Essay Draft: VISUAL THINKING MEETS QUEER THEORY

With regard to my work I usually like to claim that an image is more than just an image but it shapes our understanding of the world. Especially images of naked bodies reflect and influence the way we think about sexuality and gender which are topics that I deal with in my work. I’ve always placed importance on the viewer and his/her viewing position. I think the viewer is the active part of giving meaning to an image and I see subversive potential in this concept. The idea of perception as an active performance is a central theme in the book Visual Thinking by Rudolf Arnheim. I find it very interesting because he approaches this idea from an angle of art psychology. With my text Visual Thinking meets Queer Theory I would like to make a connection between Rudolf Arnheim's point of view and how it can connect to a queer viewing practice. I like to refer to Queer Theory to in my artistic practice therefore I also would like to reflect on my work in connection to the texts discussed.

Rudolf Arnheim was a German born art theorist and perceptional psychologist who used science to understand art. His book Visual Thinking from 1969 deals with the sense of sight and is grounded on his earlier works "Art and visual perception" and "Toward a psychology of art" which deal with the psychology of perception. In his eyes the great virtue of vision is that it is not only a highly articulate medium, but that its universe offers inexhaustibly rich information about the objects and events of the outer world. Therefore he considers vision as the primary medium of thought. (Arnheim)

In the preface of Visual Thinking Arnheim describes visual perception as a cognitive activity. He states that artistic activity is a form of reasoning and that perceiving and thinking are indivisibly intertwined (one could say that artists think with their senses). Arnheim quotes a review that points out that the way our senses understand the environment is the same as the operations of thinking. Arnheim claims that real productive thinking takes place in the realm of imagery. According to him a problematic split has taken place between the senses and thoughts a long time ago and still exists today. "Sensory perception and reasoning were established as antagonists, in need of each other but different from each other in principle." (Arnheim)

In the first chapter Arnheim states that in order to cope with the world, the mind has to fulfill two functions: gather information and process it. Whereas he thinks that the collaboration of thinking and perceiving is essential for cognition he says that popular philosophy insists on a division. Gathering data is recognised as the higher cognitive function whereas perceiving as the inferior one. According to him our whole educational system is based on that idea: young kids learn by seeing and shaping before they enter the educational system where education discriminates perception. "The arts are neglected because they are based on perception and perception is disdained because it's not assumed to involve thought." (Arnheim) In his view art is the most powerful means to strengthen perception (which in turn again is essential for productive thinking and our reasoning power).

Rudolf Arnheim argues that cognitive operations called thinking are not the privilege of mental processes beyond perception but the essential ingredients of perception itself. Operations such as active exploration, selection, grasping of essentials, simplification, abstraction, analysis and synthesis, completion correction, comparison, problem solving, combining, separating, putting in context is not a matter of mind but of how cognitive material is treated. There is no basic difference between looking at the world and thinking. By "cognitive" Arnheim means all mental operations involved in receiving, storing and processing information: sensory perception, memory, thinking and learning (in contrast to that, general psychology excluded activities of senses from cognition). His central claim is that visual perception equals visual thinking. Arnheim acknowledges the reasons for the distinction between seeing (the pure reflections of retina) and thinking and points out the difference between a passive reception and an active perceiving. According to him active perceiving is contained even in an elementary visual experience. As an example he asks "Is the raw image on the retina (sky, water, desk etc) the essence of perception?" And concludes "No! It's only the scene on which perception takes place. Through that world the glance roams, directed by attention, focusing the narrow range of sharpest vision now on this now on that spot." This active performance is what is truly meant by visual perception. (Arnheim)

FAZIT: What I find crucial about the idea of perception as an active performance is the fact that the viewer of an image becomes an important part of the art itself as it unfolds its meaning within the viewer. In cultural studies there is a similar idea called negotiated reading. I came across it when I was writing about the concept of the Queer Theory and it's visibility in the arts in Europe and the US of the 20th century. With regard to a queer content for example it states that it can only be as queer as the audience can decode it as queer. So the impact of an artwork depends on the previous knowledge, the viewing habits, expectations and also the desire and affect of its audience. The meaning of an artwork is not fixed but flexible. It's meaning originates through social agreements. In different social contexts some readings are more likely than others. In a society that ignores homosexuality for example, a photograph by Fred Holland Day showing a young naked boy lying in the sun will be reduced to the romantic depiction of idyllic nature and its homoerotic notion will be embezzled. Making all these decisions of what to focus on in the image, in what context to put it and judging it as an active performance just like Rudolf Arnheim describes it in his book.

As I like referring to Queer Theory and use the term Queer a lot, I would like to give a basic introduction of its concept and point out why I find it a helpful resource when it comes to looking at art.

Queer is a poststructuralist concept that emerged from gay and lesbian studies at the end of the eighties in the US. It understands heteronormativity and the binary structured separation of gender as mechanisms of suppression which not only organize forms of desire but also structure privileges granted to certain social institutions such as marriage, law and family. A central concern of Queer Theory is to separate sexuality from its assumed notion of naturalness and make it visible as a cultural product that is object to regulation by politics. Therefore Queer Theory likes to point out cracks in the supposedly stable relationship between sex, gender, desire and identity.

Another central aspect is the critique on identity politics. Queer Theory is against a way of thinking that defines characteristics and identities. As an example one could ask what's the similarity between a white lesbian who works as a manager and a black lesbian who works as a cleaning lady? Applying attributes to identities based on sexual orientation or gender or other categories are always misleading and create exclusions. So Queer does not equal being gay or lesbian but it's about a solidarity beyond this (self) categorizations.

