Exploring Visual Culture: Definitions, Concepts, Contexts

Exploring Visual Culture ~

Diflnitions, Concepts, Contexts

Edited by Matthew Rampley,;\''

Edinburgh University Press

rp t13,S­ .e.élS­ © in this edition Edinburgh University Press, 2005 © in the indivielual contributions is retained by the authors Eelinburgh Uni versity Press Ltd 22 George Square, Eelinburgh Typeset in 11.5! 13.5 Perpetua by Ser vis Filmsetting Ltd, Manchester, and Printeel and bound in Spain by GraphyCems A CIP recorel for this book is available fram the British Library ISBN O 7486 18457 (paperback) The right of the contributors to be identified as dUthorS of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Dcsigns and Patents Act 1988.

Every c1fort has been maele to trace the copyright holders, but if any have been inaelvertently overlooked, the publisher wi/l be pleased to make the necessary drrangements at the first opportunity.

Acknowledgements List of Figures Contributors Introduction Matthew Rampley

Visual Culture and ti Matthew Rampley

2 Def1nitions of Art an Neil MulholIand

3 Concepts of Craft Juliette MacDonald

4 Design and Modern Juliette MacDonald

5 Fashion: Style, Identi Fiona Anderson

Contents

Acknowledgements List of Figures Contributors

VII VIII XII

Introduction Matthew Rampley

Visual Culture and the Meanings of Culture Matthew Rampley

5

2 Definitions of Art arrel the Art World Neil MulholJand

18

3 Concepts of Craft

34

Juliette MacDonald

4 Design and Modero Culture Juliette MacDonald

so

5 Fashion: Style, Identity and Meaning Fiona Anderson

67

vi

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

6 Photography and Film

85

Glyn Davis

7 Architecture and Visual Culture

102

Richard Williams

8 Representation and the Idea of Realism

117

Neil Mulholland

9 Visual Rhetoric

133

Matthew Rampley

10 The Rise and Fall and Rise of the Author

149

Matthew Rampley

11 The Ideology of the Visual

163

G!yn Davis

12 Visual Practices in the Age ofIndustry

179

Matthew Rampley

13 Technical Reproduction and its Significance

There are many peop acknowledged. These

197

Ruth Pelzer

14 From Mass Media to Cyberculture

214

Glyn Davis

15 Visual Culture and its Institutions

Zurbrugg. Thanks are for supporting this pn

229

Fiona Anderson

Index

Richard Braine, Nick

Sutherland Hussey An Reay -Young, Alison

It is also importan1 whose indirect contri] be mentioned. They ir

246

David Michael Clark, McRobbie, Keith Mo Glass and Peter York. Lastly, thanks are d unstinting patience an

Acknowledgements

There are many people whose role in the development of this book needs to be acknowledged. These include: Amy de la Haye, Corinne Day, Susan Babchick, Richard Braine, Nick Knight, Jake Harvey, CIen Onwin, Donald Urquhart and Sutherland Hussey Architects, Martin ElIiott, Janet Morton, Karin Muhlert, Helga Reay- Young, Alison Britton, Takashi Murakami, Paul Rennie and Nicholas Zurbrugg. Thanks are also due to the Research Board of Edinburgh College of Art for supporting this project.

It is also important to thank the various visitors to Edinburgh College of Art whose indirect contributions to this book, through debate and discussion, should be mentioned. They include: Judy Attfield, Rosemary Betterton, Norman Bryson, David Michael Clark, James Elkins, Michael Ano Holly, Hubert Locher, Angela McRobbie, Keith Moxey, Maria Orisková, Donald Preziosi, Charlotte Schoell­ Class and Peter York. Lastly, thanks are due to Sarah Edwards of Edinburgh University Press, whose unstinting patience and support have helped make this book possible.

r

List of Figures

4.4 ObsessionJor Me © Adbusters. 5.1 Richard Braine Braine-PYMCJ 5.2 Anonymous ph © Roger-VioU 5.3 Corinne Day, ~ Day. 5.4 Nick Knight, A Dazed and Corji

1.1 Carl Andre, Equivalenl V111 (1978). Tate Gallery, London. © DACS. 2.1 Martin Elliott, Tennis Girl (1970). © Martin Elliott. 2.2 Jeff Koons, Michael jackson and Bubbles (1988). San Francisco Museum of Modcrn Art. © Jeff Koons. 2.3 Morris Louis, Bela Lambda (1960) New York, Museum of Modern Art. © Photo Scala, Florence. 3.1 Janet Morton, Cozy (1999). Ward lsland, Toranto. Photograph © Bruce Duffy. 3.2 Alison Britton, Black and Green Pot (1999). Photograph courtesy of Barrett Marsden Gallery, London. 3.3 Caroline Broadhead, Suspend (2001). Photograph courtesy of Barrett Marsden Gallery, London. 3.4 Karin Muhlert, untitled small works from Sea Ce1l series (1999). Photograph © K. Muhlert. 3.5 Helga Reay-Young, Autumn Feelings. Photograph from installation at Cochrane Gallery, London (1999). 4.1 Our Dynamic Earth, Edinburgh. Author's photograph (2004). 4.2 Ettore Sotsass, CarIton Bookcase (1981). Photograph © MEMPHIS. 4.3 Philippe Starck,juicy SalifLemon Squeezer (1990). Author's photograph (2004).

8 19 20 25 42 44 45 46 47 52 59 60

6.1 Eugene Delacrl 6.2 Harold Edgert( Photograph COl 6.3 Paul Strand, m of the Paul StrJ Strand Archive 6.4 Richard Billing Photograph COI 6.5 Still from Geor © BH stills. 7.1 Bicycle shed, V photograph (2C 7.2 Lincoln Cathed Edinburgh Uni' 7.3 Ludwig Mies Vi Exhibition, Bar photograph (2C 7.4 Citroen DS21 ( 7.5 Frank Gehry, C (1991). Author 8.1 Gustave Courb 8.2 Takashi Murak, Poe. Reproduc Kaikai Kiki Co. 8.3 Georg Braun al (1582). Nation 9.1 Anonymous, A; From L'JIluslral 9.2 Edward McKru Photograph co

L1ST OF FIGURES

4.4 ObsessionJor Men. Fram Adbusters magazine (1993). Photograph

© Adbusters. 5.1 Richard Braine, The Roxy Club (1977). Photograph © Richard

Braine-PYMCA. 5.2 Anonymous photograph of a Parisian drapery store (ca. 1860).

© Roger- Viollet, Paris. 5.3 Corinne Day, Kate Moss, the Third Summer if Lave (1990). © Corinne

Day. 5.4 Nick Knight, Aimee Mullen wearing Alexander McQueen, fram

Dazed and Corifused Magazine (1998) © Nick Knight. 6.1 Eugene Delacroix, Odalisque (1857). Private collection. 6.2 Harold Edgerton, Shootina the Apple (1964).

Photograph courtesy of Gus Kayafas and Palm Press. 6.3 Paul Strand, Wall Street (1915). Philadelphia Museum of Art: Gift

of the Paul Strand Foundation. © Apcrture Foundation Inc., Paul

Strand Archive. 6.4 Richard Billingham, Untitled (1995). © Richard Billingham.

Photograph courtesy of Anthony Reynolds Gallery, London. 6.5 Still fram Georges Mélies' Voyaae to the Moon (1902).

© BH stills. 7.1 Bicycle shed, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh. Author's

photograph (2003). 7.2 Lincoln Cathedral, twelfth to fourteenth century. Photograph,

Edinburgh University. 7.3 Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, German pavilion at the International

Exhibition, Barcelona, (1928-9). Reconstructed 1986. Author's

photograph (2003). 7.4 Citraen DS21 (1972). Author's photograph (2003). 7.5 Frank Gehry, Chiat Day Mojo Advertisina Buildina, Venice, California

(1991). Author's photograph (2003). 8.1 Gustave Courbet, The Stonebreakers (1851). Now destrayed. 8.2 Takashi Murakami, Hiropon (1997). Photograph courtesy Blum &

Poe. Repraduced with permission. © 1997 Takashi Murakami/

Kaikai Kiki Co., Ltd. 8.3 Georg Braun and Franz Hogenberg, Map if the Ci~ if Edinburah

(1582). National Library of Scotland. 9.1 Anonymous, An Aerial Baptismfor Dancers]raID Indochina (1931).

From fIllustration magazine. 9.2 Edward McKnight- Kauffer, Advertisina PosterJor BP (1934).

Photograph courtesy of Paul Rennie.

IX

63

73

78

80

82

87

89

91

93

95

104

105

107

110

112

118

122

125

140

141

x

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

9.3 A window of a shoe shop in Paris, with a painting by Ingres as part 142

of the display. Photograph: Ruth Pelzer (2003). 9.4 Jacques Louis David, The Oath e:f the Horatii (1785). The Louvre,

143

Paris. 9.5 Marcel Breuer, Wassi{y armchair, Model B3. Dessau, Germany (late

1927 or early 1928). New York, Museum of Modern Art.

145

Photograph © photo SCALA, Florence. 10.1 Henry Fuseli, StudyJor Seif-Portrait (1780s). Photograph courtesy of

Victoria and Albert Museum, London. 150

11. 1 The front cover ofthe Sun newspaper, 26 November 1993.

Photograph courtesy of News International. 167

11.2 Jan Van Goyen, Ruined Church at E8mond van Zeefrom the East (1633).

Private coHection. 172

11.3 The hairy angler fish from The Blue Planet. Photograph © David Shalel

175

naturepl.com. 12.1 Josef Albers, Cover of the exhibition catalogue Machine Art, New York,

Museum of Modern Art (1934). Photograph © SCALA, Florence. 187

12.2 Illustrations 75 and 73 from Machine Art catalogue, New York,

Museum of Modern Art (1934). Photograph © SCALA Florence. 188

12.3 David E. Scherman, World's Fair Locomotive (1939). Photograph

courtesy of Time & Life Pictures. 189

13.1 Newspapers reporting 11 September 2001 on a newspaper stand

in London. Author's photograph. 201

13.2 Gustav Klucis, design for a postcard for the AH-Union Olympiad

in Moscow (Spartakiada) (1928). Photograph © State Museum of

Art, Riga, Latvia. 205

13.3 Robert Rauschenberg, Press (1960). © Robert Rauschenberg/VAGA,

New York/DACS, London 2004. 206

13.4 Postcards from a kiosk stand, Paris. Author's photograph. 208

13.5 T-shirt with detail from Michelangelo 's ceiling to the Sistine Chapel,

Vatican, Rome. Photograph: the author. 209

14.1 Ang Lee's Hulk (2003). Image © Universal Television and Networks

Group. 216

14.2 9 April 2003. A statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in

Baghdad's Firdus Square. Photograph courtesy of AP Photo/Koji

Harada, Kyoto. 222

15. 1 Walter Gropius, The Bauhaus, Dessau (1919). Photograph courtesy

of RIBA Library Photographs Collection. 233

15.2 Pavilion de L'Intransigent, architect Henri Favier, from the Paris

Exposition des Arts Decoratifs et Industriels of 1925. Photograph

courtesy of F. R. Yerbury I Architectural Association. 238

15.3 Skinhead outfit p Skinheads publica Image courtesy e

LlST üF FIGURES

XI

15.3 Skinhead outfit photographed for the Su1érs, Soulies, Skacers and Skinheads publication that was linked to the Streetstyle exhibition. Image courtesy of the V&A PictUTC Libraq'.

