nf0096: so you know this is the last lecture of this unit er and i really hope 
you will enjoy the other modules and you know that er [0.4] whenever there's a 
problem with a particular module and you feel you can [0.2] clarify [0.2] the 
problem [0.2] with the the the the tutor the c-, your course tutor [0.2] then 
do so if there's a more [0.2] fundamental problem or you feel you can't go to 
the course tutor [0.3] please by all means come [0.3] always come back to me i 
need to know if there's a problem [0.5] so don't have any inhibition [0.3] come 
and see me [0.5] my office hours shall be from [0.4] ten till eleven on 
Wednesdays [0.2] from this week onwards [1.0] so [0.3] the last lecture [1.0] 
let me [0.3] briefly review where we've come from so far [1.1] if you remember 
in the first lecture i looked at one artist [0.2] Turner [0.6] and [0.2] tried 
to sort of run the gamut of all the different approaches really to show you [0.
6] how different meaning can look [0.2] from [0.2] you know whatever angle you 
approach the work of art [0.3] so i really tried to show you [0.4] the 
differences of of of meaning 
you generate by just simply the way you approach a work of art [0.6] and then 
[0.7] in the last two weeks [0.3] i gave you an account of [0.3] art histories 
[0.2] from the nineteenth century to the twentieth century really and the early 
twentieth century [0.4] all of which in one way or another [0.4] tried to [0.7] 
give a causal account of er why an artwork looks the way it does [0.3] a causal 
account which at once [0.3] is specific to the historic time in which the 
artwork is generated [0.3] as well as being superhistorical so that this cause 
is also something which determines the way we perceive the world nowadays or 
the way [0.3] artworks are produced nowadays [0.3] because only when you have 
that super-, [0.2] aca-, [0.2] emphasizing that superhistorical point of view 
[0.4] did you really have a means of assessing the work of art in the past you 
had a connection to the past a legitimate connection [0.7] now [0.7] for [0.2] 
Hegel that was the world spirit for [0.3] Wölfflin and Riegl it was the 
evolution of human perception [0.4] then for [0.2] Panofsky and 
and iconography [0.2] it was [0.5] the way that thoughts throughout human 
societies always try to conceptualize the world [0.2] the sort of constant [0.
5] which [0.2] which er Panofsky saw as something which constantly stayed in 
societies [0.4] and then [0.2] with Marx it was [0.2] the way that the means of 
production [0.2] differently structured the economic societies [0.4] and it was 
always the means of production which and and the way they were distributed 
which changed over time but stayed [0.3] you know that [0.3] as a sort of 
economic base state stable [1.5] so all of these accounts [0.3] gave this you 
know [0.2] gave you in the proper sense an art history one which you could 
write but you which you could write throughout the ages [0.3] when i came then 
to weaker form of Marxist analysis to social history and to feminism [0.4] i 
said [0.3] that they really don't have that any more [0.3] they can give you a 
specific account of a w-, [0.2] a work of art in its historic [0.2] time [0.6] 
from a critical viewpoint but they don't claim that they have this sort of 
superhistorical cause 
or have discovered that superhistorical cause [0.4] which gives you continuity 
throughout the ages [0.5] now that's for a variety of reason i mean for various 
of reasons [0.3] particularly Hegel and Panofsky's [0.2] way of explaining it 
[0.4] had just become [0.8] quite suspiciously metaphysical and nobody can 
really hold to that nowadays [0.4] now [0.3] Wölfflin and Riegl's account of 
the evolution of human perception [0.2] is just simply not borne out by 
psychology so people don't really believe that into in that any more [0.6] and 
also [0.2] of course [0.2] they felt it was just too reductive it was just 
giving an account of the formal changes rather than the content [0.9] and [0.3] 
with Marxist of course that you know all yourself i mean people can't really 
quite believe in the Marxist trajectory any more after the wall came down in [0.
3] in in Germany and Berlin in eighty-nine [0.3] because this trajectory of the 
an evolution from er a capitalist society to communism [0.3] was just simply 
not borne out [0.7] so [0.2] for var-, variet-, various [0.2] 
reasons art historians nowadays feel very suspicious of these sort of 
superhistorical causes and this endeavour to give an account there [0.6] and 
they have [0.2] resigned themselves to give quite a specific account of an 
artwork in its specific toci-, society [0.3] from [0.2] er a critical viewpoint 
formulated nowadays [1.5] and of course [0.8] that [0.2] aspect that they embed 
the artwork deeply in its society is really what all those accounts all these 
contemporary approaches [0.3] which i started with last week and i will 
continue today [0.3] really share [0.9] but [0.3] of course what does it mean 
it means that there's a multiplicity of viewpoints possible because of course 
if you say well [0.3] we don't really have a authoritative viewpoint any more 
[0.3] then you have a variety of approaches which are possible [0.4] but [1.1] 
any single one of them is really rid of authoritative conviction [0.2] so you 
have this multiplicity of legitimate approaches coexisting next [0.2] to each 
other [0.5] but not [0.2] one single one which can really claim 
it is the one and exhaustive explanation [1.0] that i think you have to bear in 
mind when you [0.3] continue in this course [0.9] you really again and i come 
back to that [0.2] are left to choose what you feel is the most plausible to 
yourself bearing in mind this is the most plausible to you and it could be [0.
