Rose, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies. London: Sage Publications.
culture, ocularcentrism, scopic regime, simulacrum, vision, visual culture, visuality
Rose begins Visual Methodologies by defining key terms and giving background on where visuals have served the modern consumer, portrayed viewpoints on cultural order, and the effects of images. Rose leads to her suggestion of a methodology to critically approach visuals by taking them seriously, taking into consideration social context, and remembering oneself as the viewer when analyzing.
Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Association andPenguin.
Doane, M.A. (1982) `Film and the masquerade: theorising the female spectator’,Screen 3: 74±87.
Haraway, D. (1989) Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World ofModern Science. London: Routledge.
- “Jeffrey Hamburger (1997), for example, argues that visual images were central to certain kinds of premodern, medieval spirituality, and Ella Shohat and Robert Stam (1998)have argued forcefully against the Eurocentrism that pervades many discussions of `the visual'” (Rose, 2001, p.8).
- “In this sort of work, it is argued that a particular, historically specific visuality was central to a particular, ocular-centric culture. In using the notion of culture in this broad sense, however, certain analytical questions become difficult to ask. In particular, culture as whole way of life can slip rather easily into a notion of culture as simply a whole, and the issue of difference becomes obscured” (Rose, 2001, p.13).
- Can an image ever be universal or neutral? Haraway claims that images create social difference among class, race, gender, and sexuality, visualizing an argument of order. Can individual’s order be classified in an image of their making?
- When scholars look on today’s fad of selfies, can they truly apply this methodology of viewing images? It seems that it would be difficult to take all those images seriously and also to discover the context in which the selfie was taken.