240

Contributors

Neil Mulholland i Edinburgh College 01'

rary art, criticism and ' ZUr

Kunst, Untitled and

Art in the Late 20th (em aJso curated Leayjna Gh

Ruth Pelzer is a [eeh As a practising artist he

printlnaking) and thc in practice. She has exhibil Mica, Portugal and So

Matthew Rampley i College 01' Art. His res,

and historiogTaphy of al

Res, Kritische Berichte, A Aesory 01' art in eontemporary heterogeneous visual culture. Sinee the early 1960~, proc­ cduralist dcfinitions 01' art havc heen thoroughly absorbed and taken to IWW levels ol' eomplexity. David Wilson's Museurn of Jurassie Teehnology (MJT) in Culver, California, for cxampIe, 'has lcft visítors puzzling over the veracity of its exhibits as we1l as the question 01' whether it is an actual museum or sorne kind of elab­ orate art insta1lation'.n Formcr spccial cffeets dcsigner Wilson mixes together faet, ovcrblown truths and hoax. In the MjT, emphasis is plaeed on objeets 'that demon.strate unusual or CllrlOllS technological qualitics'29 such as rainforest bats that can By through lead wa1ls, MeBolaponera Foetens (funga1ly-infeeted, spore­ ingesting pronged stink ants of the Cameroon) and a horn grown on the head of Mary Davis of Saughall, Cheshire. The MjT tackles a number ofkey issues in the

history of display: To put ,'iacred work.'i in a secular setting assumes that these artefaets possess acsthctic signifieancc o\'cr and aboye their religious meaning. Placing them in chronological order presupposes that this is the best way to understand the rclation oI' carlicr to later art. Segrcgating artworks from minerals, shells and

30

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

animals implies that artefacts have a special ¡dentitl" Preserving these arte­

today? In 1995 in the nc

facts implies that they are best seeo as historical records. 30

that they had liule oppo

crcate theirown institut The system of organisation found in the MJT questions these very assumptions by

artists saw themselves

aping the organisational systcm of the curiosity cabinets, drawing no clcar lioe

othcr time ami space in

between art and non-art, fact and fiction, authority and imagination. Wilson sees

varied and generally nor

no prc-cxisting. csscntial arder to history; arder emerges onl)" within thc MJT's

The evcnts were organi

¿¡

peculiar narratives. In this, Wilson aims to make seeing oracular again, to reinte­

Programme' , as a mean

gratc people with wonder ,..., hile dra\'/ing attcntion to the muscum's idcological

autonomous artists, 'Ti

role in a self-conscious way that has 001)' recently become possible in wake ofproc­

cgy succeedcd in Manci

eduralist theories of arto

establish their own mic

This has been explored by major modern and contemporary art museums such

to know what thev, weI

as the predominately privatcl)'-funded MOMA in New York and thc mainly state­

self-proclaimed autono

funded Tate Modern in London. Both institutions have abandoned the linear and

Sccession of the late n

historical models of display that once dominated the historical exhibition and of

attitude. This had a part

Western art, modcls that MOMA was influential in forming. In their place are thc­ matic devices that seek to elaborate important issues within twentieth- and t\.venty­ first-century art practices, looking 'at the art of the last hundred years from the vantage point 01' four separate themes that cut right through history'. 31 The

While Enlightenment 1

'Anxious Objcct' room in thc Tate Modern, for exampie, displays \\'orks by major

today', local and globa

artists in vitrines in order to rehabilitate and remind audiences of the cabinets of

rnented than before. D

past displays. The works in this space seem to be located bctween objects deliber­

calI), anywhere in the

ately fabricated as \-\'orks of art and found objects of curiosity. To sorne, this exem­

audience they wish to a

plHies art as an institutional game to be played out by curators and organised like

the world, allowing ar

a stamp collcction, cut offfrom any sense 01' living culture in an entertaining state­ endorsed spectacle. 12 Perhaps this is an unfair criticism. Tate Modern has learned

audience instantly. It w(

its lcssons from critiques ol' the authority ano exclusivity 01' museums inaugurated

recourse to well-establ

by the disciplines of art history, art theory amI museology. Unfortunatcly, its

justification. In sorne w

authoritative stance on its chosen issues seems to unoerrnine the element of sur­

nominate something as

prise and anti-establishment readings 01' art that it seeks to achieve. This is evident

Unlike Danto's idea of ¡

tion to oeclare that

~

in Herzog & de Meuron's commanding architectural conversion of Giles Gilbert

inately by theories of art

Scott's Bankside Power Station and also in Tate Modern's propensity towards a

an overabundance of

didactic curatorial approach. B Architecturally, Tate Modern is modelled on artist­

of their roles. In this di

aa

initiated warehouse exhibitions popular in London and elsewhere in the late 1980s.

describe any number 01

In this, it attempts to ape more contemporary conditions of oisplay favoureo by

articulation. As such, ti

artists who founo themsclves exduded from the pantheons 01' arto However, like

tinue to revolve around

man)' major contemporary art museums around the world, Tate Modern wants to

arthood. They cannot

remain the official national British institution of contemporary art and be perceived

art's definition will ev(

as a major world player, lending this power to everything it sanctions. 34

terrns of what it is not.]

1

Are such grandiose venues and their accompanying bureaueracies really required

more challenging quest

for bestO\ving the appropriate context in which to produce or display \·vorks of art

demand more of their e

DEFINITlüN5 üF ART AND THE ART WüRLD

31

toda),? In 1995 in the northern English eit)' of Manchcster, a group af artists, finding that thcy had Httle opportunity to exhibit their \-vork in their municipality, dccided to create their own in5titution.'O ''''ithollt the sanc:tion ofthe leading artworld figures. Thc artists saw themselves as their 0\\'11 bes! crities, a pccr group that could award each other time and spacc in which to show their work on their own terms. Venues \-vere varied and generall)' non-sanctionecl, ranging from pcoplc'shouscs to the Tmvn Hall. The ('vents weTe organiscd around the ironically distinguished legend 'Thc Annual Prograrnme', as a means ofattracting attcntion. 35 As a group nl' self-organised, quasi­ autonomous artists, 'The Annual Programme' were far from unique, but their strat­ egy succeeded in Manchestcr, providing them with the infrastructure they needed to estahlish their own microcosmic art world, thereby allO\\'ing the rest of the world to know ","hat they were accomplishing. lndecd, their strateg), had its roots in the self-proclaimcd autonomy to be 1'ound in avant-garrle movements from the Vienna Secession

01' the late ninetecnth ccntury to punk's pop/anti-art 'do-it-yourself'

attitude. This had a particularly strong heritagc in ManchcstL'r..H"

Conclusion While Enlightenment models

01' institutional and thcorctical authority ~till exist,

torlay's local and glohal art \\'orlds are bigger, more Huid, multivalent and frag­ mented than before. Due to travei and technology, artists can make work practi­ eall)' anywhcre in the ,...'orld, ,,"ith virtually anything, l'or almost any pcn:eived audience they wIsh to attrad. Digital mass communication is rapidly transforming the world, allowing artists to rilsseminate their cultural productions to a global audiencC' instantl),. It would scem that today's artists are, more than ever, in a posi­ tion to declare that ",hat they do is art (persuasivcly or otherwise) without recourse to well-estahlished, centrally sanctioned authorities or meta-theorctical justification. In sorne ways, perhaps, Juod wasn't so wrong after aH. The power to nominate soml'thing as art has come to be seen as dispersed rather than possesscd. Unlike Danto's idea ol' a limiten and ddinahle art world that is inhabited predom­ inatcly hy lneurie:i ol' art, today's art world is a rapiol)' cxpanding spacc occupied by an overabundance ol' Qgcnts, mediators who constantl)' seek to redefine the limits oftheir roles. In this climate, 'ar1' beco mes an increasingly vacuous term, used 10 describe any number of activities, regulating art onl)' at the moment of each new articulation. As such, the important questions presC'ntly do not (and cannot) con­ tinue to revolve around ohlique and circuitous de-bates ofho'\\' something achicves arthood. They cannot continue sincc, as Danto argues, continual broadening ol' ar1's dcfinition will eventually make it impossible to define art scmantically in terms of ".·hat it is noto 17 Torlay's highl)' visually litcrate audiences ask trusting and more challcnging questions of artists and what they do, ,.. ·hile artists c'Ontinue to demand more 01' their ever-diversil'ying audienccs.

32

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

Further Reoding Duncan, Carolo C1V1lismg Riwo!s: InSlde Pubhe Art ;l1useulIIs (Lonuon. 1995.\.

Harríngton, Austin. Arr and Social Thwry (OxforJ, 2001).

Shiner, Larry. Thc lnventJOn Art: a euhum! Hucory (Chicago, 2001),

Williams, Robert. A.rr The0r.r:an HistonúJJ InlfoJuetlOn (OxforJ, 2004).

#

Notes Donald Judd, 'Arl after Philosophy " , StudlO IntematJOna], Oclober 1969, pp. 134-7. "2 Scc l::rnst Gombrich, 'The Rf'naissance Conccption ol' Artistic Progrcss', ;\'orm and /wm (London, 1966), pp. 1-10.

In classical antiquit)' th..:- terms for 'art' (0'5 in Latin and rechne in Gn'ck) Jenoted skill, and art \\-'as dccmed une (low-ranking) skill amongst many ather:;. For a hricf sketch of the con­ notations of thc t('rm, see Ro)' Harris, Thc .1I..!cccsw)' C?IArtspeak (Lonoon and Ne\-\' York, 2003), pp. 15-2H. 4 See Susan L. Feagin ano Craig Alh~n Subler, 'Showing Picturl.'~: Aesthetics and thl.' Art Galler}', The jouma] c:.fAes[hetie EJw<J/lon, Vol. 27 (1993). pp, 6J- 72. 5 See Brendan O'Doherty, InsJJc rhe l[hile Cube: the lJeoloa}" rif [he Gol/er) Spacc (Los Angeles, 1999). SI.'I.' too Russellllelk, Collecrina Jn a Consuma Societ)' (London, 199S). 6 See Paula f.indlcn, PossessIn8 .I\¡'ature: Museums. Collcctlrl,g and SCJentific Culll.H" m l:.'ar~r Modem lt'Jly (Los Angeles, 1994); and Lorraine Daston anO Katherine Park, ~t(>nders anJ rh.: Order c:fNawre, 1100 1750 (New York, 1998). 7 Sl.'e -Iom Barringcr, C%nwhsm and [he ObJeer (Lonoon, 1998). Set~ too Ton)' Bennett, The Bmh cf [he jfuseum: HHfory, Theory, PO!JtlCS (London, 1995); ano Oli..·er Impey and Arthul" ~1acGregor, eds, 7he Ori8Jns ?fMuscum.\.' Th.: Cobinet q[Curwsltle.\ In Sin.:enth- and Sel'enteenlh­ Ccntur.y Europe (Oxforo, 1985). 8 For a recent account ofmuseum in relation to lhe nation state. see \lil'k Prior, it.fU'ieUm.l tlnd .+loderml} (Oxford, 2002). 9 Zygmunt Bauman, MoJemit)' and A.mbIvolence (Cambrioge, 1991). 10 Sec Annr('v.' Bowie, AesthetlCl anJ Sublee/lVIt)' (Manchcster, 2003). 11 See hnmanuel Kant, The CrH14ue q[ the POlVer c:IjuJ8ement, transo Paul Guyer and F.rie Matthews (Cambrioge, 2002). 12 S..' e Terry Eaglcton, The ldeolo.qy rif the Aesthetle (Oxford, 1990). See espccially 'Frce Particulars' (pp. 13-30) and 'Thc Kantian Imaginary' (pp. 70- 101 ). 13 A thorough critique' of the racial bias of dghté'enth-centur), acsthctic theories, including that of Kan\, ha~ been ofTcred by Daúo Bindman, From Ape w Apollv' Aenhetics anJ ¡he IJeG vj Raee Jn ¡he b8hreenlh Cenrur) (London, 2002), 14 'Vivian', in Osear Wilde's satirical manifesto, 'The Dt'ca} 01' Lying: A Dialogue', in Janh's Knowles, ecl., The Niner.eenth Centur:,r:a /rfonth~r ReneM, Vol. XXV Oanuary June 1889), p.S1. 15 james Ahhott McNeill Whistler. 'kn (1 'C/ock Lee/ure al Pnnres Hall, PiecaJJ!lj·, London (l ondon, 1S85¡ 16 Cited in Ellen H. John~on, Amencan Artists fln Arr: FrvfT] 1940 1980 (\lew 'York, 1982), p. 50. 17 Kant, Crmque c:l rhe PVH'"Cf c:fJud8emem, § 43 p. 182. 18 Clive Bell, Aa (Oxfonl, [90S7), p. 8. First published in 1914. 19 Miehael hieo, Thrcc .'!.makan PQlnrers: Kennclh No}anJ,jules Ohtsb, Frank Stella (Camhringe, MA, 1965), p. 5 20 Rcll, ArI, p. 46.

21 Sé'C Rusalino Krauss, '5 22 rhe Pensuln Complete Lel 23 See Georg,e Dickie, :Ir Pierre llounlieu, [)iscin

24 Arthur Danto, 'The Ar 25 See Anhur Danto, 'Tl (1973), pp. 1-17. 26 Danto, 'The Artworld' 27 See Reesa Greenherg, 28 RalfRugoff, 'Rulesofl his nrst permanent Ml Vcnice Roule,'an.1, Cut Ernst Osthaus Museurr Mr. W¡}son's Cablnc¡ rifH 29 David Wilson, IntroJuci 30 David Carrier, The D (19S7), p. 83. 31 Lars Nittve, 'Director'. 32 Sec i\1atthew Collings, 33 See Carol Duncan, Cin H '[Tate Modero] aims t( one of the premier glol Local', 7(1[e Modem: The 3:. See Richard J. William! JI GooJ In Mancheslet (N 36 See Howard Slater, 'G Issue 3 (1998). 37 As Danto states: '',\'he art,\'orld ha.~ shadeJ inl The lranllsurQtlon if th.

