Abstract
In his book Painting as an Art, published in 1987, Richard Wollheim draws attention to the peculiarity of art history.1 Alone amongst those disciplines which deal with our cultural patrimony, the study of the visual arts stresses history over criticism, the common term for literature or music or dance studies. It is a point well worth noting. It might be said that some of the current debates which animate the field of art history pivot on the precise nature of the historical character of the visual arts. What is admissible as argument, evidence or concept, namely what social theory shapes the research or its conclusions is deeply contested. Part of the resistance from the conservative establishment against the revitalized Marxists and feminists of the second wave, the intense precisions of the structuralists and post-structuralists, the fantasies of the psychoanalyticals, is that their critical theories bring a lot of trouble into the field of vision. They make it difficult to look at art in the same old ways. The deployment of a variety of theories which interlace the visual arts with cultural sign systems or with discursive formations and ideological apparatuses are perceived by many a defender of tradition as introducing alien textualities into a virgin and pristine domain where, as with an attractive woman, all that is really required is some good hard looking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
R. Wollheim, Painting as an Art, (London: Thames & Hudson, 1987), p. 8.
Ibid, p. 8.
G. Pollock, ‘Artists, Mythologies and Media …’ Screen, 21, 3 (1980), 57–96.
Since this paper was first written, Mieke Bal’s Reading Rembrandt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) has been published. Bal offers another model for intensive and sustained visual analysis of both the visual semiotics and the narrative textuality of paintings which stresses the active role of the spectator as producer or processor of meaning, taking responsibility for the necessary act of interpretation.
Roland Barthes, ‘The Death of the Author’, in Image Music Text, ed. S. Heath (London: Fontana Collins, 1977), p. 148.
Griselda Pollock, ‘Agency and the Avant-Garde: Studies in Authorship and History by way of Van Gogh’, BLOCK, 15 (1989), pp. 4–15.
M. Jay, ‘In the Empire of the Gaze’, in D.C. Hoy, (ed.), Foucault A Critical Reader (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986).
Michel Foucault, ‘The Eye of Power’, in C. Gordon, (ed.), Power Knowledge and Other Essays1972–77, (New York: Pantheon, 1980).
See J. Laplanche and J.B. Pontalis, The Language of Psychoanalysis, (London: Karnac Books, 1988).
Fredric Jameson, ‘Imaginary and Symbolic in Lacan, Marxism, Psychoanalytic Criticism, and the Problem of the Subject’, Yale French Studies, 55/56 (1977), pp. 354–5.
Yve Lomax, ‘Some Stories which I Have Heard and Some Questions which I Have Asked’, in Three Perspectiveson Photography, ed. V. Burgin (London: Arts Council, 1979), pp. 52–5.
See analyses by Carol Duncan and Allan Wallach, ‘MoMa: Ordeal and Triumph on 53rd Street’, Studio International, 194, 988 (1978), pp. 48–59, and by
F. Orton and G. Pollock, ‘Les Données Bretonnantes: La Prairie de Representation’, Art History, 3, 3 (1980), pp. 314–44.
The idea was originally advanced by M. Schapiro in ‘The Nature of Abstract Art’, Marxist Quarterly, 1937,
and reprinted in M. Schapiro, Modern Art (London: Chatto & Windus, 1978).
It was elaborated by T.J. Clark in The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers (London: Thames & Hudson, and New York: Alfred Knopf, 1984).
See N. Burch, Theory of Film Practice (London, 1973) and
S. Heath, ‘Narrative Space’, Screen, 17, 3 (1976).
For further discussion of this topic in relation to modernist and postmodernist debates about painting and femininity see G. Pollock, ‘Feminism, Painting and History’, in Destabilising Theory: Contemporary Feminist Debates, ed. M. Barrett and A. Phillips (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), pp. 138–76.
See P. Kamuf, ‘Writing like a Woman’, in Women and Language in Literature and Society, ed. S. MacConnell-Ginet (New York: Praeger, 1980), pp. 284–99, and
J. Culler, ‘Reading as a Woman’, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983), pp. 43–64.
G. Pollock, ‘Van Gogh and the Poor Slaves: Images of Rural Labour as Modern Art’, Art History, 11, 3 (1988), pp. 408–532.
For fuller discussion of the import of Barthes and others on the theories of authorship in art history see C. Pollock, ‘Agency and the Avant-Garde: Studies in Authorship and History by Way of Van Gogh’, BLOCK, 15 (1989), pp. 5–15.
S. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, [1900] Penguin Freud Library Vol.4 (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976).
G. Pollock, Sexuality and Surveillance: Bourgeois Men and Working Women (London: Routledge, 1994).
This argument is very compressed but I draw heavily upon the work of feminist historians who have analysed the class and gender effects of the social practices of childcare in nineteenth-century bourgeois households which lend historical density to Freud’s analytical studies of the psychic ‘cost’ at which white bourgeois masculine subject positions are adopted. See particularly Lee Davidoff, ‘Class and Gender in Victorian England,’ in J.L. Newton et. al., Sex and Class in Women’s History (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983).
S. Freud, ‘Creative Writers and Daydreaming’ [1908] in Art & Literature, Penguin Freud Library vol. 14 (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1985).
G. Pollock, Vision and Difference: Feminism, Femininity and Histories of Art (London: Routledge, and New York: Methuen, 1988).
See D. Harvey, Consciousness and Urban Experience (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985).
The point is made in the analysis of cinematic images of women wearing glasses by M.A. Doane, ‘Film and the Masquerade: Theorising the Female Spectator’, Screen, 23, 3–4 (1982), pp. 82–3.
Odilon Redon produced an image, female, profile, titled Silence, which Cora Kaplan discusses in ‘Language and Gender’ in her Sea Changes: Essays on Feminism and Culture (London: Verso, 1986).
This painting and its variants are discussed at length in my paper ‘The Gaze as a Question of Difference’, in Dealing with Degas: Representations of Women and the Politics of Vision, ed. R. Kendall and G. Pollock (London: Pandora, 1992).
L. Irigaray, ‘Interview’ in M.F. Hans and G. Lapouge (eds), Les femmes, pornographic et l’érotisme, (Paris, 1978), p. 50.
K. Adler and T. Garb, Berthe Morisot (Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1987).
L. Kinney, ‘Berthe Morisot’, Art Journal, Autumn 1988, p. 240.
J. Kristeva, ‘Motherhood according to Bellini’, in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Art and Literature, trans. L. Roudiez (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980), p. 243.
The whole of this work is also available in book form: Mary Kelly, Post-Partum Document (London: Routlege & Kegan Paul, 1983).
Ibid, p. 188.
M. Kelly, ‘Desiring Images: Imaging Desire’, Wedge, 6 (1984), p. 5.
Mary Kelly, Interim (New York, Museum of Contemporary Art, 1990).
Ibid, pp. 8–9.
Ibid, p. 9.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1995 Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pollock, G. (1995). Beholding Art History: Vision, Place and Power. In: Melville, S., Readings, B. (eds) Vision and Textuality. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24065-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24065-4_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-60970-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-24065-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)