2] something else could be entirely plausible to someone else [0.4] and you can 
[0.2] really construct the history of art [0.3] from your own viewpoint from 
your own interests [0.2] from your own approach [0.3] but really can't [0.2] go 
as far as claim that that is really the exhaustive explanation and you have an 
authoritative account [0.4] and can really indeed give [0.2] an authoritative 
survey course on the history of art 
nf0096: today i will talk about cos-, [0.2] post-colonial approaches [0.4] 
semiotics [0.3] and [0.7] finish with the psychoanalytic approach [1.2] it's 
obvious let me start with the post-colonial [0.2] account [0.3] it's obvious 
there's [0.4] that a post-colonial account [0.5] is er asking [0.2] er or is er 
er considers the outward is deeply embedded 
and deeply imbricated by what's going on in society [0.5] and particularly a 
post-colonialist [0.2] er or someone who m-, er adheres to that [0.6] discourse 
er [0.7] would ask [0.3] what does it mean for works of art that societ-, 
western European societies in particular or western societies [0.3] have 
continued to [0.7] absorb and dominate other non-western societies non-European 
societies [0.9] but [0.2] post-colonial discourse also means that it's not just 
a recuperation into the canon of er er recuperation of non-western European 
societies' artefacts into the canon of art [0.5] but it also [0.3] tries to 
critically inflect [0.6] what it means to have this canon what it means to [0.
5] to to m-, to be [0.4] er [0.6] faced with a with a domination by western 
societies [2.8] it really [0.3] post-colonial [0.6] approaches in the history 
of art really took off with two exhibitions in the eighties [1.3] one [0.2] was 
staged [0.4] in the mu-, in the Museum of Modern Art in New York in eighti-, in 
nineteen-eighty-four [0.9] and what people tried there what set out to do there 
was to show 
that far from [1.0] er [0.2] sh-, er from completely developing without any 
contact with other societies [0.2] western art was deeply influenced by [0.2] 
what happened what what was produced in other societies and other cultures non-
western cultures [0.6] so in the wake of [0.3] nineteenth century colonialism 
artefacts from [0.8] all over the world and other cultures reached the western 
museums and of course as you know from the seminars already was studied [0.2] 
by artists in particularly [0.7] by Picasso as we've seen in the seminars [0.5] 
i'm [0.2] quite surprised yes here o-, obviously [0.5] did it wrongly [0.3] 
here i show you [0.2] which you probably all recognize by now as a [0.4] as a 
[0.2] as a [0.3] as a picture very closely related to the Demoiselles d'Avignon 
[0.3] then he also produced the two [0.2] females nudes were p-, produced in 
nineteen-o-six [0.4] now you can see that [0.3] Picasso here has [0.2] taken or 
is influenced by the mask which he saw the Iberian mask in particular he saw [0.
4] in [0.2] the museums in in Paris [0.2] so you have this almond the almond-
shaped eyes the dark contours [0.6] and [0.2] it's sort of propped 
onto those female nudes what he also has taken and this is what the exhibition 
catalogue in the MOMA emphasized [0.4] that [0.4] what he'd taken from the 
artefacts of other societies and other cultures particularly African and 
Iberian cultures [0.3] was that er [0.5] er that [0.3] fragmentation of forms 
[0.4] so forms didn't have to f-, to like [0.2] the breast of the right nude 
for example is sort of propped on rather than in a sort of continuous [0.3] 
plausible three-dimensional space of a female body [0.6] so [0.2] they really 
argued that [0.3] what made Picasso such a hero in contemporary er in in 
twentieth century art the shattering of the three-dimensional in-, 
illusionistic er picture space [0.3] was really something which he took [0.5] 
from [0.4] other cultures from non-western cultures [0.6] and learned from them 
[2.0] but soon [0.2] after the exhibition opened and this characteristically 
voluminous catalogue was issued [0.3] this exhibition came under heavy 
criticism from people who were influenced by [0.3] post-colonial discussions [1.
2] they [1.2] accused the exhibition 
of simply contintinuing the exploitation of non-western cultures [0.5] in this 
case of simply continuing [0.3] an account which says [0.3] look [0.3] we're 
going and taking [0.3] the means and resources from other cultures [0.2] in 
order to advance our own aims [0.2] in this case twentieth century art history 
or the twentieth century art [0.3] the shattering of the picture space is 
something [0.3] which [0.2] has significantly happened in twentieth century art 
[0.3] but it is something [0.2] which is [0.6] on the ground on the base of er 
[0.3] artistic articulations in non-European cultures [0.4] so they say this is 
really just a continuation of colonization it doesn't give any of those 
cultures proper recognition [1.9] so another exhibition opened [0.7] five years 
later [0.2] in nineteen-eighty-nine in Paris [0.8] and that exhibition was 
called La Magicien De La Terre [0.4] the magicians of the earth and in this 
exhibition modern art was shown alongside contemporary achievements by other 
cultures non-western cultures [0.6] and the aim in this show was [0.2] to 
show [0.2] that such productions [0.4] were not simply a source [0.3] for 
western art as it had been in the primitivism [0.2] exhibition [0.3] but 
actually equalled [0.3] western art [0.4] in the in their achievements in the 
aesthetic beauty they could generate [1.0] now again this exhibition came under 
heavy fire and criticism [0.3] because [0.2] it was argued [0.3] that [0.2] not 
only [0.5] did this exhibition [0.4] show [0.3] the work [0.4] from other 
cultures completely disconnected from their contexts so [0.5] that 
decontextualization was heavily criticized [0.5] but [0.2] they furthermore 
said [0.2] these critics of this exhibition said [0.4] that [0.2] er [0.8] it 
is perceived [0.5] in in a mould [0.2] aesthetic beauty which is really very 
very intrinsic to western cultures and very very foreign to other cultures [0.
2] and therefore [0.2] it is another [0.2] sign of an appropriation [0.2] 
rather than a proper recognition [1.8] so [0.5] underlying all those criticisms 
[0.3] these [0.2] two two those exhibitions [0.2] was really [0.2] what is 
properly [0.2] a post-colonial approach [0.4] and that was influenced [0.2] by 
a rather wonderful book by the literary critic 
and Palestinian Palestinian Edward Said [0.3] called Orientalism [0.3] which 
came out actually [0.2] ten years ag-, er twenty years ago in nineteen-seventy-
eight [0.8] now Said [0.3] in this book Orientalism [0.5] has very forcefully 
[0.5] argued [0.2] that western societies [0.6] not only just exploited [0.3] 
others' other cultures [0.7] in their colonial strategies [0.3] but in fact [0.