DEFINITION5 OF ART AND THE ART WORLD

33

21 Sec Rosalind Krau~s, 'Sculpture in the Expanded Field'. Oetaba, No. 8 ([ 979), pp. ~ 1 44. 22 7ne Penguin Complete ¡ ewis (arwJl (Harmonds,\'orth, 1983). p. 196. 23 See George Oickie, Art and tne Aesrhetlc in fn)"rirWlOnal AniJ[ysis (Ithaca, NY, 1974); ami Pic:rre l-{ourJieu, Dístinc/Íon; iJ SOCÍal Cntulue oj"rhe judgemenl '!.F [aste (Cambridge, t 984). 24 Arthur Danto, 'The Arh\'orld.',journal ?fPhllosophy. Vol. 61 (1964), p. 580. 25 Sec Anhur Danto, 'The Last Work 01' Art. Art\\'orks ,md Real Things', lheona, VoL 39 (1973), pp. 1-17. 26 Danto, 'The ArtworlJ', pp. 581 4. 27 St'e Rcesa Greenberg, Thinkln8 aboLlt Exh¡bilil>rls (London, 1996). 28 RalfRugofF, 'Rules orlhe (;amc', Frieze (Janu
4

3 4 5

6 7

Contempora'J Bnwh Tal

20 Texb sueh as .Halmal, cal discussion witrun th The Art anJ CU/fIlIe

if e

21 Alison Britton, The Ma 22 David Whiting, 'AlisOI

p.5J. 23 Alison Rritton, BeJondl 24 Karin Muhlert, 'Sea Cl

Further Reading

2

18 lbid., p. 5. 19 Scc, ror example, the

In. 8 William Morris, 'The Lesser Arts ofl ife' (1882), in W Morris, Thr Cplleclc'J Work ~.n'Villiam .Homs, h,¡. 22 (London, 1910-15), p. 27. 9 See Adrian Forty, 'Design and Meehanisation' ,in A. Fort)', Objeas c:fDesire. Deswn and .~o(Íe9 since 1750 (London, 1995), pp. 42---61. 10 Thomas CarJyk, quoted in G. Naylor, Arts ami CI~¡rS ,Hl'~ement (london, 1980), p. 26. 1 I John Ruskin, 'The Lamp of Ufe', tmm The Seren l.amps uF Arc"hltecture [1849], c¡uoted in Na)'lor, Arts and CI~/r.s MOI'l'mcnt, p. 26. 12 William Morris 'The Art ofthe People' [1879], quoteJ in T. Harrod, The Cr'ifts In Bnrom m (hr 20th Centu'J' (New Haven, CT anJ LonJon, 1999), p. 16, 13 Susan Rowley, 'Craft, Creativit)' and Critical Prac:ticc', in Relnventina Tc.\tiles· TradlflOn and Inno~atIOn (London, 2000), pp. 1 16. 14Ibid.,p.2.

15 S. Rowlc)', CI
CONCEPTS OF CRAFT

49

18 ¡bid.. p. 5. 19 See, for example, thc c, citC'd in Mid 1986), p. In. 24 Sce Volkcr H.~chcr, ed., Oesj 25 Julier, The Culture qfDcs/8 n ,; 26 Don Slater, Consumer Culture 27 See Roland Banhc.'i, J~)'lholq 28 lean Ballrlrillard, fhe' Systcm. 29 Slater, Consuma Culture and ,i 30 Woodham, 7¡'¡'·entieth.Century 31 Naomi KJein, No '.ogo (Lond. 32 Alkn Case)', 'Tibor Kalrnan: 1998), p. 25. 33 First fhm8s Fmr .lfan!festo l{lC

OESIGN ANO MüOERN CULTURE

65 Notes

3

4 5 6 7 8

9

la 1J

12 1i 14 15 16

17 1S \9

20

21 22 23 24 2')

26 27 28 29

30 31 3~

33

Anthony Ikrtram, Dcsl,qn (London, 1938) p. 1\. ()n thc rising tl"ad(· Dctwecn Europe and Asia, see Craig Cluna:'., Chmese Export Art and Deslfln (London, 199B); Lisa jardinc am)jerry Brotton, Glohal InlCTóh Renaissance An bClll·ú'n East .m J HesT (London, 2000); Jerr)' Brotton, The Renl1l.lxonce Ra7QQr: hom the Silk Rood ro .lúdle!anlje!o (Oxfonl, 200i). Richanl Buchanan, cited in Vic10r Margolin, ed., De,I'18n DiscoulSe: HlSrO~", Theo"r, Cn/lCIsm (Chicago, 1989), p. 3. On lhe deve!opm('nt ol' Jesign history as a diKiplitle, see John Walker, DC:ilgn HmofJ cmJ lhc HHro"r rif Deslljn (London, 1989). Gu)' Julier, lhe Cu!lure ?IDi!sIBn (Lonclon, 2000), p. ). [hid., p. 147. Se!.: \\w\v.dvnalllÍC"earth.co.uk. Simon Schama, [mbarTassmenr o/ RH'hc,': ,m Imerprewllon of Dureh Cuflure In the Colden /Ifle (London, 19~7) otTl'r~ a good account of' the consumerist hoom in the sC\cntccnth-century Netherlal\rls. Adrian Forty, ObJens ?J De.wC." De.';JBn and SOCIél} .IWü' 1750 (London, 1995), p. 11. Ihid.,p.l!. Louis Sullivan, 'A Tal] Ofticc Building Artisrically Comidered' (\896), jn 1. Atlw\', ('d. KmJ.:rjarten ChClls (m ¡,ed /918) ilnJ Otha ll"lItlllfls (New York, 19+7), pp. 202 13. Jonathan \Voodham, TwcntIClh-Cenrury DC.i13n (Oxl'ord, 1997), p. n. H. Kr)'k, cited in Fony, Obleet., arDes/re, p. 245. Ibid. \Voodham, 7i~rnllerh-CenruryDeslgn, p. 71. Sel' A]dous Huxley, Bmre :\ew ¡f;Jrld (1932), which Jtta overwhclmed by the mass. In rus ~"- essay 'Fashion' (1904), SirnmeYpinpoints thc role

01' fashionable dress as a mcans

to negotiate the new tensions hct\veen fitting in "\vith thc crowd, and expressing a distinctivc, scnsc of individuality. He statcs: fashion is thc imitation of a given examplc and satisfies the demand for social adaptation.

. at the same time it satisnes in no less degrcc thc need of dif­

ferentiation, thc tcndency towards dissimilarity, the desire for constant changc and contrast. 12 As our bocHes circulate ......ithin societ)', the fact that they are dressed and haw thcy are dressed prmides the opportunity either to eonform socially or to express

72

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

OUT

individuality. In practice, most people aim to satisfy both thcsc contradic1:ory

social and psychologícal drives simultaneously. Fashion provides a means of forming ana articulating identity in relation to the various social groups we cncounter in

OUT

lives, as weH as the wider social cornmunity. As Lehmann .'ltates,

'ir i5 precisdy sartorial fashion that establishes the depieted as a social hcing, as a waman or man who is sct \\o'ithio progressing time'. 13 This sacül dimension of

¡.shion has bccn explored by other authors, including Norbert Elias (1897 1990) amI Picrre Bourdieu, who trau' the links between distinctions in bodi'íy adornment and the maintcnance of dass, status and püwcr by certain groups.l+ Adorning the body provides a means of nmnccting with others, but it may also be used to exclude them if thcir appearance indicates that the)' do not belong to the appro­ 2iatc social group for a speeific contexto When attending a public school parents' day, a pub after a football match, or a hip hop dub, most people dress to fit in, for fear that they might othen\,'ise be excluded from social contact hy the rest 01' the gathering. Even when people deliberatel)' sd thcmsclves apart by exhibiting a par­ ticular taste, tbey al so often simultaneously show membership of specific social groups. A goocl example of this is youth subcultures in which individuals use style as a means of asserting a group identity that is in sorne way cliffercnt from main­ stream tastes and values.

Ir is also important to consider the constantly shifúng nature of the rclationship betwecn social identity and fashion. This has beco me increasingly complex since the 19605, when traditional social categories of dass, race, gender amI sexuality began to be debated and contestcd by polítical mo"ements such as feminism and the civil rights movemcnt in America. The appearancc orthe punk girl at the ,.'entrc ofRichard Brainc's photograph of The Roxy Club vividly illustrates punk's rejection of cstablishecl notjons of fcmininity and femininc heauty. (Figure 5. 1). The radical campaigns by these movcmcnts for greater social status and freedom for minorit)' groups have to a large extent now hccomc accepted witrun main­ stream societrJ Elizabeth Wilson argues tbat fashion is an important means by which ,ve negotiate the complcxities of contemporar)' societ)'l stating that 'our culture of global mass media feeds us so mucb information that a massivc cultural ec1ecticism is the on1)' possiblc response'. 15 The attempt to form a cohesive sense of identity ,",,,,ithin this cnvironment becomes extreme!} difhcult, and hcncc sclf­ adornment becomes a means of articulating a sense 01" ambiguity and ambivalence. However acute the sense of relentlessly shifting reaHty in contemporary life, in earlier periods fashion displayed a crucial ability to knit togcthcr contradictor), aspccts of our social selves into visual and tactite formo Probably the most impor­ tant social category dcfined by dress is gcndcr. Despite significant changes in the gendcr roles 01' men and womcn since the 1960s, maintenance of gender identity remains a predominant feature of contemporary social Jife, and this is primarily gauged through appearances. Uniscx garments such as jeans, trainers and T-shirts

Figure' 5.1 - Richard Braine,

FASHION: STYLE, IDENTITY AND MEANING

73

Figure 5 1 - Richard Brainc, The Ro~y Club (1977). Photograph C1l Richard Braine~PYMCA.

74

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

are no\\' woro and accepted within a variety of social contexts. However, most

endeavours could lie onl­

people wearing these t)'pcs al' garments use hairst)'ling, make-up, je\,\rcllery or

elegantly or claborately ¡

remale gendcr idcntity. From the 19705 on\vards, and particularl), sincc- thc 19805, promincnt fashj()~ dcsigners such as Jean Pa01 Gaultier and Vivienne \Vestwood have explored

rcyealed the previously míddle-class maje consul

thc persistencc of gender coding conventions and stereot)pes through thcir

in male dress ol' the peric

designs. In mast contexts nonconformity to gender roles through drcss tends to

nm'elty and sartorial disf

othcr iteros of clothing as a meaos of reasserting a srecifie maIe

üf

signallack of social conformity in a broader sensc.

This idea has recently

not onl)' hetween men ar

Becausc üf its cruC'Íal role in cornmunicating gender, dTess has had a strong pres­

Due to the hinary relatio

eoce within political and social campaigns to changC' the status nf vmmen. Thi." has

and masculinitics cannol

included thc ('ad)' American feminist movcment of the mid-nineteenth centur)'

engagement with fasIDo!

whích, through thc campaigns 01' AmeBa Bloomcr, directly chalknged the incvita­

domain in the period frOl

hility 01' men being the only gender literally and also metaphoricalIy lo 'wear the trousers'. 16 The second wave feminist movement 01' the 1960s and 1970s took at

on the relationship betwl

hest a rather disdainfuI view 01' fashion. Most \-vriters were 01' the opinion that fashion objeetitled \\'omcn and that it played a key role in reinforcing fcmale stereo­ types and therefore femaIe oppression by meno However, a si.gnificant shift in fem­

A focus on the capacity 01

inist thought in the 1980s encouraged new attitudes to sexual pleasure, whieh werc

nifieant social and cultur;

soon translaled into new approaches to a range of media connected to female plcas­

that it is alsü t'erJ big busi! it is essential to acknowle

ure, including cinema, romantic hetion, make-up and fashionabIe dress. 17 Most writing on drcss and adornment has until reeentlJ focuscd on the relation­

nomic conU.Tn. Large 1',

ship between the femaIe gender and fashion. Furthermore, the majority ofwriting

make huge profits froro d

on men's dress has tended to 'underplay ir not den)' the phenomcnon of men's

for fantas)', sdf-realisatic

fashion' .\S Since the 1980s, however, such assumptlons have been challenged, for

fashion, does one begin

fashionabIe consumption has had an equally important role in the formation and

fashioJ1 business and alsl

express ion 01' maIe identities. Most rcsearch in this area has focusea on the perlod alter thc second world war, highlighting the role- of fashion in men 's lives in an era

devcloped understandin~ society, the mode! 01' the

üf cxpanding consumerism. The key dehate has been whether this shift was linked

Cllsses it in the following

1

purel)' to new cornmercial strategies on behalf 01' marketers, advertisers Jnd retail­ ers, or whethcr it reHeeted genuine shifts "'ithin mJinstream masculinity. Much has

Understandíng fas.hi

revohed around the concept 01' the 'Ne\\' Man', a model 01' cJring, nurturing ano

different boclies ope

narcissistic mJsculinity widely touted in media and advcrtising 01' thc 1980s. These

dcnts, dcsigners an

challenges to the simplistic and all-cmhracing assumptions that fashion is primar­

photographers, as

ilv J feminine pursuít, and that men enjo), a predominantly practical rclationship

buyers, shopsandec

~ith their dothes, led, in

the late 19905, to a wider re-examination of the histori­

there would he no (

cal relJtionship betwecn men and fashion. This eentred principall), around a ques­

cultural intermedial

tioning 01' the theor)' oi' the 'Creat Masculine Renunciation' proposed by the

psychologist

J.

C. Flugd in 1932. Flugel argucd that from the late eighteenth

\'/Ould not be tTansn

i'ashionable dress w(

eentury onwards men renounced any ¡ntcrest in fashion and fashionable disphv:

~t

This model is particuL

being onl)' useful. So far as c10thes remajncd oí' importance to him, his utmost

necting individuals, inst

'Man

~hJndoned his

c1aim to be

co~sidered beautiful.