In the 90ies the term Queer booms in the US and becomes a collective term for the LGBT community including people who don't identify with heteronormativity. From gays and lesbians who don't identify with the gay commercialized lifestyle to intersexual, pansexual, asexual, transsexual, BDSM but also heterosexual people who don't identify with the sexual norm. They all share the idea of a heteronormativity that's forced upon society and that oppresses a sexual diversity. Because the term Queer is not tied to a specific sexual orientation its use increases in the discussions about sexuality in the 90ies. Coiming from the established gay and lesbian studies Queer becomes a new concept that is significantly affected by feminist theories and gay and lesbian emancipation movements. Still the Queer Theory is not a closed model, it rather is a term that changes. Judith Butler warns to use Queer as a new identity category that can be adopted. It's not about defining the term as clear as possible but rather understanding it as a field of possibilities. What most Queer theorists share is the idea that Queer unfolds its potential in social and cultural practices - not on paper. Art is a major field of negotiating and transmitting queer content in different ways.

The thing is that queer content can only be as queer as the audience can decode it as queer. So the impact of an artwork depends on the previous knowledge, the viewing habits, expectations and also the desire and affect of its audience. The meaning of an artwork is not fixed (negotiated reading!!) but flexible (Bezug!!!). It's meaning originates through social agreements. In different social contexts some readings are more likely than others. In a society that ignores homosexuality for example, a photograph by Fred Holland Day showing a young naked boy lying in the sun will be reduced to the romantic depiction of idyllic nature and its homoerotic notion will be embezzled. Making all these decisions of what to focus on in the image, in what context to put it and judging it as an active performance.

So what could be a queer perspective on art besides the biography of the artists? I would argue that there are different ways of

QUEER READING OF IMAGES involves When I look at images I can't help asking myself who took it for whom and what the power constellation here. That makes the viewing an active experience.

Elisabeth Bronfen zufolge muss sich jedes Anschauen und Abbilden der weiblichen Gestalt unwillkürlich mit der traditionellen Ikonografie auseinandersetzen, es kann sie zitieren oder produktiv umwandeln aber nicht eine von den Konventionen des Sehens gelöste eigene Bildsprache entwerfen, dazu sind wir von dem Bildrepertoire zu geprägt. Judith Butler weist in ihrem Buch „Das Unbehagen der Geschlechter“ auf die politische Kraft hin, welche die parodistische Aneignung von kulturellen Vorgaben durch Künstler_innen haben kann.98 In den amerikanischen Kulturwissenschaften hat sich der Begriff des „negotiated reading“ entwickelt, der auf die Brüchigkeit im Verhältnis zwischen Bildbetrachtung, Faszination und Identifikation hinweist. Das heißt, es kann nicht von eindeutigen Bildinhalten ausgegangen werden wie beispielsweise dem, des weiblichen Körpers ausschließlich als Objekt des männlichen Blicks. Weder die Bedeutung von Darstellungen noch die Betrachterpositionen sind festgeschrieben, denn auch der Grad der Vereinnahmung der weiblichen Gestalt im Bild kann durch die Betrachter individuell ausgehandelt werden. Laut Elisabeth Bronfen ließe sich der weibliche Blick auf die Frau eher an der Frage festmachen, ob von Seiten der Fotografin oder der des Betrachtenden eine kritische Hinterfragung der konventionellen Bildformen

98 

gegeben ist. Es liegt bei dem/der Betrachtenden inwieweit sie oder er sich auf die Objektivierung des weiblichen Körpers einlässt oder sie als selbstreflexiven Gestus versteht. In erster Linie geht es um das Schulen einen kritischen Blicks, der den Betrachtenden in die Lage versetzt, zu entscheiden, was ein Bild bedeutet und wie es diese Bedeutung herstellt. Denn Menschen konsumieren Bilder unterschiedlich und Bilder können in dem/derselben Betrachter_in widersprüchliche Assoziationen hervorrufen, die immer wieder neu ausgehandelt werden können.99

Question: Shouldn't art always be queer?

Hey Steve, I might need your advise: Originally I thought that the idea of the viewer generating meaning is reflected in central ideas of the queer theory. Looking closer now I see that this is not exactly the case. After summerizing the central ideas of the Queer Theory I didn't know anymore how to connect the texts. Then I came across the notion of the negotiated reading (which came up when I wrote about about the concept of Queer Theory). It's not a central idea of Queer Theory itself, but it helps with decoding queer content when looking at art. So I thought that might be a connection between the texts.

The idea that does connect to Arnheim is the notion of negotiated reading and how to decode queer content in art.

 One could maybe argue that Rudolf Arnheim follows a queer approach by opening the term of perception to sensory perception (against common definitions) and placing responsibility on the viewer of art. So he argues not to passively consume but actively get involved in perception. That could maybe be considered queer. What do you think, does that make sense? 

I got lost writing the text because I had difficulties to make the connection. I'm unsure if connecting these two texts makes any sense at all. I ask myself what the value of this is? Don't get me wrong: I love reading and I'm thrilled to learn how to organize my thoughts trough writing. I'm just not sure if this is the right way. I seem to have lost the aim of my text along the way. Maybe you can give me feedback on that? What I do feel is of rich value is connecting ideas of the texts to my own work.

Making the connection between the two

Applying it to my work

Bibliography:

Vgl. Sabine Hark, Queer Studies in Gender@Wissen, S.285 Annamarie Jagose, Queer Theory Eine Einführung, S.9 Vgl. Visual Thinking, Rudolf Arnheim (1969) 12) Vgl Sabine Hark, Queer Studies in Gender@Wissen 13) Vgl Annamarie Jagose, Queer Theory. Eine Einführung, S.14 11) David Halperin in: Annamarie Jagose, Queer Theory. Eine Einführung, S.13 Vgl. Elisabeth Bronfen, Frauen sehen Frauen, S.15