its ability to cover such a diverse cultural body. Instead, Jay could have used a concept which is smoothed down to a finer level thus allowing the subtle distinctions that arise in different pieces to be observed. Philosophy is a subject which changes over time. As the world develops, old problems fade away and new ones take their place. Art is a perfect display of the different developments in human sciences. It is representative of the cultural forms in any given society. However, another shift has also occurred bringing down the possibility of the art form from a means of human science or public culture. In American history this can be traced back to the 1980's where non-linguistic components are given a greater degree of importance than their linguistic counterparts. The conventions and codes attached to art are observed because the symbol system overrides the assumption that language provides meanings to surroundings. Thus, Scopic Regimes does exactly what its writer wishes to portray in the field of philosophy. It shows the rift between the discursive and what is visible. The picture holds an iconic value which can be recognized by a viewer who is willing to ignore the visual and provide a metaphor to better explain the image. In this way, individuals are dominated by the idea of the visual. However, this exact analysis of the dominance created by the visual emphasizes the dominance in itself. What can in turn be done is to understand the bodies and practices of art which have been stretched out over time and place. Also, it is necessary to obtain historical distances from distance to better understand the philosophy behind the idea of these regimes. It is impossible to decide which early regimes reign in their power and importance today and if any new ones are emerging. This is because the new regimes become evident only when they have detached, matured or grown into a stronger force. Using the concept of Scopic Regime, Jay explains how each scopic regime serves one purpose. It eradicates any differences that arise between vision and visuality. Instead, it places all of these under one hierarchy which takes the visuals produced by society and turns them into a group understood by natural sight. European tradition is ample proof because of the strong and convincing tradition underlying in their work. The perspectivalist regime is seen as for creating a sense of ideology. The work produced in this era shows the bourgeoisie ideology of the sole and self independent subject. This subject is seen as incapable of recognizing the inter-subjectivity and historical significance attached to it. This allows the scopic regime to present a degree of regularities in the methods the material is arranged but at the same time providing a different method of visual presentation. It is compared to linguistics where certain discourses are capable of showing similar figures of speech. In the same way, scopic regimes use the repetition of conventions that link different visual representations. It is for this reason that the Scopic Regime is seen by many philosophers and artists as a perfect display and explanation of the visual world of today, bereft of a any flaws. For starters, with the reflexivity available in visuality today it is impossible to reach a deep understanding of the particular components that create the visual experience. Thus, cultural norms cannot be neutralized to understand the part played by these scopic regimes. The post-modern era is responsible for presenting a form of meta-scopic moment which can be the representative of time today. While visuality and its role in the social construct cannot be ignored and its effects resisted, attempts can be made to better understand and assume the value they play. However, this makes it difficult to decide the type of era that exists today: coherent scopic regime. And if the individual is indeed living in this particular regime than can disciplining the gaze that looks upon these works be enough to decide To take the example of a flung ink painting will be sufficient to understand the concept of materialism. In the process of flinging ink, the individual is capable of pointing out the breakdown of a fixed form of image. The global configuration of this force of transformation is of little regard as the ink opens the image to universal surrender. In the same way, surrender and vanishing point are two essential points to any art piece. Surrender allows the disappearance of the component to a stronger power. This also allows the surrendering element to be overpowered and demarcated. The group that surrenders then vanishes only to reappear in a different shape or form. This method of vanishing, if implemented from a historical perspective was applied in the Renaissance period. This link between surrender and vanishing shows the participants move to work out of their given subjecthood in an attempt at social transformation. Bryson holds a similar view on the idea of the vanishing point (Gaze In The Expanded Field). This part is seen as a sign. It allows the viewer to place themselves in front of the picture and organizes the visual field they must pay attention to. But this idea also has its flaws. It prevents the viewer from reaching a definite conclusion. The vanishing point is also capable of pointing towards a part that can be disturbing for the viewer. This vanishing point can point towards a leak which can allow the painted scene to slide. This is evident in the painting made by Raphael known as the Marriage of The Virgin. Bryson talks of the piazza background and the cluster of figures in the image. The lines of the piazza are unsettling in their ability to run till the end of the horizon. It becomes impossible to separate the vanishing point from the viewpoint. This idea is similar in another picture made by Hans Holbein known as The Ambassadors. In this picture, The Ambassadors are unable to a skull whose learning they cannot master. The screen or skull is seen as the centre of the visual experience. Bryson