He hcnceforth aimed

FASHION: STYLE, IDENTITY AND MEANING

75

endeavours could lie únly in thc (Hrection of being "correctly" attired, not ofbeing elegantl)' or elaboratcly attired.' 19 This idea has recentl)' beco guestionecl. For example, Christopher Breward has re\'ealed the previousl)' hiel den connections betvveen vt'Orking~clas!' and lower ~ middle-class mal e consumers ano fashionable display_ Alongsidc a ('ertaio sobricty in male drcss al' the period there also existcd a ¡h'el)' engagcment vliith Fasbionable novelt)' and sartorial display.20 This has led to

Dew

pcrspectives 00 the relationship

not únl)' bctween men and fashion, but al so het\veen men and women ana fashion. Due to the binar)' rclationsrup betwccn gender amI dress, changing vicws on men and masculinities cannot hclp but affeet our vie\\-'s on fernininity and ferninine engagcrnent with fa~hion, 11' fashion ('annot be sccn as an exclusi"cly ferninine dornain in the periad from the late eighteenth ccntury to thc 1950s, then our vicws on thc rclationship het\\'een women and fashion must change too,

The Fashion 5ystem A focus on the capadt)' offashion to encap~ulate eomplex, intangible but highly sig­ nificant social and cultural meanings can sometimes lead to myopi,a about the faet that it is .lIso ver)' big business. [n order to study fashion in any kind of apposite ""vay it is essential to acknowledge that it is a commercial industry and therefore 3n eco­ nomic eoncern. large fashion companie:-. such as Cahin Klein, Gap amI Gucci make huge profits from the precarious business of appealing to consumers' desires for fanta.s)', sclf-realisation ana the next hig thing. How, thcn, when studying fashion, aoes one hegin to embrace an understanding of both the rcalities 01' the fashion husiness and also it.s wider social and cultural significance? For a more devclopcd understanding of the complex series of roles that fashion plays within societ)', the modcl of the fash¡on s)'stem 1S a usdul starting point. Entwhistle dis­ cusscs it in the following \Va)': Undcrstanding fas,hion reguires undcrstanding thc rclationship betwccn these difIerent bodics operating within the fashion s)'stem: fashion colleges and stu­ dents, aesigners and design houscs, tailors and scarnstresses, modcls and photographers, as "vell as fashion editors, distributors, retailcrs, fashion buycrs, shops and consumcrs ... without the countless scamstresses and tailors there would he no dothes to comume; without the promotion of rashion by cultural intermediaries, sueh as Jashion journalists, 'fashion' as the latest st)'le would not be transmitted ver)' rar; ana without thc acceptance 01' consumers, fashionahlc dress ,,,,,ould lie unworn in factorics, shops and wardrobes. 21 This mode\ i.'i particularl), revealing as it traces thc complex series of intercon­ necting imliYiduals, institutions and preoccupations potentially involved with

76

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

fashion. The fashion system is al50 llseful as it embraces hoth the positive and neg­

dd ven hy new, more so

ative aspects nf fashlon. It allows us to conceive of ao industry that shamefully

ing goods. 26

exp\oits Asian workers in ugly sweatshops, whilst at the same time creating objects

The nineteenth centu development of a mode

ofgreat heaot)', e1h¡p Potemki, argued in favour of manip' potential of cinema as a n

PHOTOGRAPHY AND FILM

95

Figure 6.5 - StilJ from Georgcs Mé-Ii¡'s' ~~ya8e ca the Moon (1902). ~:J BFI stills.

strcwn streets 01' Rome and other citiC's. He al so eulogised Gregg Toland's contri­

hutions to Citizen Kane (1941) - Toland developed a 17 mm camera leos for shoot­ ing Welles' film, which more closel)' approximated the curve of the human eye than the 16 mm industry standard. Bazin exal ted hoth the lcngthy takc and the long shot; \\'ith the tatter, he dairncd, the .spectator·5 eye must rove around the cinema screcn, in a simulation

01' 'real' Vi5100, searching for thc most relevant OT important facets to latch onto.1' Although he died before the)' \\rere made, Bazin would thus perhaps

have been a fao nf several al' Robert Altman's films, such as M*A*S*H (1970) and i\,'ashl'ilJe (1975), with their long takes, overlapping dialogue and rejection of (.'on­ ventional narrative formo And )'ct there are problems \\'ith Bazin's support of the realist model of cinema. Revisiting Bazin's argurnents from the perspective of the present, it is notahle that man)' of the films he praised for harne:'ising cinerna's powers of realism now seem hopelessl)' staged and rnclodramatic

Roberto

Rossellini's films, for instance, often resorted to using a syrupy orchestral scorc that undercut the verisimilitude of sorne of thcir irnagcs. Bazin contrastcd hi~ o,"\-'n beBef in the pmver of the realistic image with thc films and opinions ol' the Russian forrnalist Sergei Eisenstein. The director 01' Strike

(1925), Battleship Poremkin (1925) and October (1927), among others, Eisenstein argued in favour

01' manipulating film stock through editing; for him, the creative

potcntial of cinema as a medium could be properly expressed on]y through the

96

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

directorial assemblage of shot footage. Far Eisenstein, cinematic montage was a

extent, whv , Ridley, Scot

predominant concern: he helieved that the disjunctive juxtaposition of specific

Jlonk (2003) is unherald

shots causeo spectators to forge a meaning from the fragments - a meaning not

The terro 'auteur' or nalists for Cahiers du CiI

Y

¡nherent in the images themselves. Thus, in Ortober, a senior official's vanity is exposed by intercutting images al' the man with shots ol' a pcacock. Similarly, in a sequence from Battleship Potemkin, severa} shots al' stOIlC Iians (Iying clown, starting

Fran)=ois Truffaut and El rigbt. Tbe 'politique de,

to rise, fully alert) follow on from the infamous Odessa Steps hattle sequcnce: the

two LTucial arguments. j

intimatían deduced by the spectator is that the lians symbolise the púBtical avt'ak­

nant in contrast ro that o

cning afthe Russian peasantry. Far 8azin, such montage editing was manipulative,

ary texts: American Cme"

almost heretical, interfering \vith film's abiHty to capture, uncxpurgated, the wonder 01' God's \.. ·orld (Bazin was a very religious man); for Eisenstein, it consti­

Sceond, the postwar gh sereened en mane in Fran,

tutecl and encapsulatcd the true pO\\,'er of cinema.

Ford westerns in one sit

Debates regarding dnema's relationship to reality and fantasy - and pertaining to cinema's 'true form', to what could be called 'pure cinema'

ha\"e not disap­

critics noticed that sorne own identity into the fiIn

pean:d. Indeed, to take just one examplc, they can be seen to underlie the criti­

01' the director was evidl

cisms of Hollywood film raised by the Dogme film movement. Dogmc - initiated

surface style. These direc

by the Danish filmmakers Thomas Vinterherg and Lars von Tricr in 1995 - out­

'artisanal' directors, terIr

lined a ten-point programme for making movies l a manifcsto that attempted to strip away the artifice ofHollywood. Only naturallight and sound weTe to be used;

Thesc tcrms of debate a numher ol' critics in (

cameras had to be hand-hcld; optical tricker), \Vas not allowcd; only diegetic sound

instance, writing in the

and music could be cmployecl. Films produced accorJing to this agenda - an agenda

prioritising thc input of t1l

include Vintcrherg's Festen (1998), Von Trier's

- from set designers to ca

that continues to attract devotees

Ir

The ldiolS (1998) and Harmony Korine's Julien DonkeJ-BoJ (1999). As Vinterbcrg

tributed to a finished Hol

has stated, highlighting Dogme 's preference for a realist model 01' cinema:

scriptwriters are largely w

by cinema 's visual irnpal We "\'dnted to seek a moment of truth, not pnwoking it too much, not iovolv­

attempted in the journal F

ing our own tastes; just to see what happens between actors when we put

tigation to the practice of f

them in this situation. Still it is fiction, we'ye got the script, we've got the

structed lists of 'the best

casting we say 'action' we say do this amI that, but we try and see ourselves

reveal the subjective natUTf

as regarding, and not directing too much, if you understand. So it is like a . agamst . . th·mg. lO reactlOn t b e auteur

rist Timothy Corrigan has"

,

'"

­

Auteurism

i

for Hollywood, a valuable (

this hclps to explain why Kili BilI, Volumc I (2003),

e !

why Francis Ford Coppola' In the search for film art, the attribution of authorial intention and crcativity to

horror film }eepers Creepers (

specific contrihutors to the fihnmaking proccss is often attempted, v,rith certain

On tbe whole, debates a~

individuals isolated as making more significant contributions than others. Crucially,

to the overwhelrningly indl

ir is now largcly taken for granted in both popular and critical discoursc tbat the

ponderance of genre movie,

person rcsponsible for a film's contents and acsthetics is Íts director. Further, from

return, stars paid exorbitan

thc large numbcr of directors presentIy working, only a small percentage 01' those

pation with 'opening week(

are deemed to be 'artists', or 'auteurs', worth)' of comment; this is, to .sorne

their mark' can scem min

PHOTOGRAPHY AND FILM

97

extent, why Ridley Scott's name is well known, but thc director of, say, Bul1etpf(lf}(

Monk (2003) is unheraldcd." The term 'auteur' originated in Franee in the 1950s in the writings ofthe jour­ nalists for Cahlers du Cinéma. Many of these authors - such as Jean-Lue Godard, Fran~ois Truffaut and Eric Rohmcr - cventually became filrnmakers in their O\... n right. The 'politique des auteurs' developed by the journal's crities was rooted in two crucial arguments. First, the)' claimed that French cinema had becornc stag­ nant in contrast to that of America, dependent on dull, stodgy adaptations ofliter­ ary texts: American cinema, it was argued, was quaHtatively better, more cinemaric.

Second, the postwar glut of American fiJms - hcld back during the war, then screened en massc in Francc in a tidal \\"ave - enabled viewers to watch several John Ford westerns in one sittjng, or a number of Howard Hawks films. The Cahiers critics noticed that sorne dircctors working in Hollp....ood were ahle to stamp their own identity jnto the films they worked on: over several different films, the trace of the director was evidcntly present, most obviously identifiablc in relation to surface s~vle. These directors \\'ere lahelled 'auteurs' and contrasted with more 'artisanal' directors, tcrmed 'metteurs-en-set:ne'. These terms ol' debate were subsequently picked up, argued oyer and rcfined by a number of critics in other countries. The British author lan Cameron, for instance, writing in the magazine Movie, critidsed the 'politique des auteurs' for prioritising the input of the director over that of the hundreds ol' other individuals from set designers to costumiers. einematographers to hairdressers - who con­ tributed to a finished Hollywood film. l ! This remains a significant coneern: film scriptwriters are largcly unkno\..'n, for example, a fact that is only partIy explained hy cinema's visual impact. In contrast, the American critic Andrew Sarris attempted in the journal Film Culture to apply pseudo-scientific methods ol' inves­ tigation to the practice of film production; he drew up tables and graphs, amI con­ structed Iists of 'the best directors' - in the process, inadvertentIy managing to rC\'cal the subjective nature of ranking 'film artists' .13 More recentIy, the film theo­ rist Timothy Corrigan has argued that the 'auteur' lS simply a use fuI marketing tool fOT Hollywood, a valuablc device for seducing audiences into cinemas. J4 Certainly, this helps to explain why Quentin Tarantino was predominantly used to promotc KJiJ BJiJ: VoJume 1 (2003), rather than the film', ¡ead actress, Urna Thurman; and

,....h y Francis Ford Coppola's name was so prominently featured on posters for the horror film Jeepers Creepers (2001), of which he was the executive producer. On the whole, debates about auteurism have focused on Hollywood cinema. Due to the overwhelmingly industrial nature 01' Hollp....ood film production - the pre­ ponderance 01' genre movies, sequcls churned out due to their lucrative box office return, stars paid exorbitant fees in proportion to tbór audience draw, a preoccu­ pation with 'opening weekend' figures ~ the possibility 01' any individual 'making their mark' can seem miraculous. And yet there are directors working within

98

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

Hollywüoo wha have distinctive authorial styles - Paul Thomas !\noerson, Michacl Mano, M. Night Shyamalan, John Woo. The latter serves as a llsefu] example: Woo 's

handling of generic action material Hard Targct (1993), Broken Arrow (1996), Face/ OjJ( 1997), fV;ndtalker, (2002) - do es not prevent him from inserting his own prcoccupations and favoured symbolism. In almost c"ery Woo film, for instance,

there can be found: a slow-motion gun battle, choreographed like a hallet; imagcry of noves taking Hight; a hero and villain firing weapons through a wall scparating them froro each other, with the wall placed in the dead centre afthe frame; Christ­ likc poses adopted by key protagonists. However. these rlirectors are rare cxamples:

on the whale Hollv\\'ood cinema i5 usuallv seen as faceless, repetitivc, mass-pro­ duced, made 'solel; for thc purpose ol' 'e~tertainment' rather than any higher or alternative aim. Ofcourse, it should also he noted that the stuoios may occasionally

Clearl)', 'art cinema' li,tcd by Pelley high)¡ cinema'. Although lhe for American studios, " with smallcr ere......-s enal imperativc is not as m, scripts) to explore their Art cinema is abo t already established "eld confer art film with a d surrealist cinema - fron of the film, of David L}'I ¡st painting and sculptl

produce 'prestige pieture, sueh as Monste!s Ball (2001) and Tbe Haurs (2002) - that is, the sort of tilms that are awaroed Oscars and used to justify claims for Hollywood as a respectable cultural institution. Howevcr, for substantial traces ol' artistry in cinema, it is perhaps most useful to loo k bcyond the confines 01' the 'dream factory'.