8] fabricated those societies in their own image [0.8] other societies became 
and actually took on that character [0.4] simply by being characterized in 
opposition to western cultures [0.3] so whatever a western culture [0.2] isn't 
[0.4] er that other culture other cultures non-European cultures had to be [0.
3] so [0.2] for example [0.2] they were deemed to be m-, [0.4] much purer 
somehow much more essential [0.2] more related to nature [0.2] less rational [1.
2] much more emotional so you can see it's all constructed in oppositions that 
was Said's point [0.7] and he also argued [0.3] that [0.3] in fact because of 
the many many years of encounters [0.4] these societies then took on those 
characteristics were really shaped in those images [0.3] and we 
really do look in vain for [0.4] an essential more purer [0.3] more nature-
related society elsewhere [0.3] it is already our own construct [1.9] now [0.6] 
let me illustrate this by looking [0.4] at the work here [0.2] on your left [0.
7] which [1.0] was produced by [0.6] someone [0.5] called Jimmie Durham a 
contemporary artist [0.7] in when was it actually it's nineteen-eighty [2.3] i 
don't have the [0.5] date i think it's [0.4] something in th-, in the nineteen-
eighties i think it's something in the nineteen-eighties sorry i've forgotten 
the date of this [0.7] er [0.2] it's called [0.2] The Cathedral of Saint John 
[1.4] and i think if you look at it er er let me tell you about Jimmie Durham 
first a little bit Jimmie Durham is what we now would call a Native American 
artist i mean the they themselves at once stage called themselves the First 
Nation people [0.7] and Jimmie Durham also was [0.2] the representative for the 
First Nation people at the United sta-, er United Nations in Geneva for some 
time [0.5] so what is quite typical here is and it's no no accident that i take 
to 
illustrate that point [0.4] an artist a contemporary artist because 
contemporary artists and Jimmie Durham [0.2] is quite a typical example [0.3] 
were actually very heavily and much more at the forefront of [0.3] taking up 
and articulating [0.3] theoretical con-, and critical viewpoints in the 
eighties much more than any art critic or art historian [1.0] so you can see [0.
3] he [0.2] he was someone [0.3] who [0.4] also had a career as a politician 
apart from being [0.3] this incredibly famous now contemporary artist [0.5] and 
very articulate [0.2] on the reasons why he [0.2] produced a work of art in the 
way he did [1.2] however we look at it [0.4] at first hand it probably seems to 
you [0.4] or some of you quite raw quite unfinished sort of assembled rather [0.
4] dilettantish perhaps even [2.4] what we note is there's a skull [0.5] we see 
some sort of [0.3] f-, [0.6] material from [0.2] remains from animals the skull 
the antlers [0.9] and i think in the way that it is assembled we immediately 
might think of some sort of totemic figure [0.2] from non-European cultures [0.
3] perhaps also you know using a skull 
using animal remains [0.2] but also probably in the way [0.5] that it is 
painted in this rather [0.3] garish decorative [0.2] er way the skull is 
painted there's blue and then the sort of [0.3] points dots er of red and and 
yellow on top of it [0.7] and that is probably something we do er associate 
with [0.3] artefacts now manufactured by [0.4] er [0.2] say Native Americans [0.
2] for example [1.4] but [0.2] we also notice i think [0.2] that there are [0.
2] quite sort of [0.2] industrially [0.2] manufactured elements in this [0.4] 
in this sculpture [0.7] the the the the boot f-, [0.2] the m-, er the sawmill 
produced wood [0.3] which is [0.2] roughly bolted together [0.3] er [0.3] with 
with nails and big bolts at these places [0.2] and of course [0.3] the the the 
metal tubes which form a surrogate antler here [0.2] at the top [1.0] another 
industrial produced [0.2] material [0.4] and also [0.2] industrially 
manufactured in a way that it pu-, it is put together here [2.3] so what we 
really have with this sculpture [0.3] is [0.2] a number of oppositions [0.6] 
culture nature [0.6] savagery civilization [0.7] before after [0.9] the 
technical [0.2] the non-technical [0.9] now if you recall what 
i said before [0.3] about Edward Said and his account of colonization [0.5] you 
realize that these kind of oppositions is what he [0.4] criticized as the West 
doing when it encounters cultures which are foreign [1.1] to it or European [0.
3] societies did when they encountered those rather strange to them strange 
societies [0.4] in order to understand them [0.4] they had to shape them in 
their own image and they gave them [0.7] characteristics s-, which were in 
opposition [0.2] to what they were and what they understood [0.7] and so this 
is really played out here [0.2] all those oppositions brought together in one 
culture [1.0] er in one sculpture [0.3] now Jimmie Durham himself is [0.3] 
repeatedly emphasizes in his writings [0.4] that the ease [0.3] that there was 
an incredible ease with which Native Americans [0.2] assimilated and used all 
those [0.2] products and materials er [0.2] which [0.5] western societies 
brought to them when they colonized the country [0.2] America [0.8] so [0.2] he 
p-, he would make a point that if they came with rifles and they got hold of 
rifle rifles [0.3] 
these guns were immediately incorporated in the artefacts they er [0.3] they 
produced [0.4] without really you know obviously giving them their proper [0.2] 
use they were just incorporated in what was there [0.8] so that is the first 
point [0.4] er [0.3] which i want to [0.2] to make here that Jimmie Durham says 
er says [0.2] look [0.3] there is [0.3] there's an incredible ease with which 
our culture [0.2] Native Americans have always assimilated whatever was brought 
to them [0.6] and secondly he points out [0.3] that this thinking in opposition 
is quite foreign to his own culture [0.3] that in fact and probably that r-, [0.
