Brooke Notes 3/13. Rose, Gillian. Visual Methodologies

Citation

Rose, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies. London: Sage Publications.

Keywords

culture, ocularcentrism, scopic regime, simulacrum, vision, visual culture, visuality

Summary

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.

Works Cited

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.

Quotations

  • “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). 

Questions

  • 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.

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]