(Robat Wiene. Fritz La and 19 30s is compared \ era. Andy vVarhol's fi]m~

Art Cinema

- are taken seriously du their hand' at making mo

Outsioe Hollywood's powerful 'vertically integrated' system of film production, distribution and exhibition, in which Hollywood product cnds up bcing shown to mass audiences in cavernous multiplexes also owned by the studios, therc is an alternatiyc scheme. Smaller companies (such as Metro Tartan) distribute non­ Hollywood films ('independent' American cinema, 'foreign languagc' ti des) to 'art house' exhibition venues, attracting less sizeable audiences. On the wholc, these films laek the trappings ol' Hollywood: enormous budgcts, overpaid stars, a reli­ arree on digital tric'kery, generic storytelling, huge (Te\VS. Thc)' also have ioentifi­ able formal charactcristics that differ l'rom thosc ol' Holly"mod films. The distinctions bet\,"'cen Hollywood cinema and 'art films' \Vere c1carly artic­ ulaled in the jaté 1970s and 1980s by David Bordwell and Steve Neale, and the terms of debate thev outlined remain dominant conceptualizations even today. As Julian Petley notes, ~hc term 'art cinema' was useti by Bordv,,'cll and Neale to refcr to films such as those of the French ne\\ \,,"'ave, the Ncw German Cinema, Bergman, Antonioni, Fellini, Kurosawa, Ray (Satyajit not Nicholas) ano the like, hut ir was al50 employeo retrospectively to denote such disparate cinc­ matic phenomena as Italian nf'o-realism, German silent cinema, the Soviet ciassics, and the prc-war Frcnch cinema, fromfilms d'art through surrealist vvorks such as Gcrmaine Dulac's La Coquille el le clerBYman (1928), Buñud's Un Chien Andalau (1928) and l.'Age d'Or (1930) to lhe aeuvres of Cocteau, Renoir, Carne, Préyert ano others ... 15

Longo's John~r Mnemonj, hoth critical and box offi Perhaps most significa form of 'art cinema' are - that ¡s, from \-,/hat is oJ

appeal only to an elite a stream. Art films might, social, cultural and politi( Dardcnnes brothers' Ros,

characters Jnd geographi, coastal to\\'n Ohan, and

Manern Callar (2002); 0P'

such as the long take, us instancej a preference for or self-reflexive narration

Of course, dividing th

sweeping and reductiye. ~ which man)' countries (i popular, gencric cinema rr ignores the significant arr occurs; the French new w American studio films'lan multiplexes in Britain may

PHOTOGRAPHY AND FILM

99

Clearl)', 'art cinema' is largel)' a directar's cinema. The preponderancf' af names listed by Petle)' highlights a crucial distinction bctween Holly,vaod and 'art cinema' . Although thc occasional auteur mal' ]cave their mark on films produced for American studíos, 'art film' ís more evidently the work of its directors. Working with smaller crews enabks more control over the finished product; the commercial imperative is not as marked, cnabling director s (who mal' also havc written thc scripts) to explore their concerns and preoccupations with less ínterferenn'. Art cinema is also evidentl y a form of filmmaking \vith sorne affiliations to aIread)' established fields 01' artistic practice, such as fine art ficlds, in fact, which confer art film ,"vith a degree ol' culturallegítimacy. Thus, lnstanLes of Dada amI surrealist cinema - from Salvador Dali and Luis Buñuel's work to, perhaps, maoy of the film s 01' David Lynch - are discussed in relation to thc traditions 01' surreal­ ist painting and sculpture; similarly, thc cinema of the German Expressíonists (Robert Wiene, Fritz Lang, F. W Murnau, anrt others) produced during the 19205 amI 1930s is compared with, and connected to, Expressionist painting ol' the same era. And)' Warho1's film s - roany of them, by his own admission, unv.,atchably duB -- are taken seriously due to his status as an artist. Indced, \-\'hen fine artists 'tr)' their hand' at making movies, expectations are high and often disappointed: Robert Langa', johnny Mnemomc (1995) and Cindy Sherman's OJJice Kíller (1997) werc hoth critical and box ol'fice disasters. Perhaps most significantl)" however, David Bordwell daims that the content ami form of 'art ónema' are distinct from those ol' 'conventional' Hoth'wood cinema - that is, from what is often rel'erred to as the 'c1assical realist text'. lt may thus appeal only to an elite audience looking far an alternative to thc generic main­ stream. Art films might, then, display the following characteristics: an intcrest in social, cultural and patitical prohlems such as unemployment and poyerty, as in thc Dardennes hrothers' Rosetta (1999); an 'objective', 'truthful' representation of charaeters and gcographicallocations, such as the depiction of life in the Scotti.sh coastal town Oban, ami the unpredictable actions of the heroine, in Ramsay's Monern Callar (2002); open-endcd narratives; the use of ccrtain formal flourishes, such as the long take, used rather extravagantly in Japón (Reygadas, 2002), for instance; a preference for autobiography, as in many ofthe films 01' Nanni Moretti, or sclf-reflexivc narration. 16 Of coun;e, dh.'iding the \','orld of cinema into 'Hollywood' and 'art film' is sweeping and rcductive. Such an attt:'mpt at categorisation neglects the extent to \vhich man)' countries (including France and, most obviously, India) produce popular, generic cinema modclkd on the template of Hollywood examples. lt also ignores the !ligniflcant amount of Hollywood theft of 'art cinema' stylings that occurs; the French ncw waye 'jump cut', for ínstance, is no\v an acceptcd part ol' American !ltmfio films'language. Exhibition Is no longer as clear-cut as it once was: multiplexes in Britain mal' now regularly show foreign language tides, and regional

100

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

film theatrcs, in arder to stay financialIy solvent, may have to screen studio block­ husters. 'Independent' American cinema, as the film critie Kim Newman has

generated imager)' may characters on the prow

observed, has become almost impossible lo identify.17 And the spread of DVO

tastical creatures - as iJ

technology secms to be inaugurating a new system of film connoi.'i.'icurship - one

2002 and 2003). Such

crucially that erades the noundaries hctwccn 'mainstream' and 'art house' films

guage capahle of assessi

and their audicnccs - in 'which the plethora of extra information packcd onto dises provokes an enhanced interest in moving imagc culture. And yet, of coursc, thc 'mainstream/independent', 'art housc/multiplex', 'mass/elite audience' divisiOTIS continuc to influence general understandings of the field of cinema. Such is the dominance of Hollywood that it is necessary to conccp­ tualisc a spaee outside, or bel'ond the dutches of, tht, machinations

01'

the studios:

this 'space' is often given the label 'art film', As Perle)' argues:

Clarke, Graham. The Phou1j HolJows, Joanne and Janco' Lemagn), Jean-Claude, ed. Slam, Roben, fIlm TheoT)':,

Howcver difficult it mal' he to define art cinema in positive terms, that is, to sal' what it actually is, it is relativell' easl' to define it negatively as simply being 'not Hollywood' or evcn 'anti-Hollywood' . . . . It may he, then, that art cinema is hC:'3t concE'ptualized not as a certain historical pE'rioo of mainl)" European output ... nor as a directorial canon J nor as a set of distinctil.'c suh­ jects and stylcs, but, as 10m Rl'all has suggested, as an institution in \vhich certain films are' assigned defined in terms

01'

J

position within the general film culture and are

a particular mode of consumption'. l¡;

\Villiam Nev,'ton. 'UpO! Ch.lrles Harríson, Pau} , l~r Changmg JJeJs (Oxfor 2 ¡\1: TcxlS and Contexts (Lonoon, 1999). t 9 See David OverbC'y. en., Spnn8t1l1lc In ltatv: A Reader on ,\'t'o-RclJllSm (London, 1978); John Hill, Sex, Clcm and R,'o}¡,;m (London, 1986); anJ R. Murphy, SJX{ie, Rml5h Cmema (London, 1992). 20 Thc Dogme manifesto ¡aid down the f01l0\\ ing filrnrnaking rules: A) AH shooting mu~t take place on the original set. B) The sound mOl)" not he produceJ inJependcntly or the image. C) Gnl} hanJheld cameras are to he useo. O) Speeiallighting for colour sets i~ rorbiddcn. E) Optieal gimmicks must be refused. F) Any gratuitous action is to be rejecteJ. G) The film s must take place in the here anJ now. H) (ir'ore I-ilms shoulJ be avoided.

The idea of visual rt

ological invcstigatio Norman Bryson. l SI

language, has come t Indeed, it has pcrha) value ami achieveml

method for explorin; ing an overvicw of s( chapter considers so tices are viewed thro

priate to begin by ca

In ancient Greecc

'1

which public debate

to spcak effectively al and, later, Rome rhe1

the upper classes and trcatiscs concerning

9.Yisual Rhetoric Matthew Rampley

Introduction The idea of visual rhctoric is currenÜy associatcd most cornmon\y with thc scmi­

ological investigations of "\\-Titers such as Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco anct Norman Br)'son. 1 Semiology, originan)' a theory of the generation of mcaning in

languagc, has come to playa crucial role in int'orming the analysis of visual culture. lndeed,

jt

has perhaps come to be loo important. This is not to undcrestimate its

value and achievements.

[t ¡5,

hov-.'ever, to emphasise that semiology is onl1'

OIle

method for exploring the rhetorical dimension of visual culture. Rathcr than offcr­ ing an overvie", of semiology - there are airead)' man)' llseful 5uch accounts - this chapter considers some of the more basic bsues that are raised when visual prac­ tices are "\'iewed through th(' lens of rhctorical analysis. ~ Conscqucntly, it is appro­ priate to begin by consiclering what is meant by the term 'rhetoric'.

The Concept of Rhetoric In ancient Greece 'rhetoric' denotecl the art 01' public speaking. In a society in which public dehate bu·ame central ro cultural, legal and politicallifc, thc ahility to spcak cffcctivcly and, ahove .111, p('rsuasively, was a highly prized skill. In Greece and,later. Rome rhetoric carne to be an important constituent in the cJ€\" Havcn, CT, 1979). First publisht'd in 1914. Martin Warnkc, The (ourt .1rllst: ()n ¡he Ancestr:y cfthe MoJrature on idcology. Sigmund FU'ud, for instance, as DaviJ McLcllan writes, believed that the hasic factor in politics was the erotic relationship 01' the group to the leadcr and that the function of ideology \..'as to rcinforce libidi­ nal ties bet.. .\ 'cen rulers ano ruled which would resnlt in a posítive attitude towards autborit)'. 1 ¡ Thus, in Tatero and rabao (1913), Freud related the genesis and persistenec of polit­ ieal power to the Oedipus eomplex; and in Group Psyciw1uHJ anJ tbc Ana-{ysls c:.Ftbe Ego (192]), he c1aimed that 'artilicial' groups such as armlf"S re:quire single, dom­ inant, charismatic leaders.·! A., a stark contrast to the Marxist model, Freud's posi­ tien is an intriguing one. How was Bill Clinton '5 ideological pO\\'er as a leadcr affected by his dallianccs with Monjca Lewinsky? \Vas Arnold Schwarzcneggcr\ suceess in being elcctcd Governor of California influenced by thc rcad)' availabil­ it)' of sexualised images ol' the film star? Other authoTS ha\"c subsequentJy attempted to employ psychoanalytic concepts in their explorations 01' ideolog)'j Slavoj 7izí"k, lr, 19H4). 16 Fredric Jameson, 'Po.~tmoderni~m, or the Cultural Logic 01' Late Capitalism', New L~ft R,,;,w, Vol. 146 (1984), p. 78. 17 Barbara Ehrenreich, Nick}ed anJ DlmeJ: Undeu[wer in Low- Waae Ammea (London, 2002). 18 See Peter Sloterdijk, Crmque efC)'meal Reason (London, 1989). 19 See :¿¡'zek, The Suf>[lme Oblea ?! Ideoloay. 20 Dick Hebdige, Subculture: The Meanina ?! St:yle (London: 1979); len Ang, WatclJ1na Dalias: Soap Opera and the .J1eloJramatic Ima[jinatíoll (Londnn, 1985); Angela McRobbie, Feminísm anJ lóuth Culrure (Basingstoke, 1991); Eagkton, IJeo]oHF. 21 Janet WoIJT, The Social Production?f Au (London, ]981), p. 49. 22 Jon Do\'e}, 'Reality TV', in Glen Creeher, ed., The TelensIOn Genre Book (London, 2001), p. 1l4. 23 Paul Wells, 'The Documentar)' Form: Personal and Social "Realities'" , in Jill N elmcs, cd., An Inrroduetian ta Film Srudlf's (London and New York, 1996), p. 169. 24 Ibid. 25 Stella Bruzzi, ?\,'ew Documenror.,.r: A CnIJca} IntrdJuetIOn (London and New York, 2000), p. 76.

The vast social and econl

place in Europe and Nortl on ever)' level of social ar

that human pereeption al spacc Jnd time have been China, India, Indonesiaan

process of industrialisatio impact of the industrial ar thc iast 200 or so ,vears in specific issues. Conseque technological production

on how technology preser

From toda.y paintin!

This celebrated statement OBe of the best-known rea,

12. Visual Practices in the Age of Industry Matthew Rampley

Introduction The vast social and l'conomic changes known as the Industrial Rc'Volution that took

place in Europe and North Arncrica OH'r the rast 250 years havc had a profound impact on every level of social and cultural practice. At a most basie leve! it has becn argued that human pereeption and the bod y itself '.vere altered, and that the experience of space and time havc becn transformecl irrevocably. j This process is ongoing globally: China, India, Indonesia and mao)' othcr Asían states are currentl)' undergoing a massive proccss of industrialisation with hreathtaking rapiditr The focus 01' trus chapter is the impact nf the industrial and scientific invcntions ofmodernit)' on the visual culture 01' the last 200 or so years in the West. It is a vast topie, and one can explore onl)' a fcw specific issues. Conscquentiy this chaptcr focuscs in particular on how large-scale tcchnological procluctjon impacted on debates about cultural vaJue and meaning, and on how technology presentecl the practices of visual culture with politu:al challenges.