3] might ring true to you that [0.4] there is a [0.2] er a that this is a [0.7] 
culture Native Americans have a culture [0.3] which is [0.9] much more 
characterized by blurred demarcations things are not as [0.2] hard and fast f-, 
are fastly fixed in oppositions [0.3] so for example [0.3] there isn't a strict 
demarcation between animals and humans [0.5] and this is also borne out in the 
sculpture [0.4] you see these animals remains the skull and the antler [0.2] 
but they 
are assembled in a [0.2] in a rather figurative way in a way that er resembles 
more an upright human [0.8] he also points out that there is no no clear [0.4] 
demarcation between [0.4] death and life [0.3] so the skull he uses here [0.3] 
is really a tribute to [0.3] death as it lives on in the presence [2.1] and on 
the basis of all that [0.3] we can probably also see that the [0.4] character 
of assemblage here the sort of raw unfinished state which might have looked or 
might look dilettantish to you [0.6] is something which [0.2] Jimmie Durham 
does quite consciously [0.4] in fact [0.3] he [0.2] he really does feel that 
the found object what he finds and assembles [0.2] needs to be left [0.4] in 
its own right [0.2] must not be homogenized in a sort of entity which loses [0.
2] where all the [0.2] individual elements [0.3] u-, loo-, use their lose their 
own characteristic [0.3] so he really does want an assemblage which looks [0.4] 
quite assembled and not really homogenized in a unified object [0.3] because he 
thinks [0.3] that would just simply [0.3] annihilate [0.3] the character of the 
er of all the individual elements 
in the way that the colonials annihilated the characteristics of the natives [0.
3] when they arrived in their country [0.7] or attempted to [2.6] furthermore 
actually Durham [0.3] turns the table on us and he says even our own culture is 
not as homogenous as we imagine it to be [0.2] as seamless [0.4] because [0.4] 
this odd title this sculpture has The Cathedral of Saint John the Divine [0.3] 
is actually a church in Manhattan some of you might know [0.3] and it is the 
biggest [0.6] and largest Gothic achie-, cathedral on Earth [0.3] except of 
course [0.2] that it is not a medieval [0.2] Gothic church [0.3] it is [0.2] it 
stems from the nineteenth century [0.4] and [1.1] Durham points out that the 
stonework which gives it the resemblance of the Gothic of er the Gothic style 
[0.2] is actually held together [0.3] with steel [0.3] which is now as you know 
it's e-, expanding with rust [0.3] and therefore eventually will destroy that 
[0.2] magnificent building [2.3] so [1.1] i think [0.2] the message here is [0.
4] that [0.5] Jimmie Durham says [0.2] there are differences [0.3] but [0.5] 
there is no essential [0.3] character to any one culture [0.2] every culture is 
a 
hybridity in one way or another [2.1] and this is i think very much [0.4] what 
the post-colonial discourse [0.5] in art history also tries to take on board 
and give account of [0.8] and this is also something [0.2] which the second 
approach today semiotics [0.4] is very clear about that there is actually [0.3] 
in this case behind language no essential reality [0.4] that language denotes 
nothing essential nothing [0.2] clear but is alwa-, what it denotes is already 
always a construct [0.5] of the context in which language is used 
nf0096: so i come to semiotics now [1.4] now of course the analysis of our 
means of communications as a system of science [0.3] is as old as western 
civilization as namex will tell you when it come when when you get to the forth 
module of this course [1.3] but [0.2] in the way that semioticians nowadays use 
[0.6] the the m-, the er the l-, the the language of science and the system of 
science [0.2] this really goes back to the twenties early twentieth century 
linguist Ferdinand Saussure who i've mentioned before [0.7] who stated [1.1] 
stated this analysis of 
science in in in terms which are still in use so for example he [0.2] argued [0.
3] that a word [0.2] is a signifier for something [1.4] and [0.2] he called the 
signified [0.3] which is already a mental concept and not a object out in er [0.
4] er in the world [0.2] something which the signifier refers to so there is 
the signifier and the signified you've heard this now before [0.3] and in the 
seminars as well [0.3] and the signified [0.5] that which is denoted by the 
signifier [0.6] is already a mental concept [1.2] and not an [0.2] objective 
world out there [2.6] and it is really only in the [0.7] in the [0.2] in the 
context of the whole sentence [0.2] of the [0.2] society [0.3] that language or 
words [0.2] take on their meaning [0.4] now [0.6] what does that mean for 
pictures [1.1] le-, [0.2] let's look at [2.1] this picture here [0.2] on your 
[0.9] on your right [0.2] this is on your right now yes [1.4] here's a still 
life by the seventeenth century artist Caravaggio [0.3] who worked in Rome in 
the seventeenth century [0.8] now [0.3] first we should note the signifiers 
what are the signifiers in this picture [0.5] now [0.2] strictly s-, 
speaking the signifiers in this picture [0.2] are the brushstrokes so we note 
[0.3] the sort of [0.3] rather luminous background in [0.2] pinkish this is 
actually a very pinkish slide it's not as pinkish as that er but er [0.4] a 
sort of greyish [0.7] rather luminous rather cloudy background [0.8] which at 
times those brushstroke condemns to some sort of figurative [0.5] assemblage in 
the foreground [0.4] which yet is very pushed [0.3] into the two-dimensional 
realm or or really kept or held back i should better say in the two-dimensional 
realm [0.3] it seems as if it n-, [0.7] it's articulated into some three-
dimensional object but if you look very clearly it's not very clear [0.4] how 
this object or these sorts of condensation of brushstrokes [0.4] really [1.2] 
take place in a three-dimensional picture space [1.1] now these brushstroke and 
i've tried really hard to limit myself to just talking about brushstrokes here 
because [0.3] only those are the signifiers [0.4] these brushstroke [0.3] then 
[0.2] take on some meaning for us or we might associate them 
with [0.4] fruit [0.9] vegetables you know ju-, i think it's just fruit and a 
basket on a table [1.0] and this is the signified [0.4] the fruit [0.2] we we 
associate with those brushstrokes the concept of fruit [0.7] and basket [1.5] 
now there is another semiotician called [0.4] Charles Peirce [0.5] who called 
[0.2] the signified what Saussure called the signified [0.3] an icon and that's 
been taken on by art historians quite quite rapidly the the the word icon [0.3] 
because what Peirce said [0.4] that the icon or the signified [0.3] can have [0.
