MS 111C Exam 2 Short Answers

Why did the audiences of the Georgian period need a certain level of cultural capital or cultural proficiency to successfully "read" satirical prints? (Taylor, David Francis)

People back in the Georgian period needed to be pretty smart to get the jokes in satirical prints. These prints were fancy and expensive visual commodities, and understanding them required literary knowledge and class sophistication to properly understand. Also, looking at these prints was often a group activity where people would chat about them, so you needed to be able to join in with wit and understand what was being talked about. Plus, the prints often made fun of important people and events, so you had to be pretty sharp to get the jokes. Lastly, they were full of fancy references to things like politics and mythology, so if you weren't educated, you might miss out on the humor.

What do the satirical images of the printshop public analyzed by Taylor

reveal about those British public(s)? What changes over time does

Taylor detect? (Taylor, David Francis)

The satirical images of the printshop public analyzed by Taylor reveal insights into the British public and its evolving dynamics over time. Initially, these images showcased a nuanced understanding of societal hierarchies, with satire often targeting certain groups like the middle class, religious enthusiasts, and parvenus for their pretensions to print consumption. This highlights how satirical prints were exclusive to upper-class consumers, who used them to maintain social distinctions. However, over time, Taylor detects changes in these images, particularly during the early 1800s. As Britain was at war with France (Napoleonic Wars), the images depicted a more inclusive and diverse group of people enjoying prints together, regardless of their social background. This shift towards inclusivity reflected a sense of unity and solidarity during wartime, with images portraying a united British society and often poking fun at the French.

How did gazing become "a constitutive act of Britishness"? How were satirical prints used to forge national unity? Why and how did exclusion nevertheless remain amidst such national inclusivity? (Taylor, David Francis)

Gazing became a constitutive act of Britishness during the Napoleonic Wars, as the need for national unity shifted perceptions about the audience for satire. Lower-class individuals were now included in the audience, symbolizing their integration into British identity through the act of viewing. Satirical prints were used to forge national unity by depicting diverse audiences engaging with anti-French or anti-Bonaparte caricatures, fostering a sense of collective political and cultural participation against external threats like Napoleon. However, despite this national inclusivity, exclusion persisted within these representations. Satirical images subtly reinforced social hierarchies through nuanced depictions, such as distinguishing lower classes by simian features and simplistic ways of seeing. While various social classes were included in the viewing public, the true understanding and appreciation of satire remained reserved for those with cultural capital and education. Thus, exclusion was woven into the narrative of inclusivity, reaffirming social stratifications within the act of communal engagement.

What for Jonathan Crary differentiates perspectival vision from

physiological vision? Why was the camera obscura used as an epistemological model for two centuries, only to be abandoned in the early nineteenth century? (Crary, Jonathan)

Perspectival vision is like looking through a camera, seeing things from one fixed angle without considering how our bodies are involved. It's all about having a clear, unchanging view of things. Physiological vision, on the other hand, is more like how we naturally see things with our eyes, which involves moving around and taking in information through our senses. We abandoned the camera obscura, a device used to mimic perspectival vision, because we realized it couldn't explain everything we saw. People started questioning it when they noticed we could still see colors even when the camera was sealed shut. This led to a big revelation that our bodies are actually really important in how we see things. We're not just passive observers; our bodies play an active role in shaping what we see and experience.

How did scientific studies of light and corporeal vision lead to a crisis for the very idea of objectivity? How was this crisis "resolved"? (Crary)

Studies on light and corporeal vision made people doubt if there's a clear, unbiased way to see the world. They found that our perception is influenced by our senses and minds in afterimages, not just what's out there. To fix this, scientists started using machines to be more objective. They changed how they define objectivity by focusing on getting the same results over and over and making sure different people agree. This way, they could keep trying to find the truth in their research even though how we see things can be different for everyone.

In what ways were physiological studies of vision conducive to factory labor and capitalist rationality? (Crary)

Physiological studies of vision helped factories in a few ways:

1. Standardizing perception: By understanding how people see things, factories could design tasks and environments that matched how most people see, making work more efficient.

2. Fragmentation of experience: These studies broke down seeing into parts, similar to how factory work breaks tasks into smaller steps.

3. Matching with clock time: They also looked at how quickly people process what they see, which helped factories keep up with their fast-paced schedules.

How were the optical devices analyzed by Crary (thaumatrope, zootrope, phenakistiscope, kaleidoscope, stereoscope) productive of new conceptions of and modes of interaction with time and space?

Optical devices like the thaumatrope, zootrope, phenakistiscope, kaleidoscope, and stereoscope introduced new ways of experiencing time and space:

1. Time: These devices exploited the persistence of vision, where the eye retains images briefly after they disappear. By rapidly displaying images, they created the illusion of motion, revealing the brain's ability to blend images into a continuous sequence.

2. Space: The kaleidoscope and stereoscope fragmented vision, investigating how the eyes perceive depth and distance. They broke down vision into binocular components, aiming to understand how the brain combines two slightly different images from each eye into one cohesive picture. These devices simulated the presence of physical objects, blurring the line between real and optical realities.