Photography and/as Modernism From today painting is cleacl. 2 This cclcbratcd statC'ment by French painter Paul Delaroche (1797-1856) remains one of the best-known rcactions to the invention ofphotography. It presents striking

180

EXPLORING VISUAL CULTURE

testiman)' lo the impact 01' the nev.! technology.ln common with man)' ofhis contcm­ pararies Delaroche held that the im'\~ntion orthe photograph rendcrcd painting's task

of depicting the visihle world redundant. The phütograph's ability to record every visual detail, with a precision beyond the capacities afthe most observant paioter, was welcomed by maoy. for it lived up lo the positivist idcals of a scientific and mechani­ cal agc ohscssed with factual objectivity. Othcrs \Vere rather less positive.

In certain respects Delaroche misread the significancc of this oew invention. Mostly, the photograph was treated as an accessory. As a mechanical proccss,

devoíd 01' manual skill, photography failed to gaio the status of painting. Instead, it \Vas put to a yaricty 01' other social and scientific uses, from priva te family portraits to scientific illustr.ltions to p()liC(~ records. When photographers did aspire to the status of artist, their images mimieked the painterly praetiees 01' their time. This i~ cvident in the phenomenon of 'pictorialism' , for example, a sclf-consciousl)' aes­ thetic form of photographic image-making espoused hy American photographers such as Edward Steichen, Alfred Stieglit7- and Frank Eugene in the periad bet".'een t 890 and 1920. Not only did 'pietorialism' imitate the Yisuallanguage and subject­ matter ol' contemporaneous painting, its practitioners .lIso sought aeeess to galler­ ies and museums to display their work in imitation of fine art. Despite its lower social status, it is alleged that the photograph ncvertheless presented painting with .specific challenges, questioning in particular the latter's traditional representational role. The modernist renunciation of mimetic rcalism from the 1870s and 1880s onwards has been seen as perhaps the most visible effect of the invention of photography. Aceording to Arthur Danto, painting struggled, during the followíng 80-90 years, to redefine itself in order to high­ Iight its differenee from photography. '1 The heightened and non-naturalistic u.se of colour hy artists as di\'erse as Vincent van Gogh, Henri Matisse or August Macke was a response to the challenge ofthe photograph, exploring painting's ehromatic possibilities (in contrast to black-and-white photography) and rcnouncing its former mimetie role. Othcr artists sa"v in painting the depiction ol' the invisihle essenee of things, a notion that opened the way up to abstraetíon. For Wassily Kandinsky or Piet Mondrian, for example, the adoption of abstraetion was directly related to thc attempt to depiet the spiritual, a task felt to lie be)'ond photography, with its ties to the visible world. Abstraction has heen seen as one ol' the most obvious characteristies of modern painting, and while many contin­ ued 10 explore the possibilities of figura ti ve representation, ahstraetion was the most powerful sign of what Danto characterised as the determination of modern artists 10 carve out a domain for art that would not be threatened h y photogra­ ph y. In certain respects Danto adapted the more famous writings of Clement Greenherg (1909-94), \....ho equated avant-garde abstraetion with a shutting out from art ofanything deemed non-artistic. 4 For Greenbcrg this aimed primarily at maintaining the 'purity' ol' art in the faec of popular culture; while photography

is not speeifieally targt: medium of popular YÜ The aceounts of bot As Thomas Crow has p

painting was often mOl Moreover, the causal ( hinges on the assumpti( re5entation, whereas hi art, including narratiar these \Yas ehallenged b;

playa crucial role in a< l3enjamin, for instanee ,

perception; it makes vis ab.stract painters were , ested in eontemporary a

Claude Cahun, Man RaJ photography as a medil suggests that many feIt p example, in 1920 the SUI

The invention of p expressian . . . Sin, had set thcmseJves ness, to break with

Hcre Danta 's position is ( .lnd a key feature of surre desirc within the visible objeet of considerahle in embodiment of what Ros

Clearly, there are argt prompted the dcvdopm, resolved, it is gcnerally al role in shaping the theory, tic medium in the 19605 ,

a.s a legitimate art praeticc performance art, f(Jr exan

ceptual art of the 19605 al establishment of visual cu tion 01' the role oI' photogr; art and other, popular, for

VISUAL PRACTICES IN THE AGE QF INDUSTRY i~

181

not specifically targetecl for critique by Grecnberg, it c1early stand!'> as a crucial

medium of popular visual representation. The ac("ounts 01' both Greenberg and Oanto have been thc object of criticismo As Thomas erow has pointed out, thc Aat guality of much moclernist anct abstraet painting \vas often monelled on the Hatncss of lithographie cornmercial posters.:; Morcover, the causal connection drawn betv\'een mociernism amI photography hinges on the as."umption th.1t painting was concerned prjnwriiy with mimetic rep­ resentatian, whereas historically this was only arre of many functions ascribed to

.1rt, inclucHng narratían, moral improverncnt and social commentary.6 None of

these was challengcn b:' the advcnt o[ photograph),; ¡ndeen, photography carne to playa crucial role in advancing thesc functions within art, According to \Valter Renjamin, for instance, photography capture~ ,'\.. hat I¡es bencc1th the thrcsholn of perception; it makes visible a subliminal awareness comparable to what num1.11 (Los Angdes, 1985), pp. 40 57; JC"an­ Louis Baudry, 'Ideological Effects of the Rasic Cillt'malographic Apparatus' , in ibid., pp. ,31 42. 54 See l\fcCullough, Ab.ltract1I18 Cri."!.ft. 55 Han~ l-klting, The EnJ qjAn HiStOT)', traus. C. Wood (Chicago, 1987). 56 Theodor Adorno, 'The Schema of Mass Culture', in T. Adoruo, The Culture JndustT} (Lon"on, 1991¡.pp 61-97.

13

The idea 01' technicaJ re diately, it might be aSSOI

01' reproduction, rangir simulations, to the tI, objects. J While the erc:

modern, thc first mel invented in the fi1'teenth

typc of mass reproduce centuT.v BCf.

This chapter focuse: Although printed imag~ invention of photograph far ('xceeded the impact duced im8ges and cruci

their own visual imageT)

What characterises tech age? What ,",'cre and are af1'ect the meaning and p

13.Technical Reproduction and its Significance Ruth Pelzer

Introduction The idea of technical rcproduction suggests a number

01' possibilities. Mast irnme­

diately, it might be associated with photography. but there are numerous othcr kinds of reproduction, Tilnging from recordings of musical performances, to computer simulations, to the transformation of design prototypcs into mass-produced objects. 1 While thc era of technical reproduction

i5

usually seen as particularly

modern, the first medium 01' mass-reproducible images, the woodcut, was invented in the fifteenth century, while thc use of metal coinage - arguably the first

typc al' mass reproduced image - can be traced back even further to the eighth ceo tury

BCE.

Thi:-; chapter facuses on technically reproduced and reproducible images. Although printed images have been in circulation for more than

sao years,

the

invcntion (lf photography introduced shifts in the function of visual culture \'lhich far exceeded the impact of printmaking. It vastly increased the quanrities of repro­ duced imagcs and crucially cnabled most individuals to produce and reproduce their o\-\'n visual imagery. Accordingly, the following questions will he addresscd: \Vhat characterises technical reproduction as the main feature of the mechanical agc? \Vhat wcre and are its implications for visual culture? How did these changes affect the meaning and practice of art?

198

EXPlORING VISUAL CULTURE

Society of the Image Thc contemporary economic, social and political environment 01' Western culture is not 001)' defined by mass produccd objeas, it i5 also defined by mass-produccd or, stríctly spcaking, mass- 'reproduced' media forms, such as nevvspapers, cinema, Il1oi<mfJ, ChaptC'f 2 'Vi('''''('r.~ M.lke Meaning', pp. 45-71, 17 A more up-to-date translation is now available: 'Thc Work 01' Art in the Age of its TcchnoIogical ReproducibiIit}: Third Venion', in \Valter Bcnjamin, SelccreJ Writin8s Vol. 4: 1938 1940 (Cambridge, MA, 2003), pp. 251 83.l3enjamin wrote two carlier versions of thi~ t'ssay, but it is the third that is most often cited. For an in-dcplh anal)'Sis 01 his writing ami the politics 01' techno]og~', ~ee Esther Leslic, 11'óltcr Benlarllln, OverpowennlJ Conforml,'m (London, 2000). 1R Clcment Creenberg, 'Avant Carde ami Kitsch', in Francis frascina, cd., Pollock and lljter (London, 1985), pp. 21-34; Theorlor Adorno, fhe Cuhure lndusl.ry. Sclceted f,'w)" on Jfoss Culrure (London, 1991). 19 Connor, P¡>srmodernm Culture, p. 196. 20 Benjamin, Selected IVrilJn85, ~ól. -J, p. 254. 21 Ibid., p. 254. n Ihid., p. 255.

23 John Storey, An lntme 199J),p.109. 24 John Bcrger, Ways r:f: 25 Fredric Jameson, gU( 26 David Hopkins, Afier 27 One ofthe leading te th e DWIlal A,qc (New 'r D/gnal ~fólllcn and rhe

TECHNICAL REPRODUCTION AND IT5 51GNIFICANCE

2) John StOTt'}', An Introductor), Cuide 1993), p 1Q9

24 25 26 27

lo

213

CulrUTa! [heor)' and Popular Culwrt' (1If:md Hcmpstead,

John Berger, I\Íl)'s (~rScem8 (Harmonds\'.'orth, 1972), p. 2 [. Fredric Jan1('.~oll, quoted in Connor, Po,ltmodemJSt CUbUIC, p. 57. David Hopkins, .1jtCI .Modern Alt 194)-2000 (Oxford amI New York, 2000), p. 2 [2 One of the lcading technophilo i5 Piure Lev)'; see Piene U"y, Rccomina Vmual: Rea/iry In the Di,qtrill ABe (Nev.' York, IqqS). See .liso the cybcr-fcminism ofSadie Plant, Leros aad Ones: DlgltU! Women Qnd the New h'chnocuJwrcs (Ncw York, 1997).

14. From Mass Media to Cyberculture For decades the spreaG

Glyn Davis

regularl)", at an unpreCl bccoming obsolescent cul tural existence adal patterns erased almost lettC'ni are becoming 1
It is interesting to explore the relationships hCl'wccn cl..'rtain cducational instituLions and the devclopment of ditIerent movements in art and design. For example, the Bauhaus School of Art and Design, founded in \Veimar, Germany in 1919, pro­ vided an important meeting pojnt for those who wished 10 challenge accepted ways of thinking about the theory, practice and teaching of art, design and architecturc. In the earl)' h",entieth century the social, acsthetic and pedagogic ideas ofllauhaus staff amI students coalcsced, with a range of activities and debates taking place throughout Europe and the Soviet UnJon. 1I Tcachers at the Bauhaus, such as the archilect Walter Gropius and thc designers Marcel llreuer and Marianne Brandt, also produn>d highly significant buildings and objects that have been cxtremcly inHuential internatjonally (Figure 15.1). The llaubaus methods ofteaching have also had a major jmpact on art amI dcsign teaching worldwide. This was undoubtedly linked to its closure by tbe National

Socialists in 1933, af grated and took up o and clsewhere. J 2

In addition to prov

technical, artistic and'

cational establishment

works of contacts to iI

and promotion. They institutions important

museums, retail outlet tional institutions do

progress; embedded \\

issue of education as
and arehitecture

Bashir, Martin, 174.-...