2] various relations [0.2] with [0.3] a known world various relations of 
resemblance with a [0.2] with a known world [0.3] so in this case there's a 
very close resemblance [0.3] with [0.2] the concept we have of fruit and basket 
[0.4] because [0.3] you know we we seem to see a fruit and a basket and it 
seems to be very close to fruits and baskets in our knowledge [0.6] but there's 
also a further dime-, it can the icon can a-, [0.2] also be [0.3] quite er far 
removed from what we know in the objective world [0.3] and take on much more 
abstract thoughts [0.5] and that's actually [0.5] present 
in this picture as well you might not have thought [0.3] but if you look very 
closely [0.3] and now i'm afraid i have to go here [0.6] you can see that the 
[0.4] the apple is worm-eaten [0.2] that [0.6] the [0.2] the leaves wilt [0.7] 
and [0.2] on the knowledge of er with the knowledge of seventeenth century 
thought [0.5] we [0.3] know that this is that actually denotes quite an 
abstract thought [0.7] I-E it denotes [0.3] a memento mori a vanitas symbol [0.
5] what it means is that [0.3] even in the midst of beauty there's death [0.3] 
we all will decay [0.3] the vanitas symbol [0.6] a memento mori [0.4] so this 
is actually in this picture [0.7] the signified [0.7] also i-, er e-, m-, er it 
denotes two things one which is very closely related to [0.2] what we think is 
the objective world [0.4] and one which is [0.3] a bit more removed from that 
[0.2] and takes on abstract thoughts [1.2] so that is [0.2] fu-, er fundamental 
semiotic analysis of a picture [3.3] now [0.2] you find semioticians like 
Rosalind Krauss [0.5] in one of the seminar texts who we've encountered [0.2] 
one seminar hasn't quite encountered it yet [0.4] who concentrate [0.3] on 
how this meaning is constituted within the language of the individual picture 
[0.8] like Saussure really who says [0.9] meaning is only constituted by the 
syntax by the individual sentence in which a word is found [0.5] and the 
sentence in this case is the entire picture so [0.6] Rosalind Krauss if she 
looked at this picture [0.3] would point out [0.3] how much actually it is a 
two-dimensional construct it [0.3] er Caravaggio doesn't actually give us the 
basket very firmly placed on a three-dimensional [0.2] table in a three-
dimensional room [0.3] it really is very oddly pressed into two dimensions [0.
6] and she would [0.4] take [0.2] and di-, discuss that [0.3] as then 
constructing the meaning which of course in the end would come close to the 
meaning i've just discussed [0.2] the meaning of [0.4] you know that he 
obviously wants to not just show us a beautiful arrangement of fruits in a 
basket [0.3] but generate some further meaning [0.8] that of the memento mori 
[0.9] there is death in the midst of beauty [2.0] however va-, [0.2] after the 
Second World War another 
analysis of language [0.5] rapidly spread through Anglo-American world [0.3] 
and that was one [0.3] which came from the philosopher the Viennese philosopher 
who emigrated to England er [0.2] Ludwig Wittgenstein [0.6] now [0.2] 
Wittgenstein's philosophy of language [0.2] emphasized the context the social 
context in which language emerged [1.1] now he [0.2] held that language emerges 
within and transforms our social [0.2] transactions [0.2] its contents is not 
some fixed state of affairs in the world [0.4] but that state of affairs [0.4] 
is permanated permeated by the life of speech by the way and the context it 
which we utter something [2.7] now by analogy art might be seen [0.2] as both 
to emerge [0.2] out of the context of social activity [0.6] as well as being 
irreducible to it and that is [0.3] the [0.2] really really important 
characteristic er of semioticians why they are so keen on what they are doing 
because they say [0.3] what they do is [0.2] different from a social historian 
or art historian [0.4] because [0.3] a social er they criticize social art 
historians as reducing a work 
of art as simply reflecting the states of affair in society [0.4] while a 
semiotician [0.5] claims to pay close attention [0.2] to the irreducible nature 
of a work of art there is something very specific in a work of art as it comes 
together [0.3] and a semiotician [0.2] and that's characteristic of semiotics 
is that it tries to [0.7] keep the balance between [0.3] the reference to the 
social society and the context on the one hand [0.4] and [1.0] the artwork and 
the nature of the artwork [0.3] as quite a [0.4] in quite an quite a 
characteristic being on the other [2.6] really the best known [1.0] advocate of 
this kind of art history the semiotic approach in art history [0.4] is someone 
called Norman Bryson [0.7] B-R-Y- [0.3] S-O-N [0.4] B-R-Y- [0.2] S-O-N so [0.2] 
i'll just give you that name because you will find that [0.5] that person in 
Preziozi's collection of essays for example [2.0] now [0.4] let me look at an 
analysis of a painting by Bryson and i will quote Bryson here but i have to [0.
3] give you a little bit more background before i can just [1.1] launch into 
this [0.9] into this quote from him [1.4] 
and i give you two pictures [0.6] Bryson is really in what i am going to quote 
to you now [0.2] is really talking about this picture [0.2] which is called the 
Gilles and is in the Louvre [0.5] but he also refers to a figure [0.4] which 
you will find in this picture [0.2] by the same artist which is this figure and 
you will see it when i talk about it er [0.2] so he amalgamates er various 
pictures by Watteau [0.3] but really only talks [0.3] and elicits the meaning 
of this one here [1.5] another point [0.3] in order to understand that quote is 
[0.2] that he alludes to something called the fête champêtre and that came up 
in the seminar yesterday [0.3] and that's really a tradition which goes back to 
Titian but really [0.3] became very [0.2] very alive with Watteau in the 
eighteenth century er oh sorry i've given you the name of the artist now i'll 
come back to that but with this artist [0.3] in the eighteenth century in 
France this is an eighteenth century French artist [0.8] who placed er [0.3] 
aristocratic people parties [0.4] in nature [0.3] and the point 
here was that [0.5] that gathering that aristocratic na-, er gathering is as 
natural [0.2] as nature itself [0.2] in fact the nature though he places these 
people in were highly [0.2] highly cultivated [0.2] but still [0.6] nature 
functions as a backdrop [0.2] for these fêtes champêtres [0.2] the party in 
the countryside that means er [0.3] as a sort of [0.3] naturalizing element 
which naturalizes the coming-together [0.8] right we've got that so [0.4] let 
me l-, [0.5] well first tell you [0.7] about the artist [0.5] who Bryson is 
talking about [0.6] that is Jean-Antoine Watteau an eighteenth century French 
artist [2.2] Bryson says [0.8] in Watteau [0.3] a whole narrative structure [0.