is able to grasp two meanings: the contingent and the subjecthood of the viewer who is outside the painting shaping their bearers from the vanishing point. However, the view of the viewer inside the painting is ignored in this analysis. This is evident in the painting by Raphael where the surrender scene of the Virgin is towards her husband, to God, to religious official and to the informal suitors who are on the right side of the painting. Thus, the witnesses must bear witness to several vanishings themselves. There are two vanishing points in a painting. One of them is the viewer who looks at the painting while the other is the one who is located within the painting themselves. Hence, the importance of the centered subjects is lost by the vanishing point. This shows that there is no specific method of looking for a vanishing point. Despite the fact that it is applied to create a point of organization or subject positioning, it is also capable of creating danger. To freeze the moment is a strategy of engaging the viewer. Also, to capture a vanishing moment as is done in the image of The Ambassadors is considered a difficult, if not impossible task to achieve. A system of cross-witnessing is created by the presence of two kinds of witnesses. One witness is the type who is inside or outside of the scene or painting. The other type of witness is the one performing tasks: signing, observing or even painting. When slight lines or vanishing points are deflected, the organizational hold of the painting is loosened. The witness does not need to see the painting, looking at the painter or camera can also constitute witnessing the work. Space and time are of little consequence in this type of witnessing. The artist is the best witness who has the job and additional burden of creating a representation. The network of cross-witnessing has to be complemented in a way that augments the network between both witnesses. The artist is also vital because of his ability to capture and present the problems associated with witnessing and make it easier for the viewer. Considering this view, Bryson looks at an art piece with the eye of an art historian. This allows Lacan's opinion that the object "the irruption, in the visual field, of the Signifier." The social meaning created by an individual's past, present and future is felt to exist in the excess of the local and particular interrogation of the gaze. The piece looks back at the viewer and can pose to incite several emotions: surprise, intimidation or fixation. This power can be seen as decentering because its opaque and immovable. Human comprehension is affected because of the mastery of the viewer's vision is undone. Along with this Bryson feels the full significance of the work to be lost on the viewer. The significant object is also felt to look beyond the viewer to a larger, deferred field of visuality and meaning that is said to absorb and include the reductive. The local or personal gaze can ask questions if it is invested and consequential. Bryson's essay on the gaze is an attempt to better understand "where the modern subject resides." The purpose of this gaze is also seen as particularly important in the field of architecture for any society. This is because the architect adopts a subject, consciously or unconsciously, for the building they are about to create. At the same time, the building itself is said to produce its own subject which may differ from the original subject of the architect. Coupled with these two subjects, the material of the building in itself can posses a third subject. This subject residing inside the material can also be known as the formal subject. However, American modern life today portrays society at a different tandem. Modern life aims at removing all these subjects from the natural centre through which they arise, this then creates a different and additional subject. This then lives up to Bryson's argument that Jean-Paul Satre and Jacques Lacan wanted to decenter the subject but were unable to do so because of this thinking was within a line that believed that the standpoint of the subject is at the centre of the world. But Bryson chooses to follow a path that attempts to show the nothingness that exists within an expanded field in Eastern Philosophy and this view can be considerably limiting. It is better to look at the gap between the given decentered field of vision. This can be examined within a Greek structure like the Pantheon. If moving clockwise in the darkness the individual's left hand will touch the convexity of the building while the right hand examines the concave outer surface. These walls remove the two outer gazes that can be disruptive. Thus, the menacing gaze is lost onto the climber. The subject removes himself from his personal enclosure and becomes part of the building's subject. This removes him from the threat of the menacing gaze which can lead the viewer to centralize on one subject. This escape is a place where reflection, distance and escape can be observed momentarily within the building's architecture. The conceptual stillness of the building is enough to give another position to the climber inside it. Thus, it is to be assumed that the architecture and form adopted by any building is solely created by itself. It is absent from any personal values that can imposed on it by personal attributes given to it by the individual. This gives another definition to the form of architecture and its production. This form of architecture is highly unstable as while interpretations differ: old meanings are broken down and replaced with new ones. This threatening gaze is also considered from the view point of Satre who considers himself the sole Cartesian subject with his field of vision being unchallenged until another individual walks into the vicinity and removes the decentralization of Satre from his position. Lacan views this same gaze differently. Instead of it being displaced by the presence of another individual, but by the disembodied gaze creates a