Flattcrsby Christine

Baudl'lai~~, Charles: 1 Haudrillard, Jean, 15,

219 -23 Bauhaus SchooJ of Ar­

232 -3

Baumann, Zygmunt,: Baxandal/, Michael, t; Bayliss, Trevor, 64

Bazin, Andn\ 94- 5,91

RBC,231

Bearden, Romare. 9

Hee urhan space

Clrlun Kane, 95

Citrocn 1)521, 109, 1101'

civilisation, S 6

Cbrk, T. J., 152

C1arkc, Graham, 91

dass system, 170

dients, role in architecturc, 107

Clifford, James, 11

dosed-circuit TV, 1S

C1udm, 15

Cohen, Stanle)', 166

coinag(',197

Coldspor refrigeratnr, 55, 62

collective character oi" art, 152­

colonial affairs, 139

colour, 180

film, 15

commoditv fctishism, 146, 2 [O

communic"atioll, tht'o("v 01', 135-8

computcr games, 14 15

compllter-gencrated imagery (CGI), 21 S,

216

computers, 189 90,192,199

connoisseurship, 39

Com.tructivists, Soviet, 54, a;4- S, 189, ] 90

consutllcrism see consumption

consumption, 1 S, 62,210

of arehitecture, 108 [S

and design, 53

amI 1'ashion, 69, 70, 76-7

of mass media, 203

and rhetoric, 146 7

and }-outh suhculture, 79-81

Coppola, hancis Ford, 97

copying, 1S9

corporal e logos, 16, 135

Corrigan, Timothy, 97

countrpide, 38

Courbet, Gusta\e, 117-18, 152

eraft, 21,34-49,182

Crafts Advisory Committee see Crafts

Council

Crafts Council. 3,40,41,230,236,239

Cra1'ts Revival, 41

Cranhrook Academ)' uf Art, 136

crcalivit)" 152, 160

Creed, Maniu, 7

Crimp, Duuglas, 190

erow, Thomas, 181

cro\\ d, 71

cultivation,6

cultural capital, 9, 234,136

cultural relativism, 11

cultural tourism, 2l culture, 5--17 hierarchy, 7

culture industrv 22

Cunníngham, Chris

curiosit)', cabinets o

(yherculture,214--:

()'bernel-lC Serendípíty eyhernctics, 189-9C

da Vinci, Leonardo, Dada, 27, 29

Danto, Arthur, 27-9

Dardennes hrothers,

Darle)', Andrew, 202

Daumier, Honoré, 1

David, JJ.cques Louis

D,wis, Fred, 67, 71

Davis, Mike, 115

Da)', Corinne, 80r, 81

Da7ed and Cor!fused, 8

de la Haye, Am\'. 239

Dc StijJ group, 48,54

De Trae)', Antoiue De

De.1n, Tacita, 193

Dehord, CUY. 15,201

de-construeti'on, 136, ; Dega~. Edgar, 86

Delacroix, Eugene, 86

Ddarochc, Paul, 179­

departme-nt .'ltores, 77,

Dt'rrida, Jacques, 136

de.'\ign, 13, 50-66, 135 graphic, 136

industrial, J86

Diana, Prineess 01' Wa!l

Dickie, Gcorge, 27, 23

Diese! clorhing, 78-.g

digital tcehnologj', ¡5,: mass commuuication photograph}, 127--8

tcle"isiun,216_17

video, 176, 192-3 2 Dingwall, Cathie, 239

directors, film see auteUl

discourse, architecture ;:

115, 136

dish\\'ashen, 54

DlSne.yhmJ, 20 [

documentar)', 128-9

INDEX

cultural tourism. 207

culture, 5- t 7

hierarch)', 7

cullure industry, 229

Cunningham, Chris, 127- 8, 192

curiosity, cahinds of, 21--2

c)'bt'rculturc, 214-17

(j'buneuc SerendípÍt.J', 189

cyhr:rnetic~, 189-90

da Vinei, Lc-onardo, 120, 151, 153, 154, 160

Darla, 27, 29

Danta, Arthur, 27-9, 31, 1l-lO 1, 236

Dardennes brothcrs, 99

D.uk)', Andrew, 202

Daumier, HonoH\ JI7

David, JacCJues Louis, 142

Davis, Frecl, 67, 71

Davis, Mike, 115

Da)", Corinnc, sor, 81

DazeJ anJ CoryfuseJ, 81

de la Haye, Am)', 239

Oc Stijl gruup, 48, 54

De Trae)'. Antoine Destutt. 165

Dcan, Tacita, 193

Debnrd, Guy, 15,201, 20i

dccon~truction, 136,211

Degas, Erlgar, 86

Dc1acroix, Eugene, 86, 87f

De1aroche, Paul, 179-80,181

departrncnl stnrt'"~, 77, 7Sf

Derrida, Jacqucs, 136

dcsign, 13,50-66,135

graphic, I 36

indLJ~trial, 186

Diana, Prince",s of Waks, 175

Dkkie, George, 27, 236

Diesel clothing, 78-9

digitaltechnolog)", 15,85, lOO, 211

mass communications, 31

photngraph;-, 127 8

teh~\·ision, 216-17

video, 176, 192 3,214

Dingwall, Cathie, 239

din'ctors, film ~ee .lutcuri~rn

discourse-, architecture as, 103,108,113,

115, 136

dishwaslwl"s, 54

DisnqlanJ, 201

documentar)'", 128-9

film capacities, 89-90, 94

tele-vision, 173-7

docusoaps, 129, 176-7

Dogme-,96,130

D,¡mus, 106

Dormcr, Peter, 63--4

drawing, 121, 123--4

drcss, 13,67-72,239

Droog Dcsign, 64

Dumb ond Dumber, 7

Du/ch,81

Dutch paintings, 12

DVD technology, 15, 100

Dyrnaxion,57

e-mail,215

Eagleton, Terry, 164, 165, 171

cdccticism,58

Eco, Urnhato, 36, 133, 159

Erlgl'rton, Harold, 88, 89f

bljnburgh, 124, 125f

Our Dj1nam1C Earth, 52

EDtt",129

('ducation,232 4,238

architecture, 106

graphic de"~ign, 136

Eit1c-l Ti)we .., 109-10

Eisenstein, Scrgci, 95-6, 19~, 204

Bat¡]esh¡p Potemkm, 95 6

cicetronic mail, 215

E[ias, Nnrherl, 72

Elkins, James, 3,4

Ellint, George, 118

EJliott, Martin, 18, 19f, 20

embroirlerj",41-2

Emin, Trace)', 92-3, 229

Engcls, Friedrich, 113, 165-6

enlightened false consciousness, 170

Ent\'ihistle, Jnanne, 67, 75 6

environment and rlesign, 64

fR,221

Erre et Avon, 173

Evans, Caroline, 241

exdusinns, 2, 4­

I::xposition ColOnIaJe, 1 39

E'\:poSHwn Jes Arts Décorarys el lndu.\trieh

(1925),238

Face, The, 69, 79-81

F(lce / qff, 98

249

250

INDEX

Falkland, Wac (1982), 235

fandom,225 6

Farell)' Brothers, 7

fascism, 169

fashion, 13,67-84,239

favicr, Hcnri, 23Sf

Feltrinclli, Giangiacomo, 127

fcminism, 9,154 -6; see olso gender

Festen,96

film

directors ser auteurism

studks, 199, 204

theory, 3

see aIso cinema

fIlm Culture, 97

Final Famas)" 127

Fmdma Nema, 100

Firsr ThJnBs FlISt 2000, 62, 63

Hatncss, t 8 t

Flavin, Dan, 190

Fle:o.., 192-3

Flugel, J. c., 74-5

Fluxus,29

Focillon, Henri, 182-3

Forbldden Planet, The, 15

rord Motor Compan)C, 54,56 form

in architecture, 135

in design, 5),54

in film, 94

formalism,28 aesthetic, 24-6

rort)', Adrian, 53, 184

raster, I-Ial, 202

Fostcr, :'-Jorman, lOS, 154

Foucault, Michel, 1 n

Frampton, Kenneth, 106

~rance

cinema in, 97

ciyilisation, 6, 10

colonialism, [39

Frankfurt School, 7

FrC'ucl, Sigmuml, 169

Fried, Michael, 24, 26, 190

Frith, Franch., 89

Fuller, Richard Buckminster, S7

function, 24, 61, 144

in architecturc, 115

in crafts, 43-6

in design, 51,54

MC'mphis, 58-61

funding, 237

furniture, 38, 144

avant-garde, 54

design, 147

Su Down chair, 58

Fusdi, Henry, 149, 150r

futurists, Italian, 184

Gabo, Naum, 184, 185

galleries, art, 21-2; see also Tate Modern

games, computer, 14 15

Gan, Alexei, 185

Gap, 75,170

Cauguin, Paul, 86

Gaultier, lean Paul, 74

Gehry, Frank, 112 13

gC'llder, 139

craft,35,40,41 2

fashiou, 67, 69-70, 72--4

Internet, 225

see olso feminism

genius, 152, 160

Centilcsehi, Artemisia, 151, 156

German Pavilion, International Exhibition,

Barcelona (1928-9), 106 7

Germany, cuiturC', 5--6, 10, 11

Ciclclcns, Anthony, 160-1,226,230

Giedion, Siegfried, 183

Glancey, Jonathan, 105

glass art, 47, 232

global ,ilIage, 200, 217, 218, 219, 226

globalisation, 219

Codard, lean-Lue, 7, 97,110

Gombrich, Ernesl, 119, 120

Gordon, W Terrenee, 218

Gramsci, Antonio, 167-8, 177

Crand "lour, 8, 10

graphic design, 136

Grave, Michael, 61

Graves, Michael, 13

Creat Exhihition (1851), 238

Crecce, 153

Green Pases: The BusmCH c:fSavm8 the ~lorld, 64

Greenberg, Clernent, 7-8, 24, 25, 180- 1,

204

Greenhalgh, Paul, 14

Grice, Paul, 137

Grierson, lohn, 174

Gropius, Walter, 5 Gucci,75

GU('\'-ara, Ernesto' Guild House, Penn Guizot, Fran~ois, 6 GulfWac (1991),2 GulfWar (2003) se,

Cursky, Andreas, 1 Gutierrez, Alberto

I-1aacke, Hans, 190­

Hall, Stuart, 203, 2

Hord 7ar8et, 98

Harris, lonathan, 23

Horry Potter, 7

Haney, David, 169­

Hawks, Howard, 15

Hebdige, Dick, 79,1 f/ellboy, 215

Herder, lohann Gott hermeneutics, 156

hierarchies

art, 36, 37

culture, 7

High Art photograph HilI, Can: 192

HiJler, Su's'an, 192

Hindcnhurg disaster,

Hirsch, E. D., 158

Hirst, Damien, 92, 2; histories of art, 156--~ Hockney, David, 88

I-Iogenberg, Frall7, 12

Hollywood cinema see

HoJoeaust, 198

homophobia, 22 S

IIopk.ins, Da,·id, 211

Horkhcimer, Max, 18¿ hotel lobby, /14

f-{otln, The,98

Houston, lohn, 151

hurnanism, 120

Hutton afhir, 235

Hu)'SsC'n, Andreas, 39

hyperreality, 201-2, 22

ID,79-81 identit)', 193

and fashion, 71--2, 8

ideology, 163- 78

INDEX

Gropius, \Valter, 54, 232,2 Bf

Gucci,7S

GUE'\ara, Ernesto 'Che,' 127

Guild Housc, Pcnnsylvania, 111

Guizot, Fram;;oi:., 6

GulfWoc(1991),221

Gulf W;u (2003) ser Iraq War

Gurskj', Andrca:-.. 192

Gutierrez, Alberto Dia7, , 27

Haacke,Hms, 190 I

Hall, Stuart, 203, 239

Hard Tarflet, 9g Harris, Jonathan, 236

Harl)' Poeta, 7

Harvey, Daúd, 169-70

Hawks, Howard, 151

Hcbdigc, Dick, 79,171

HdlboJ, 21 \

Herder, Johann GottJTied, 10-11

hermeneutics, 1S6

hicrarchics

art, 36, 37

culture, 7

High Art photograph)" 86-7

Hill, Gar)', 192

Hillcr, Susan, 192

Hindcnburg disaster, photographs 01', 89

Hirsch, [. D., [SS

Hin;t, Damien, 92, 229

histories of art, [S6 7

HOCkrlL'j', David, SS

I logenhcrg, Fran/, 124, 1251'

Hollywood cinema ,ce cinema, Holl)'\\'ood

Ilolocau~t, 198

homophobia, 12 S

Ilopkins, Da\'id, 21 [

Hork.hl:imer, Max, Ul4, 119

hotellohhy, 114

Hours, Hu', 98

Houston, John, 151

humanLsm, 120

Hutton affair, 235

Huyssen, Andrea~, 39

hypcrrcality, 201-2, 220-2; see olso realisrn

ID, 79-81

identity, 193

and fashion, 71-2, 81

ideolog)', 163-78

251

L'Illustra[Jon, 139, 140f

illusian and art, 119

irnage thcory, 2

irnage~, 3

irnagination, 23

irnmigrants and as)'lmn-scckcrs, 168

individualism, 154

industrial design, 186

Tndustri,lJ Rc\'olution, 5, 6,37 8,118,

179

industrialisatian, 71, 76, 81,182, 183;sce

¡J/~'<J post-industrialisrn

innoccnt CjC, 18

institutional thcory- of art, 27-31

institutions, 229--45

intentional fallacy, 28-9

intcracthity, 128, 216

interdisciplinarity, 232

Internet, 125-6, 190, 199,200,211.2l7,

223 8

dcscribcd, 223

dornestication of, 223--4

origins af, 22 3

iPod,215

1rag war (2003), 170,200,221,2221',22 J,

23\

ISOTYPE, 1J6

Italian Futurists, l84

lto},on Job, The, 220

Ital)' and dcsign, 57- 8

Ivonsxtc,85 Ivins, \ViIliarn, 198

Jackson, Michael, 174-6

Jackson, Petcr, 101

Jarncson, Fredric, 169-70, 210

Japón, 99

Japoni~mc, 121,123, 124-5

Jcanneret, Pierre sce Le Corbusicr

Jerpers CTeepas, 97

Jen~ls, Charle,';, 112,145

Judd, Donald, 18,26-7, 31, 190

fullen Donkcy-Boy, 96

Julicr, GU)', 51-2

Kahlo, Frida, 1 s: \, l SS

Kalman. Tibor, 62

Kandinsk y, Wassily, 1SO

Kant.lmmanuel, 23, 14-;,36,152

Kauffmann. Angelica, 1SS

252

INDEX

------Kellv, Dr David. 22 3

Ken~ed\', ' John F., assassination of, 198

Kettle lI'ith Bird, 61

KieSlowski, Krzysí'tor, 7

Lumierc brothers, 94

l.upton, Ellen, 1i6

Luric, Celia, 79, SI

[yotarJ.jean-Franyois, 169 70

kltKh, 8. 25, 58,61

Klein, Naomi, 62

KJurls, Gustav, 204, 205f

Knight, Nick, 82f, 83

Koom, Jerr, 18, 20r

Korine, Harmon)', 96

Kracauer, Siegfried, 114

Krauss, Rosalind, 26, 181

Kryk, Hazel, 55

Kuspit, Donald, 152

Labour Pany (UK), 168, 177

Laean, Ernest, 92, 169

LaChapelk, DaviJ, YO

Lamsweerde, In('7 van, 127

landscapc [Jainting, 171-3

Lall(" Ril'harJ, 211

Lara Cfl~{i: Tomh Rel/der, 216

Las \-'egas, 111- 12, \44 5

Last PlCrurc Sho\l., !he, 220

LawJor, Louise, 159, 191

Le Corbusier, 54, 55, 191

Leavis,F.R.,67,9

Lec, Ang, 2 15, 216f

Lefebvre,Henri, li, 114-15

Lehmann, Ulrich, 68, 72

Ldh(w"itz, Annif', 90

leisure, brandcd, 51-2

Leonardo, 120, 151,153, 154, 160

Levine, Shenie, 159, 190 1,210 -11

Libeskind, Daniel, 102, 154

Lincoln CatheJral, 103, 1051'

