OUGD401 - Context of Practice Lecture 3

The History of the Image

History is a non-linear process, with things developing at different speeds and times across the world. This has led to a broad range of visual communication which varies depending on culture, context and epochs.

Image making can be seen in early cave paintings, which it has been suggested, were ways of recording key events. More abstract image making is less understood and reflects a deeper, more primal approach to imagery. At these times people understood the natural world in a more intimate way, with their practices being more spiritual and shamanistic with mysticism and magic playing important roles in their lives. This all suggests that their image making also held far greater significance than we understand today.

Works like the ‘Red Earth Circle’ suggest that we have a primal instinct and that it is a core principle that connects all of us. However cultural appropriation may play a part in works such as this, where it could be said, that Western cultures have taken this type of image making and made it ‘art’. Does this kind of work by Western artists have the same meaning as images created by the Aborigines for example?

Mark Rothko’s paintings also have a spiritual aspect creating an abyss like feeling. Light seems to be absorbed into the paintings through the use of certain mediums. These works are supposed to embody deep emotive reactions and allow us to connect with these aspects within ourselves. The display of the works seeks to enhance this transcendal experience much in the same way as churches do. There has to be physical travel to see work in art galleries or churches which further creates a sense of importance and meaning to the work.

The role of art institutes is also questioned when looking at works like this. Does an institute just create the idea that the work is spiritual simply by displaying it in this way? Galleries have a role in deciding what is art. If it is within a gallery does this make the work seem more important than it really is? Art galleries have an authoritative presence which makes people behave in certain ways. They tell us how to think, feel and see art and are designed to display art in a way that will make you think about what you are seeing. This ‘connection’ with the works can prove quite emotive however it is also questioned as to whether this emotional experience is just created through a belief that you are expected to react I a certain way? 

  

With works such as the Mona Lisa, which is one of the most visited paintings in the world, it questions how we perceive importance within a work. Is the painting meaningful because of its characteristics or because of the mass of people around it trying to take pictures of it? It also questions the way we experience the work through photography. Highlights our need to document our experiences in the digital world in order to prove they really happened. Are we experiencing reality in these situations? Both in terms of image making and viewing?

This idea extends to the purchase of merchandise. Distribution of images in this way further enhances the aura around the work however it can also have a degrading connotation as the image takes on various formats designed to have other uses rather than solely being a visual image.

Context is important in defining the role of a work. For instant Banksy’s graffiti was originally street art however importance has been placed on the works by galleries. When viewed in galleries however is still really street art instead it becomes a commodity and money making opportunity where previously it was free.

Expressionist art sees image making as a spiritual, existential process and a representation of yourself. Does mark making in other formats have the power to move you? Roy Lichtenstein suggests not with his play on digital mark making.

Stalin banned modern art because he saw it as elitist and he thought Western artists saw themselves as better than others, instead he wanted to create art for the everyman that everyone would understand. However, this potentially was belittling to people’s ability to engage with more challenging works.

Image making has been used as symbol of expression to the world. The US government funded Pollock to produce work to create the impression of freedom within the country to the rest of the world. This was in contrast to the Soviet Union which they portrayed as oppressive. Would the work have been as popular as it was without this? The work became a source of cultural propaganda.

Recycling of images can lead to loss of meaning within an image. Cuban revolution imagery has been reused repetitively until it begins to lose context. This has altered the original meaning and instead it has become a thing to own.

The persuasive power of image making is shown through the use of satire. This has been used to topple people in positions of power or maintain others influence.

Images can also be used as representations of something which is not the same as the real thing. Places often brand themselves in order to ‘sell themselves’ to the public, which portrays something that is not always the reality of the place. Places are often judged on their branding more than the truth of the place.

Image making can be a quick and automatic expression showing the unconscious.

Multiple meanings can be read from the same image.

Images can change public opinion such as shown in Vietnam where the horrors of one image stopped public support for the war.

The wealthy in the past would commission paintings of their land and family. This was used as a way of boasting and showing the power of these families to others. A similar thing is done today with celebrities in glossy magazines which portray the ‘ideal’ life. This type of image making creates insecurity within the viewer and makes us feel bad about our own lives.

Image making also has the power to give permanent life to something. Once captured, thoughts, feelings and people can last forever.