2] insists on meaning [0.8] but at the same time [0.6] withholds or avoids 
meaning [0.7] let us take the example of this characteristic theatrical costume 
[0.8] in the theatre [0.4] such clothing is part of a general system of 
conventionalized costumes [0.4] with exact dramatic and signalling functions [0.
9] the diamond-patterned costume [0.4] signals Arlecchino [0.7] that's here [0.
3] on [0.2] on the on the right [0.6] the baggy [0.3] white [0.2] ruffed 
costume [0.3] 
signals Pedrolino or Gilles [0.5] here on the left [0.4] the black cap and gown 
[0.2] signals doctor [1.9] but outside the frame of the stage in a fête 
champêtre [0.3] such signalling costumes lose their semantic charge [0.2] and 
having lost that the original meani-, meaningfulness [0.6] take on all the 
sadness of the depleted sign [1.9] a sign [0.2] that insists on a signified 
which is absent [0.4] disconnected [0.2] from the present signifier [0.3] at 
the same time [0.3] that sign [0.2] makes the claim for a powerful and 
attractive [0.2] signified [0.6] in this case [0.2] melancholy [0.6] that is 
nowhere stated in the pain-, [0.2] painterly signifier explicitly [1.1] so 
what's he saying here [0.3] he's really saying [0.3] that Bryson that is that 
the meaning of the figures in the picture [0.2] is at once dependent on the 
original context the theatre [0.4] yet [0.4] it's not [0.2] like Wittgenstein's 
Life of Speech reducible to it [0.8] but constitutes something other as well [0.
3] and particularly because it is depleted of that meaning in the theatre it 
takes on another meaning in this [0.3] in this picture [0.2] in 
this case [0.3] the melancholy melancholy of this picture [5.4] now here [0.6] 
like in all other contemporary approaches i think it is which i've discussed so 
far and [0.2] will continue to discuss here [0.3] the specific social context 
of a work of art is crucial as you can see [0.2] Bryson needs to know about the 
conventions of these figures in the theatre [1.4] the comedians in the theatre 
[0.2] and he needs to know about Watteau so he needs to know about the social 
context so that is the same [0.6] as in all other [0.2] approaches [2.0] this 
is also the case and that's perhaps more surprising in the last [0.2] approach 
i will come to today the psychoanalytical approach [0.7] although here the 
larger context [0.5] becomes the psychological development [0.3] common or 
assumed to be common to all human beings [1.1] so again [0.5] because of 
psychoanalysis broader claims for unveiling general human psychological 
configurations [0.3] we do not stand still with [0.2] an interpretation of an 
individual artist [0.5] and his or her work [0.7] although tha-, [0.2] 
that [0.2] would always be the starting point [0.4] but we are also drawn into 
[0.3] how [0.4] this work is conditioned by society in fact how the 
individual's [0.3] psychological make-up [0.3] is actually conditioned by 
society 
nf0096: i've very briefly looked [0.5] at [1.2] no [1.3] at this picture [0.6] 
last week [0.3] you remember [0.3] Renoir's the impressionist Renoir's La Loge 
[0.2] of eighteen-seventy-four [1.0] now let me here now recast that analysis 
which i i brought it up in discussion of feminist approaches you know the [0.2] 
the men are the painters the women are the objects in painting [0.4] now let me 
recast this here [0.3] in a psychoanalytical [0.2] in psychoanalytical terms 
and see what [0.2] what that will generate for this picture [0.6] but in order 
to do so i have to tell you a little bit more [0.6] about [0.2] Sigmund Freud 
[0.3] who i mentioned in connection with Turner [0.6] now Sigmund Freud [0.4] 
the psychoanalyst well doctor in Vienna at the turn of the century [1.7] 
advanced a theory [0.3] of [0.2] castration anxiety which really lies at the 
heart of psychoanalytical [0.5] approaches to the history of art [1.0] now 
that theory states that [0.2] the infant male the infant boy experiences an 
uninhibited pleas-, er pleasure in his relationship with his mother's body [0.
8] until the stage [0.2] when he realizes [0.3] that he's actually in 
competition for it [0.2] with his father [0.8] now in particular [0.4] the male 
infant [0.2] fears that his father will deprive him [0.2] of the penis [0.3] 
that gives him so much pleasure [1.4] now a thought which is actually confirmed 
according to psychoanalysis in the infant's m-, [0.2] imagination [0.3] by the 
appearance of his mother's genitatalia [0.3] which look to him like a castrated 
version of his own [2.1] what is more the the father appears to be such a 
powerful figure [0.8] obviously with a much more developed penis [0.4] that the 
infant simply [0.2] according to psychoanalysis [0.5] sacrifices [0.8] his own 
penis [0.8] er as a source of pleasure [0.3] and tries to found his identity on 
[0.2] a substitute for that on some kind of what then psychoanalysis calls a 
phallus [0.7] that has come an-, up in the seminars as well so the phallus is 
distinct from the 
penis [0.3] it really is [0.3] the object which the infant tries to concentrate 
on [0.3] an object which is completely [0.3] unviolatable which can't be 
reached by [0.4] by [0.2] by by the threat of the father can't be reached [0.5] 
by any [0.4] any violation from the father [0.6] now [0.2] asserting identity 
and identifying this phallus can take various forms and a n-, [0.2] number of i-
, n-, [0.4] er of objects [0.5] but its importance lies in it ability to have a 
symbolic value [0.2] as something [0.3] that stands for presence [0.3] like [0.