linearperspectiw. 12, 119-11, 13+

Lissitzsky, Ed, 104

Iilcrary criticism, 6 7,9,157

lithography, 199

Loew)', Ra}rllOnd, 54,55,56,62

logos, eorporate, 16, 1i5

Longo, Roh('rt, 99

Loos, Adolf, 144

LorJoFche RiDas [film], 101,216

Lorcnt:;, Pare, 129

Lo~ Angeles, 110 11

Louis, Monis, 24, 25t

Lom, Theroux's We¡rd lJá'kends, 129

Luhmann, Niklas, 159.161

MeCo)', Katherinc, 1 i6

MacDonald, Uwight, 7

MacDonald, Julicttc, 147, 182

Machiavdli, Nicco]ü. l6S

Machme Are, 186, 1871', lSSf

Macke, August, 180

McKnight-KaufJcr, Edward, 141

MeLcllan, Da\id, 164, 169

McLuhan, Marshall, 199, 200, 201,202,

203,217-18,219 in Anmc floll,

1 [7

MeQueen,'\lexJ.ndcr, 82f, 83

McRohhic, Angela, 79,171,23+

.\.1aJonna,7

Manchcstrr

Annual Pragramme, 31

Engels' dcseription, 113

Manet, EJouarJ, 7

mansa, 123

manufacture, 35; see also mass produL'tion

Manzani, Piera, 26-7

maps, 124-6

Marcusc, Herbert, 7, 18+

Marien, Mar)' Warner, 86

Marinetti, Filippo, 184

Marx, Karl, 146, 165-8, 177; see also mass

production

Masaccio, Tomaso, 110

iH*A*S*H,95 mas,~ meJia, 14, 171,203,2 3S; see also nc\',"spapers; television mass proJuction, 18 i, 184, 2 17, 238

of dothing, 77

01' TT1('dia, 198, 200

;ee ul.';,] post-Fordism

Massey,'\nne, 1i

TTl3the'matics, innuence of, 12

Mathicu, Paul, 35

Matisse, Henri, 180

iJ1atríx, Tbe, 202

Mamx Reloaded, The, 220

media, global, 190

mecha studies, 199.204

degrees in, 14

Mélics, Gcorges, 94, 95r

Memphis [design grc

metl and rashion, 74­

metaphor, 136, 140­

Metro Tartan, 98

metropoJis scc urban

MichcJangclo, 20-1,

Mies van der Rohe, l

MiIlennium Dome, 1

Milkr, Abbott, 136

Millet, Jean-Franyoi~. mimesi~, 119, 180, 11

minimalism, 190

Miralles, Enrie, 102

Mirzoetl, Nieholas, 1:

MJT, 29- 30

ModcJ- T cars, 56

MOMA, 30, 186, 187

Mondrian, Piet, 180

Jfons/cr'I Rall, 98

Moorc, Michacl, 129,

Moretti, Nanni, 99

Moriu, WiIliam, 163­

Monis, Robert, 190

Morris, WilJiam, 36-1 182

Mort, Frank, 79--81

Morton, janet, 42-3

iHorrern Callar, 99

Jforie, 97

Mozan, Wol(gang Am~ Muhlert, Karin, 45-6

Murabmi, Takashi, 12~

Muschamp. Herbert, l( MusC',215

Mu.~eum ofJurassk Tee

29-30

Mu!'eum 01' Modero An 187f, 188f, 191,2 muscums, 22; see al50 M amI Albert MUseUl

m usie, popular, 215

l~nboloaíej, 109, 138-9

nJ.ming, 27, 169

narrow-casting, 203; see

public sf'rvice

Nash, Paul, 86

Nashvífle.95

National Endowment t(-Jr 230,236,239

INDEX

Memphis

[de~ign

group], SS-6 t

meo .loa ra~hion, 74-5; sec o/so gender

rnC'taphor, 136, 140 2

Metro T.1rtan, 98

mctrop()li~ sec urban space

Michelangc-]o, 20-1, 15\, 207, 209f

~ics van der Rohe, LUlh... ig, 106 7

Millennium Dome, 102

Miller, Abbott, t 36

Milkt, Jean-Franyois, 118, 172

mimesis, 119, 180, 181;seeaI.wTcalism

minimalism, 140

Miralles, Emir, 102

Mirzocfr, Nicholas, 15,92

MJT,2910

Modcl-T cars, 56

MOMA, 10, 186, 187f, ISSr, 191,236

Monrlrian, Piet, 180

.lfon.>lcr's Bul', 98

Moorc,Michael, 129, 1 W

Moretti, ~anni, 99

Moritz, WiUíam, 1h 3 4

MorTis, Rohert, 190

Morris, William, 367,38,39,4-1,47,

182

Mort, Fr.lOk, 79 81

Morton, Jant.'t, 42-)

.1-foIl'an Callar, 99

Jfonc, 97

Mazan, Wolfgang AmadclIs, 151

~1uhlert,

Karin, 45-6

,~111rakami, Takasbi, 12 2r,

123

Muschamp, Herhert, 105

Muse,215

Museum of Jllra~.'iic Technolog)' (MJT),

29-30

Museum 01' Modero Art (MOMA), 30, 186,

187r, ISS1, 191,236

rnuseums, 22; see a1so MJT; MO¡\1A; Victoria

and Albert Muscum

music, popular, 215

M.JCholof/les, 109, 138-9

narning, 27, 169

narrow-casting. ](H; sec a150 broadcasting,

puhlie scni('('

Nash, Paul, 86

Nashl'lllc, \15

National cndm'>'rnent for the :\rts (US), 230,236,239

253

naturalism, 124-5

and realism, 118

Nealc, SteH', 98

necdlewurk,41 2

Neurath. atto, 136

New Criticisrn, 157-8

N ew Design, 61

New English An Cluh, 23

Ne\'>' Man, 74

New York World's Fair (19~9), 54, 56

Newrnan, Kim, 100

newspapers, 200, 201 f

Newton, Sir vVilliarn, 86

ni!lon-8Q , 121 3, 124-5

9/11,139, 19S, 200, 201r, 220, 221

Nochlin, Linda, 11)4-6 Norman Fuster and Partnt'r~ ,ú' roster,

I\'orrnan

nostalgia, 58

nm'el (genre), 14, 15

:\'ye, David, 186

objccts as metaphor. 61

ObsesslOn j'rHcn, 63f ()ctober, 190, 191

Qfficc, The, 129

(!ffire Kdler, 99

Old

~1J..~tcr painting~ in

adwrtiscments, 141,1421 Oldenburg. Chus, 1)8 Oli v ctti,58 online banking, 214

oral tradition, 14

ornarncntation, 144

()[lf Dynamic Eanh, Erlinburgh, 52

packaging, 146 7

Packard, Vanee. 56-7

painting, 12,41, 1)4, 179-81, 192

Duteh, 12

histor)' 01', 26

landscape,171-3

Pa.noE,k)', Envin, 109, J 20

Paris, 109, 114, 118, 119

Parker, Rozsika, 41

patronagc,20 1,23,151,155,237-8

role in architecture, 102, 107

Pawson, John, 190

Paz, Octa....io, 183

Pelzer, Ruth, 218

254

INDEX

perspectivc,linear, 12, 119- 21,134

Pc:;ct', Cad,lOo, 58 Petle)', Julian, 98-9,100 Pc\sner, Nikolaus, 101, 104-5, lOS Phillipson, Michael, 236 photography,85 93,126-7,197,199-200, 202 3

architectural, 106

avant-garde,185

digital, 127- 8

fashion,81

moderni..,t, 179 82

postmodcrnist, 190-1

photomontage, 210 Picasso, Pablo, 28,155 tí, 160 pietorialism, 180 picturc postcards, 199,2051', 208f Pierson, Michdk, 215-16 Pixar, 128 Planel q/ rhe Apeí, 210 planning H'[ lown pLmning Plato, 119 Pliny the Elder, 156 Piough chot Broke the Ploms, The, 129 Pointon, Marcia, 243 Polhemus, Tcd, 239 poJir1c' uniforms, symbolism or, 6S Pompidou Centre, Paris, 236 Por Art and archikcrurc, 110-11 popular musk, 215 pornography, 203, 224­ portraits, 17 [ 2 sc1f, 149-50 post-ronlism, 62,170 pos\-indu.,¡trialism, 170 po~tcards, picture, 199, 205l', .?ORf Posler, Mark, 220 posters, ] 8, 19f [/ Post/no, 130 postmodcrnism, 144-5, 161, 190 in architecture, 11 2 postphotography, ]27-8 power, 164-5, 169, 170 Pre-Raphat'litc I:kotherhoocl, 23 Prcdock, Antoine, 145 Price, Cedrk, 110 Prince, The, 165 printing, influcnce of, 14, 19R 9 pr(lceduralism,27 1 I Protestantism, inHuence 01', 21

Prynne, Jcremy, 7 PSB see public servicc hroadca:;ting publie rcalm and architecture, 102 public service broadcasting (PSB), 217,

n5 punk,72 P)'e, David, 183 P)'nchon, Thomas, 13 racism in art, 23 in cinema, 163, 164 on Internet, 224 Ramsa)', Lynnc, 99 Rand, huI, 135 Randal, John, 231 Raphael,151 Rappaport, Erica, 77 Rauschenberg, Roherl, 204-, 2061" ready-mark dOlhing, 77 rcalism, 117 and naturalbm, 118

see a}jQ hypcrreality; mimesis;

surrcalbm Reali~m, Socialist, [23--4, 189 realit)' TV, 173--4, 176, 202 Reay-Young, Helga, 47 refrigeralon, design or, 5;, 62 Reichart, Jasia, 189 relativism, cultural, 11 reproduction, tccbn¡cal, 197-213 Rc.~ident b'i!, 216 rhetoric, visual, I 33--48 Richter, Gerhard, 191 Riefenstahl, Leni, 192,204 Ricgl, Alois, 182 ROI,'ky, 13 Rodchcnko, Alexander, 184, 18 S Rogt'fs, Richard, 102, 154 Rohmcr, hic, 97 Ronseal advcrtisements, 118,145 Roscnberg, Harold, 152 Roseua,99 Ross, Kristin, 1 ) Rossellini, Rohcrto, 94-5 Rousc, Flizabeth, 68 Ro-..vley, Sus,m, 39--40 Royal CoHege ol' Art, 238 Ru,kin,john, 36, 38, 104, 105, 106, 108, 182

Rus~ian Constructiv

190 Sainsbury Wing, Nat 11 I Salon des R~fusés, 23

Sarris, Andrew, 97 Smurday '''hahr and Su; Saussurc, FernJ11d de Savage, Jon, (60 Scandinavia and desig Sehaeffer, Pe ter, 151 Seherman, David E Schnahel, Julian, 13" ~copophilia, 202 Scorsese, Martin, 13 Scott, Ridlev 97 Scotl BrO\\'I~.' Denise, Scottish ParJianwnt bu script\\'riters rOl" film, sC'ulpturC', 18, 20r, 20~ abstraet, 185 self portraits, 149- 50 ~emioJogy, 62, 133 Sennctt, Richard, 115 Sen,aflon exhibition (l S September 11, 139, 19 221 sC'wing machine, 77 Sherman, Cindv q9 19 shopping, 77 o' - ,

areades, 1S malls. 106 signs, traJfic, 124­ siJk serecn process, 204 Simmel, Georg, 69, 71, simulations, 220, 221-2 Sislinc Chapel, 20, 207, skinhead outht, 24Df Slaler, Dan, 62 Sloterdijk, Peter, 170 Smith, Paul, 127-8 Smithson, .Alison, ((O Smith"on, Peter, 110 social responsibilitv of df social ~haping of t:chnol( Socialist Realism, 123-4. S4;\\orc', 189 Soja-Morales, Ignacio, la SoJomon-Godeau, Abigai

INDEX

Russian

Comtructhist~, 54-,

184- 5,189.

190

S