social significance which cannot be controlled by the individual subject. This gaze observed by Lacan is threatening when referred to ideas like the military. In the American society, this unlocalizable gaze can create conflict or confrontation. Though Bryson claims this gaze to be over a limited period of time, history, culture and power possessed by gender or race can make this sight as terrorist in its essence. This gaze is built over time by members of a culture who can be held accountable for the danger created by this gaze. For instance, during World War II, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct consequence of the threatening gaze of the Japanese Empire. This violent expression of war caused by war and other forms of violence is constructed by a visual field that represents the violent gaze. In Bryson's essay, Lacan claims the gaze to represent a vocabulary of torture and suffering. The result is an uncontrolled force that can create terrorist visions of killings and pain. Any individual who witnesses this is inextricable from being removed as an object of sight. This can be observed in the wars reigning in the world today. The number of American soldiers participating in these wars is great. While they witness death and terror as first hand experiences, the gaze of the soldier and that of the parents are two different subjects. Thus, the menacing gaze can also be observed in times of war for any society. Religion is a large part of American society. It determines the behavior, morals and principles of an individual in any part of society, more so in American culture. Entire political parties like the Republicans use religion in an attempt to win over the masses. Thus, religion is an essential source of comfort and protection for individuals in the American society. Also, this strong vein of religion is not limited to any particular God. America has a conflux of religions reigning from Christianity to Judaism. Hermeneutics is the study of different kinds of interpretational theory. It is used to interpret not only the text but also different aspects that assist in the interpretive process. Thus, Jay's essay will be examined to better understand the part vision plays on society today. In the discourse about Judaism, Jay remarks that it's a religion where God is heard but no seen (The Rise of Hermeneutics and the Crisis of Ocularcentrism). The comparative expression of Judaism is assumed to be hidden or mystified in its context. Jay feels Judaism to be a religion where the visions of God are devalued and instead relegate importance to idolatry. Jay's idea of a "taboo on graven images or seeing the face of God" is viewed as incorrect through many aspects. According to Hebrew texts, God only shows himself to mankind and they only hear what he speaks. To better understand the importance of this vision of God it is necessary to view the three aspects: a theosophical doctrine that God cannot be seen, a normative stricture that God is visible and the making of images of God. Jay omits all three of these different versions of God followed by different religions. The turning away from visual reality towards text has become a repeated form in the post-modern era. The use of linguistics has risen has structured our image of the world and created a distrust with reality. Individuals in the world today now resort to a different kind of religion. They are untrusting of vision and instead focus on text and the various guises it takes. The world is beginning to take a practical and realistic form which allows people to resort to a given text that can be rewritten all the time. However, there is an alternative view to this idea. Perception can merely be an idea that does not exist. Instead, it can be a concept connected to the idea of existence or origin. Thus perception exists only as a concept. Yet at the same time it is believed, there is an extinction of senses in the modern world today. Human beings resort to ideas like virtual reality to create a world that does not even exist. This numbing of the senses can be seen in the importance given to sight in today's world. By paying so much importance to sight, human beings lose other senses and distance themselves from other stimuli. Thus, sight is merely a biological tool. Perception can be open to various interpretations that vary from time to time. This is evident in religion itself. Christianity in itself is open to so many different hemispheres. It ranges from Protestant to Catholic, each one allowing their perception to vary. There is an incessant exposure to multimedia that changes our perception today. So while God cannot be viewed by many, his essence is still understood. As vision takes over and dominates every other sense it is still text that dominates many religions today. Visual metaphors are a presentation against the Western views of presentation that affect hermeneutic sensibility. According to Lacan, a hole might become two holes or even more. These holes stand for the diffraction of the eye and the gaze between several entities. The idea behind vision in Lacan's work is the idea which questions that degree to which a subject is allowed to know that he is being looked at. The person who is observing the subject can be observing the subject while at the same time showing their own self in this analytical process. This is a view held by many other theorists who try to understand the position they place themselves in: viewing the world without knowing themselves. But the question that asks about the subject. Lacon believes analysis to be a face to face procedure which allows vision to be a vital part of vision. However, this aspect is unable to explain whether the analyst and his presence can produce or aggravate the ability to create a form of self consciousness. If an analyst is gazing, the image that is created is unreal and set up. This is because if an individual knows they are being watched and thus watches or hears differently. The presence of a second mirror is capable of