3] the penis and the pleasure the preni-, the penis generated was present and 
[0.3] and just there [0.6] as well as [0.4] power [0.3] something which can't 
be hurt can't be taken away by someone else [2.3] so really all that the male's 
physical otherness from the female first signified [0.2] that had to be [0.2] 
this phallus [0.6] this is often why people or psychoanalysts explain why 
babies or infants actually toddlers i should say [0.2] acquire language [0.2] 
because that language actually stems [0.6] has this kind of symbolic value it 
is present and it has power and the father uses 
it powerfully [0.3] so [0.3] it's often explained that [0.3] children try to 
identify the with er with that and and take that on as a substitute [0.3] for 
hi-, for [0.2] for [0.3] their own former pleasure [0.2] with er with the 
female body and [0.5] their own [0.5] actual physical penis [1.1] now what does 
that mean [0.2] what what consequence [0.2] does that have for this image here 
[0.7] now simple argument would simply state [0.5] that [0.8] in all men 
there's a residual fear of castration [0.7] and that was also there in Renoir 
when he painted this painting [0.6] and renoi-, Renoir's [0.6] and it inclined 
Renior n-, Renior to [0.3] find er [0.3] to find ways of deferring recognition 
[0.5] that the female body is in fact a body castrated [1.4] and therefore he 
painted [0.2] this [0.2] rather fetishized female number of them female bodies 
[0.3] as a sort of [0.2] perfect image something which can't be hurt something 
which isn't [0.7] characterized by a lack [0.4] or by something [0.2] you know 
missing [0.7] and er in this [0.2] c-, sense you know in this psychoanalytical 
sense in fact the female body becomes a phallus [0.2] a s-, penis 
substitute something which stands for power something s-, which stands for [0.
3] perfect [0.6] unadulterated presence [0.7] and of course [0.2] it is v-, [0.
2] and of course in this image [0.3] and this is where [0.2] feminists have [0.
3] leaped into this [0.3] the eroticized major still hangs on in all f-, [0.3] 
all penis substitutes and all phalli according to psychoanalysis [0.5] the that 
pleasure that initial pleasure the infant [0.2] experienced [0.2] that still 
lingers on [0.3] and so [0.2] the female body is [0.2] eroticized on one hand 
it still has that it still stands in for the original penis which gave so much 
pleasure [0.4] but of course it must never this woman must never become real 
she m-, she has to [0.3] remain a figment of [0.4] the m-, the male artist's 
imagination [0.2] because as soon as she were to become real [0.4] er the lack 
[0.5] would become apparent again [1.7] the lack the non-perfectness [0.3] of 
women [1.4] so [1.2] this is [0.4] i think the vu-, er a ru-, rudimentary 
account of psychoanalysis which really underli-, er underlies all 
psychoanalytic accounts [0.6] and you can 
see [0.2] very clearly [0.3] in this account [0.8] which is my last point here 
[0.2] in with regard to approaches today er [0.7] psychoanalytic [0.3] approach 
[0.3] is of course very very conducive to feminist appropriation and this is 
something i didn't mention last week when i went [0.3] through all the 
different [0.3] er [0.2] ways that er all the different approaches which 
feminism or feminists question in art history can take on [0.6] very often you 
do find feminist art history aligned with a psychoanalytic account [0.3] for 
the obvious reasons that it helps [0.3] feminists to explain why male artists 
have always depicted women in the way they have [2.5] indeed [0.4] mo-, just 
most of the contemporary approaches can appear in combination with one another 
and you've seen that in the seminars and in v-, variety of the texts there 
already [0.8] let me finish [0.3] today by going back to the start of this 
lecture series and [0.2] hopefully [0.2] wrapping this one up neatly in er as 
well [0.2] and this is by [0.8] going back to the blackboard [0.2] which i [0.
7] something i did earlier [0.5] [0.3] and i 
hope you can read it [0.5] and something you should [0.2] recognize [1.0] 
[laugh] you think i'm bombarding you with German here now [laughter] but no 
[laugh] [0.6] [laughter] we are here [laugh] [0.9] this blackboard do you 
recognize this this is [0.9] what [0.2] i wrote up at the end of the first 
lecture [0.3] all the different approaches i had gone through [0.2] in the 
course of discussing Turner [0.6] now [0.2] what i've produced here in my 
beautiful [0.2] designer [0.3] mode [laugh] very clearly laid out [0.4] i've [0.
5] taken them put them all down again and you can now recognize we had [0.4] we 
really [0.2] apart from the biographical approach i we i discussed all those 
approaches in the lectures [0.8] but [0.2] i drew a very firm line this time 
between [0.2] those first four [0.5] and [0.2] the last five [0.6] because [0.
3] as i said in the lectures and today again [0.4] all those last four [0.2] 
refuse to accept and really highly criticize those approaches [0.4] for just 
standing still there [0.2] what they really all all these want to show is that 
[0.4] an artwork [0.3] can't s-, you can't stand still with a connoisseurial 
approach you can't sell still with a biographical approach or a formalist 
approach [0.6] or indeed [0.2] iconography as such you really have to show how 
deeply embedded [0.2] the artwork [0.3] is in society [0.2] that comes here 
i'll read it to you in a second [0.4] and you have to investigate it [0.2] from 
a critical contemporary viewpoint [0.3] so what i've [0.3] written here i've 
made an arrow going up from all of these going up there [0.3] saying [0.3] they 
refuse to accept [0.3] that an analysis of work of art is exhausted by these [0.
