W. J. T.
Mitchell’s “Metapictures” takes a look into the unique property of images that
are self-reflexive and introspective. Though he separates metapictures into
three different categories using specific examples, (Steinberg’s The Spiral, Alain’s “Egyptian Life
Class”, and Jastrow’s “The Duck-Rabbit) all three have one uniting factor,
which is that they call the observer to see the image in some new fashion or
context that gives it greater or different meaning. This is, at least, my
understanding of the link between metapictures. Metapictures provide social
commentary by using their own nature as pictures.
Mitchell seems
intent on characterizing metapictures as living beings, often calling them
“wild” because of the tendency of the pictures to force the observer into using
a different perspective, thinking from a different manner, or imagining the
picture with a new identity. You could say, in this way, that metapictures have
their own unique type of agency. They change the thinking of the observer. For instance,
the Duck-Rabbit image requires tests the observer by asking them if they see
two different things, a duck or a rabbit. It requires them to engage with the
picture by changing its nature and by going beyond their original thinking. In
this way, metapictures are given a sort of autonomy and almost power. I guess
this is why Mitchell wants to characterize them as living beings.
So, Mitchell’s
description of pictures is much like how we’ve characterized texts in the past:
they have their own agency because they make the reader interact with them in a
new way. They make the reader change. This is why is makes sense to approach
images using “textuality”, as opposed to thinking of images as texts. Images
aren’t texts, but they are similar. Textuality requires assessing how the
written word changes our perspective. We can approach images in the same way,
aiming to analyze how they change our perspective, how they engage us as
interpreters, and how they have agency. But, images aren’t text. So we can’t
approach them as such.
So, I propose a
new term to describe our approach to analyzing images: Imaginanalysis. It’s
pretty much textuality, but for images.
But, as to
whether we can examine metapictures through the lens of Marxist Criticism: yes
we can. How do we justify this? The basis of examining metapictures is that we
must look at pictures from a new perspective, one which involves their own
properties as pictures. Richter says of Marxist Criticism, “at least two major
theories derive from the notion that literature consists of an imitation of
social reality” (Richter 1201). Metapictures are reflective of social
realities. They push us to change our perspectives, our social realities, but
by using their own nature as pictures. This is how we’d justify analyzing
metapictures through Marxist Criticism.
Donald,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your take on Mitchell’s text. Similarly, I also did my blog post specifically exploring the differentiating factors of metapictures, as well as metatext.
I liked the approach you took when attempting to redefine a more modern term to counteract Mitchell’s antiquated terminology in regards to metapictures. Textuality and pictures are related of course, a picture speaks volumes, whether or not it has metapictorial qualities. Moreover, the proposition of your term seemed rather interesting, especially since you suggested that textuality needs to be included into our perception of images when attempting to relate the terminology to a postmodern societal scope. Imaginanalysis sounds very literal in its subject. I think I would have liked you to further elaborate on this term, and therefore your take on it, as opposed to just giving us a new term that you think Mitchell’s terminology should be updated on. Why not give us a more inclusive term where we could combine elements from both pictures and text, to include a more broadened scope of what we see as meta-whether it is pictorial or textual. There isn’t a term created to include both facets of the literary and artistic world, and I think you should perhaps explore this concept more and make an attempt to further develop it, even if it is just for experimental purposes.
Furthermore, the discourse you present upon the agency of pictures in relation to how Mitchell has defined them was interesting due to the very true and relevant qualities you present. Every individual has a different relationship with a given text or picture or work of art, because our experience of how we interpret it is all very subjective and we cannot all have the same definition of something. Textuality is not completely universal, regardless of when it is being applied to words or pictures or any other multimedia format.
I liked the arguments you presented overall, and I will leave you with some questions. Why the need to take the term into such a literal/verbatim/obvious approach? Why not broaden the term to be more inclusive, of more than just pictures, but also text and different art forms?
Best,
Valeria Vargas
I am glad I got a better insight into Mitchell's text. This was very helpful because I was a little more confused after having read his work. I agree with Valeria about the approach you took to redefine a more modern term to counteract his terminology. It was very outside the box and I don't think I would have ever thought of something like it. It is interesting to see how you both interpret these texts and helps give me a much better understanding of the read. I also agreed with the part about metapictures having their own unique way of creating their own agency. While reading Mitchell I was thinking something along the same lines as that.
ReplyDeleteYour arguments were well said and I think you should continue on this path of exploration and creating your own form of interpretation. I think you are on the right path.