How was the body integrated into phantasmagoric modes of perception in the early- to mid-nineteenth century? (Crary)

According to Crary, in the early- to mid-nineteenth century, the body was integrated into phantasmagoric modes of perception through optical innovations like the thaumatrope, zoetrope, and phenakistiscope. These devices manipulated light, motion, and perspective to create illusions that appeared more real to the observer. The goal was to immerse audiences in a fabricated world, blurring the line between reality and illusion.

What new social spaces and modes of social interaction did

daguerreotypes make way for in the United States? (Trachtenberg)

Daguerreotype galleries emerged as unique venues for both producing and viewing images, often described as a blend of a "theater of desire" and a simulated domestic environment. These galleries were designed to provide a comfortable and aesthetically pleasing experience, with famous portraits adorning the walls and efforts made to hide any signs of the photographic workshop. Inside these galleries, people engaged with the illustrious images and each other, forming new social interactions in what became a distinct third space. Additionally, the physical experience of sitting for a daguerreotype portrait, which required remaining still for a period, fostered a sense of intimacy and comfort, further enhancing the social dynamics within these spaces.

Why were daguerreotypes and the lithographs derived from them

assumed to express inner truths and moral character? (Trachtenberg)

People believed that these images captured the real essence of a person, including their inner thoughts and moral qualities. The mechanical process of photography was seen as unbiased and direct, providing an authentic glimpse into reality. As a result, portraits were thought to unveil the soul of the subject, showcasing their inner truths. Additionally, the way these images were displayed in public and private collections reinforced the idea that they were more than just pictures - they were reflections of individuals' character and moral worth.

ex. Emily Dickinson

What effects did photography have on science and scientific

classification? What kind of new "truths" was photography assumed to have the capacity to create? (Trachtenberg)

Photography revolutionized science by providing a new tool for documentation, allowing for the detailed preservation of visual data for study and classification. It was believed to offer an unbiased and objective view of subjects, aiding in the classification of people and natural phenomena into categories. For example, daguerreotypes were used in criminology for mugshots, assuming they could reveal inner truths and moral character, aiding in identifying and classifying criminals based on physical features. Additionally, photography was used to support racist theories like polygenism, reinforcing racial inequalities by providing supposed evidence of different racial origins.

How does photography complicate or produce selfhood? (Trachtenberg)

Photography complicates selfhood by sometimes creating discrepancies between how individuals perceive themselves internally and how they are represented externally. Photographers' specific poses and control over the subject's image can lead to objectification and dehumanization, as seen in the Zealy portraits where subjects lacked agency and consent. However, photography also allows individuals to curate their image, emphasizing certain traits and controlling how they are viewed by others. It transforms subjective self-perception into a tangible form that can validate one's opinion. In contemporary contexts, there is a struggle to reclaim agency over historical images, as seen in the lawsuit by Tamara Lanier, which fosters a new sense of selfhood, triumph, and resilience.

How did the arrangement, captioning, and packaging of

photographs in travel literature convey ideological claims about the people and places represented in those images? (Vergara)

Travel books used photos to make Americans feel like they were better than Filipinos. They'd put pictures of Filipino life next to American inventions to show how "primitive" Filipinos were. Captions described Filipinos in terms implying inferiority or treachery. The travel literature turned Filipino culture into a commodity that Americans could buy and own. The photos made Filipinos look exotic and different from Americans, reinforcing the idea that Americans were better. But they also made Filipinos seem like they had no individuality or complexity, just fitting stereotypes.

exoticized and "othered" Filipinos

In what ways did the colonial camera produce an anesthetic

effect? What resulted from this numbing of the senses? (Chaudhary)

The colonial camera numbed people to the realities of violence and suffering in colonized areas. By portraying colonized peoples as less than human and reducing their experiences to consumable images, it made violence seem less impactful. This led to viewers becoming desensitized and detached from the brutality of colonialism. The photos also helped reinforce the idea of colonial superiority by visually dividing spaces into imperial and native areas, further alienating and othering the colonized peoples. Overall, the colonial camera helped normalize and justify colonial narratives by making violence seem necessary for civilization.

What does Zahid Chaudhary mean by his term the phantasmagoric

aesthetic? How does this relate to the phantasmagoric aspects of modernity discussed by Mirzoeff and Crary?

Chaudhary's "phantasmagoric aesthetic" refers to how the colonial camera, through photography, distorts reality, creating a detached observer. This detachment not only separates the observer from what they see but also from their own sense of self. This relates to Mirzoeff and Crary's discussions of phantasmagoric aspects of modernity, which examine how visual technologies shape and are shaped by modern processes like capitalism and colonialism. In essence, the phantasmagoric aesthetic highlights how photography in the colonial context could both reveal and hide truths, serving as a tool for both enlightenment and control.

How did photography become a tool for governmentality in a colonial context? What role did photography play in the management of bodies and populations? (Chaudhary)

Photography in colonial times was like a tool for the government. It was used to take pictures of colonized places and people to show that the colonizers were more advanced than the colonized. This helped justify their control over those lands. The photos also helped the government keep an eye on everyone and classify them based on their differences. By making people in the photos seem less human, it made it easier to treat them badly. Basically, the photos were used to control and justify the power of the colonizers.