6] yet and that is important i think it is fair to say that all of these still 
need those approaches somewhat as a base [0.3] you do need a proper [0.2] 
attribution to an artist or you n-, [0.3] in order to really discuss an artwork 
meaningfulness in its place in its society [0.4] you do need [0.3] to look [0.
2] at an artwork first of all the way that it is [0.3] painted the way or or 
sculpted or [0.2] produced [0.4] in order to really [0.3] understand its 
meaning so you do need some kind of formalist appreciation after all so [0.9] 
this is this sentence [0.2] 
they do yet [0.2] they do form these four approaches do form the base [0.2] for 
all of these [0.7] but [0.3] what these add is that art is [0.4] very very 
clearly embedded in social formations [0.3] and investigated from a compe-, 
contemporary critical viewpoint [1.1] now then [0.3] i have some very confusing 
arrows here [0.3] and they really show all the combinations possible that er in 
fact i started off when i thought about this [0.5] this [0.7] er this er [0.5] 
this [0.4] graphic [0.2] er [0.8] outline here [0.3] that in fact [0.9] all 
these four last four approaches really do depend i mean and they have to on 
some kind of social art history if they all adhere to the [0.3] er to to the 
belief that an artwork has [0.3] is something not divinely ordained on the 
world but [0.3] produced by soti-, societies [0.3] so really [0.2] social 
history of art not the Marxist one though because that as i said initially [0.
2] has become [0.3] somewhat [0.2] suspicious in its fundamental claims but 
social art history really feeds in all of these [0.3] and they can all feed 
into each other and form various and this is why it's sort of [0.3] then i went 
from this with arrows into 
all three [0.3] from this er so they're all connected with each other [1.0] but 
here at the very end and i think one can and and i have to be a bit more 
careful [0.2] i think it's fair to say [0.3] that a psychoanalytical approach 
[0.2] would always have a h-, have a special affinity with a biographical 
approach you do need to if you start from the individual [0.4] and [0.2] his or 
her make-up you do need to have some kind of knowledge of the [0.3] of the not 
always as my analysis of Renoir showed you can do without it if you take it in 
very general terms [0.3] but [0.3] i think it's fair to say that they [0.4] 
there is a special affinity to the biographical approach [0.6] and i also think 
that there is a special affinity [0.2] between the semiotic approach [0.2] and 
formalists er the formalist approach we saw it with ro-, Rosalind Krauss [1.1] 
but if you read Norman Bryson you can see that he places a heavy heavy [0.4] 
emphasis [0.2] on the way that the artwork is produced and i said it in the 
lecture a little earlier [0.3] that what is specific about a semiotic 
approach is [0.3] that it not only shows that the artwork is part of a context 
[0.3] but also tries to account [0.2] for what is really non-reducibly arty 
about an artwork [0.4] so [0.2] and that's where the formalist [0.6] sympathy 
comes in [0.9] there's and you will see this but this will now complicate it a 
little bit more but you will see it with namex [0.2] there's also a special 
affinity [0.5] if if you don't have the special af-, a-, a-, affinity with a 
formalist approach [0.3] then you might have a [0.2] special affinity [0.3] 
with [0.2] the iconographical approach and i believe that namex in his [0.4] 
module [0.3] will take iconography [0.5] in a m-, non in a in a sort of 
modified non-Panofsky sense [0.4] and er introduce you er talk about that again 
and the semiotic approach together [1.1] so there are various special 
affinities [0.4] but i hope [0.3] that sort of [0.2] neatly wraps it up and 
recalls certain things and brings it together [0.9] and i'm [0.2] actually for 
once today [0.3] we'll finish in time [0.3] but let me just say [0.2] er [0.2] 
that i've [0.4] you know having come to the end now [0.6] that [0.4] none of 
the 
contemporary approaches has a clear sense and repeat this again of the 
underlying mechanisms [0.4] which connect us with the past [0.3] and [0.4] is 
at the same time er [0.3] working historically specific to that age or context 
or artwork under in dev-, investigation [0.5] thus [0.2] all of them are unable 
to give you a clear authoritative [0.2] account of the art of the past [0.6] 
and how it developed over time [1.8] now it is however possible to give an 
account from a particular viewpoint [0.3] be it social history feminism 
semiotics or indeed reception theory and all of that of course you will get 
over the next four modules in this course [0.7] but of course you also will [0.
3] get a much much deeper [0.2] knowledge of individual periods [0.3] than i've 
[0.3] produced here [0.2] and of course you probably noticed and i greatly [0.
2] relish this that i that my account or my use of [0.3] works of art in these 
lectures have really stretched right across the civilizations from [0.3] 
Egyptian artworks [0.3] to [0.2] a very contemporary [0.4] very up to date 
contemporary artist 
Jimmie Durham [0.2] so if you really think about it you almost had an artwork 
from [0.2] almost any very well known period of the of the history of art so we 
had Egyptian [0.4] er we had classic Greek [0.3] we had late Roman empire [0.7] 
i referred to medieval cathedrals when i discussed Hegel [0.3] then we went to 
the Renaissance with Martène [0.3] Rubens and Rembrandt again when i [0.3] 
discussed Wölfflin [0.9] again the Baroque with Caravaggio here [0.7] the 
eighteenth century is there with Watteau [0.2] the nineteenth century is there 
with the with the Impressionists Monet Renoir the twentieth century with 
Picasso [0.3] and er [0.3] and the late twentieth century we're nearly [0.3] 
out of it the late twentieth century we're nearly in the twenty-first century 
[0.2] that's Jimmie Durham [0.5] now [0.4] this is something very unusual i 
must admit that i really really [0.2] er it's very rare that one gets an 
opportunity in a lecture to have that wide a range and [0.3] oh i've forgotten 
there was Dürer as well so German Renaissance you had [0.2] a bit more of the 
Renaissance [0.4] and i enjoyed it but i hope [0.5] it will make more sense to 
you [0.3] when you do study [0.6] particular periods from a particular angle at 
more depth in the next module so i hope you enjoy it