displacing the body, voice and gaze reflected into it. Western thought is also criticized in the essay by Lacan. He speaks against the Western philosophy which a subject encounters "in the mode of contemplation," Lacan wants to understand the depth behind the gaze itself. Claiming it to make individuals beings that are seen rather than being truly understood, Lacan is right in his argument against the nature of the gaze. So while individuals are affected by their vision, they are incapable of seeing the primordial vision that cannot be viewed as the thought of seeing. Lacan's ideology is created to show the difference between seeing and being. This is produced by explaining the difference between the eye and the gaze. He explains this conflict by stating his ability to see from one specific point which is contradictory to the various sides that are able to view him. So while the first part of this belief is active, in Lacan's idea that he can be seen from one particular point, the other part of this phrase plays a passive construct. This means that there are various polarities and striking points between the eye and the gaze. To Lacan the eye is representative of the Cartesian belief. The eye is a measure of certainty and is conscious of its own self-identity. This is in striking contrast to the gaze itself. The gaze is responsible for showing the occlusion of a transparency that shows the degree to which "I" is given greater importance than the subject's decisive vision. This is evident in American society where the eye and gaze play two different roles in the life of the individual. It is evident in the discrimination that exists within various ethnicities within the United States and the work done to reduce these problems. This is because the gaze, if seen from Lacan's perspective can force an individual to see themselves as a dead subject. This raises a great degree of chaos within the individual themselves and in their quest to better themselves at the cost of another individual. However, it can be argued that Lacan himself was incapable of noticing the split between the eye and the gaze. While the split creates the difference between what is seen from one point and what is seen from different points, it marks the pre-existence of the seen that is a given-to-be-seen. It is this anteriority of the one who is seeing who turns the point of that which is being seen. This change is compared to a stain which points out the reversal in gaze. The gaze is capable of noticing the details of the stain. The eye is incapable of noting the vision and grasping the meaning attached to it. Thus, the eye can only be conscious when it views the function of the stain. Yet, it is impossible for the subject to sustain itself without staining. It is believed that subjects like math's and physics are capable of producing an image that can be presented in very sophisticated terms. Comparatively art is seen as a far rougher version which feeds on the sense of vision. It is only the visible that is considered by a painter as they seek to draw an image. Without perfect alignments and tools, the artist draws only that which he sees as existing. Drawing on a series of lines, these paintings use figures to represent what they deem fit. A curve can change from merely being a curved line into something like the hemisphere. Even the ordinary surface can be understood through a variety of different means. It can be seen as identical all over, spherical with a rise in the middle or sunk in taking a concave shape. It is only changes in position can alter the viewer's aspect of what they see. This can range from the object becoming larger or smaller on view to a totally different shape. The different aspect of a painting including the composition and style makes it evident Thus, ocularcentrism is a subject that is viewed by different theorists in their own particular way. While some of these argue against the consequence placed by vision in society today, others support the idea of vision affecting lives within any contemporary society today. It is however put to notice that a historical context has to be applied to better understand this concept. It is necessary to view the different periods within time and the societies within it to explain the role played by ocularcentrism in what is felt to be the post-modern era. Despite its advantages and disadvantages, ocularcentrism is a force that has to be reckoned with. Touching a vast field of diverse subjects it touches upon the importance of art, history and linguistics in its ability to show the convergence it creates with American society today. Art historians and philosophers like Lacan, Jay and Bryson have conducted extensive research to understand this immense and complicated topic. Different pieces of art like work by famous artists: Raphael, Gerrit Dou or Hans Holbein have been examined to better the understanding of the role played by ocularcentrism in modern society today. Thus, because ocularcentrism is such a vast field, it is impossible to reach one decision on how its role and consequences are affecting society today. It is indeed the gaze which differs from individual to individual that determines the degree this vision can play on American society. Works cited Bryson Norman, The Gaze in the Expanded Field, Looking In: The Art of Viewing (Critical Voices in Art, Theory & Culture), Routledge, 2001 Lacan Jacques, The Split Between the Eye and the Gaze, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, W W Norton and Co, 1998 Jay Martin, Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought, University of California Press, September 1994, p 8 Jay Martin, The Rise of Hermeneutics and the Crisis of Ocularcentrism, Force Fields: Between Intellectual History and Cultural Critique, Routledge, 1992 Jay Martin, Scopic Regimes of Modernity, Force Fields: Between Intellectual History and Cultural Critique, Routledge, 1992 Levin David, Modernity And The Hegemony Of Vision. Berkeley: University Of California Press, 1993, p 9 Read More