How did the rationalizing processes of modernization change the

ways we perceive the world? (Crary)

It was restructuring urban, social, and economic systems for efficiency and control. This is evident in late 19th-century art like Manet's "The Balcony," which shifts focus away from personal connections to the efficiency of modern life. Paris's restructuring under Haussman made streets organized and unified visually, reflecting rationality and modernity. This made time and space feel repetitive and cyclical, and blurred the realities between what's internal and external.

What effects did commodification have on vision and attention? (Crary)

Commodification floods us with things to see, making it hard to focus. Companies design ways to grab our attention longer, turning vision into a form of consumption. Everything becomes a product to look at, from exhibition displays to storefronts. Our attention becomes a commodity too, targeted by advertisers. We end up fixated on objects rather than people, shaped by capitalist values.

Could new forms of perception be produced through technical

and organizational innovations? (Crary)

Yes, technical and organizational innovations can indeed lead to new forms of perception. For example, photography, as pioneered by Eadweard Muybridge, allowed for a deeper understanding of movement through motion studies. This led to a shift in how we perceive and study actions, breaking them down into frames and expanding scientific knowledge. Similarly, advancements in machinery and organizational structures have also influenced how we perceive time and space, with clocks becoming increasingly relevant in our daily lives. Overall, these innovations have contributed to shaping and evolving our perception in various ways.

What new psychological states did visual modernism make

possible? (Crary)

Visual modernism introduced new psychological states such as dissociation, psychological ambivalence, and commodified femininity. Dissociation is seen in paintings like the Conservatory where individuals are depicted with blank stares, detached from their surroundings. Psychological ambivalence is evident in conflicting emotions portrayed in artworks, symbolizing inner conflicts. Additionally, the portrayal of commodified femininity highlights how attention and distraction are intertwined in modern society, as depicted in paintings like Manet's The Balcony.

What gives rise to fetishistic fixation and how does it manifest

visually? (Crary)

Fetishistic fixation arises from the belief that objects possess magical powers or symbolic significance, often fueled by commodity fetishism seen in advertisements. This fixation manifests visually through the portrayal of objects as symbols of desire, such as in Max Klinger's glove cycle where gloves symbolize female allure. Commodified femininity further reinforces this by turning women into mass-produced commodities, naturalizing femininity as objects of exchange and desire. In paintings like those by Manet and Klinger, everyday objects like umbrellas or gloves take on deeper symbolic meanings beyond their physical attributes.

What does Crary argue Manet was hoping to achieve through his paintings The Balcony and In the Conservatory?

Crary argues that Edouard Manet aimed to depict themes of disconnect, subtle satire, and the impact of modernity on perception and relationships in his paintings "The Balcony" and "In the Conservatory". In "The Balcony", Manet portrays individuals absorbed in their own thoughts, disconnected from each other, reflecting the isolation and ambiguity of modern life. Meanwhile, "In the Conservatory" delves into the complexities of modern relationships and the commodification of personal identity, critiquing how social constraints shape human emotions and desires.

How does Eadweard Muybridge's chronophotography mark a

shift in modes of perception? What now becomes possible in terms of bodies, images, and labor? (Crary)

Muybridge's chronophotography changed how we see motion by breaking it down into separate frames. This allowed for a more systematic understanding of movement, challenging the idea of the body's unity and grace. With the zoopraxiscope, motion could be reassembled, paving the way for cinema. This also impacted labor, as photography could identify inefficiencies in workers' motions, affecting how work was organized and executed.

How did Muybridge and Stanford attempt to reconcile the speed of

the racehorse with the stillness of the photograph? (Solnit)

Muybridge and Stanford aimed to capture the speed of the racehorse using the speed of technological advancements in photography. They used a series of cameras with fast shutters and photochemistry innovations to achieve quick exposure. By setting up a sequence of 12 cameras, they captured images of the horse in motion, which were then combined to show the cycle of movement.

What role did aesthetic concerns play in Muybridge's California

motion studies? Was the use of grids driven by aesthetic,

scientific, or practical concerns? (Solnit)

Aesthetic concerns played a significant role in Muybridge's California motion studies, alongside scientific ones. While his primary goal was to scientifically capture and analyze motion, he also paid careful attention to detail and composition in each frame, resulting in visually compelling images. The use of grids was primarily driven by scientific concerns, providing a measurable backdrop for analyzing movement. However, there may have been some aesthetic considerations as well, as the grids allowed for precise measurement and contributed to the orderly and coherent presentation of his studies.

Why did Muybridge's motion studies provoke a "crisis of

representation?" (Solnit)

Muybridge's motion studies triggered a "crisis of representation" because they challenged established artistic and scientific norms. His high-speed photography revealed details of movement that were previously invisible to the naked eye, leading to questions about what constituted true representation. This challenged long-held assumptions about how movement and reality could be depicted. Additionally, his studies provided insights that called into question existing scientific theories and observations, leading to a reevaluation of previous understandings. Overall, Muybridge's technological innovations prompted a reconsideration of the nature of representation and the tools used to understand the world.