Bibliographic Entries – 3/13

Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (ed)., Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage, pp. 13-74.

This book chapter, which is available here, was recommended as further reading by Gillian Rose. Hall defines representation, and explains how and why it is an an integral part of the way people produce and exchange meaning across cultures. Hall also explores the constructionist approach of meaning making and the prominent impact it has had on cultural studies. [NW]

Evans, J. and Hall, S. (1999). Visual Culture: The Reader. London: Sage in association with The Open University.

Rose lists this book for further reading because it is a collection of multidisciplinary key texts that have shaped the field of visual culture. A central idea of this book is that there are three core concepts involved in studying visual culture: the sign, the institution, and the viewing. Evans and Hall explore how visuals are studied using these three concepts, and also put these concepts in conversation with cultural theory and rhetoric. [NW]

Foster, H. (ed.) (1988). Vision and Visuality. Seattle: Bay Press.

A PDF of this book, which was recommended for further reading by Rose, is available here. The book’s chapters offer deeper insight into the nuances of vision and visuality–otherwise known as scopic regimes. The texts compiled in this book work to suggest ways that deepen our understanding of vision, to socialize vision, to explore the subjectivity of vision in production and interpretation, and to historicize vision’s practices and resistances. [NW]

Mirzoeff, N. (2006). On visuality. Journal of Visual Culture, 5(1), 53-79.

I found this source by searching “visuality” in EMU’s E-search database. Mirzoeff argues that although many people believe visuality became a keyword for the visual culture field as a result of postmodern theory, it was actually originated by Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish historian. Mirzoeff frames “visuality” historically, drawing attention to the ways it was originally used to represent and resist imperial culture. [NW]

Kaszynski, E. (2016). ‘Look, a [picture]!’: Visuality, race, and what we do not see. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 102(1), pp. 62-78. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2015.1136074
I found this source by searching “visuality” in EMU’s E-search database. This article argues that perceiving vision and visuality as connected, but distinct, impacts the way we are able to interpret racial identity constructs. Kaszynski argues that moving past vision along creates a more comprehensive understanding of racial construction in the 21st century United States. [NW]

2 Comments

  1. I think you’ve found some really interesting texts here, and it’s almost like a timeline of what people were talking about throughout the years.

    “The texts compiled in this book work to suggest ways that deepen our understanding of vision, to socialize vision, to explore the subjectivity of vision in production and interpretation, and to historicize vision’s practices and resistances.”

    It’s interesting to me to think of vision in these terms and the way that vision and visuality are connected. I guess I wonder what it really means to socialize vision?

  2. I like that you searched for the term “visuality” in EMU’s databases, because I was struck by that term as well. I actually incorporated it into my WRTG 121 project three assignment sheet. I’m interested in the Mirzoeff source, since it deals with visuality and culture from a historical perspective. Since the visuality in our culture has probably shifted a lot over time, it would be insightful to read more about this to consider these changes.

Comments are closed.