the+concept+of+self+and+postmodern+painting+constructing+a+post-cartesian+viewer

8/9/2019 The+Concept+of+Self+and+Postmodern+Painting+Constructing+a+Post-Cartesian+Viewer

1/7

The Concept of Self and Postmodern Painting: Constructing a Post-Cartesian Viewer

Author(s): William V. DunningSource: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 331-336Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The American Society for AestheticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/431033

Accessed: 29/09/2008 09:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American Society for AestheticsandBlackwell Publishingare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/431033?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/431033?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/7

WILLIAM

V. DUNNING

The

Concept

of

Self and

Postmodern

Painting:

Constructing Post-CartesianViewer

Individualmembersof

any society

share a

com-

mon

concept

of

self,

and this

concept

simul-

taneously

structuresand limits their

perceptions

as to the similarities and differences between

themselves andothers.

In The

Language of

the

Self;

Anthony

Wilden

points

out that most cur-

rent

sociologists

and

anthropologists

consider

the idea

of self to be

a tacit

construct

specific

to

that

society

in which

an individual xists: Claude

Levi-Strauss

goes

so

far as to contend that the

individual

ends to

disappearentirely

within the

social structure.2

As a

society's concept

of self

inevitably

changes,

art

must

also

reflect this

change

in

order

to be relevant to both the artist and the

thoughtfulviewer. The difference between the

modernand the

postmodernconcept

of

self,

and

their

respective relationship

o

nature,

provides

foundation

or

some of the

structuraldifferences

between modernand

postmodern

painting.

Humans have

always speculated

as

to

the na-

ture of the

individual,

and for the last four

hundred

years

we have

struggled

o

comprehend

the

reality

of what we

call

self.

Walter

Ong

contends in

Orality

and

Literacy

that

the first

glimmerings

of a

personalized

self-an intro-

spective analytical

conscious

awareness of the

individual

will-appeared

sometime

after

1500

B.

C.,

aboutthe time the

alphabet

was invented.

He reasons that this

change

came about because

society

had converted from an oral to a literate

tradition.3

Inhis

study

of the

history

and the motivations

for

personal

renown,

Leo

Braudypoints

out

that

the humanists

of

ancient Rome defined indi-

vidual achievement n terms of

public

behavior,

and

thus the entire

society

was motivated

by

an

urge

for

personal

fame. But

medieval Christians

inverted his Romanhierarchy: hey emphasized

private

and

spiritual

values,

rather han

public

behavior,

as the

primary

mark of achievement.

The Church considered

earthly

life as

nothing

but a brief preparation or the eternal glory to

come,

thereforemedieval

society

had little inter-

est in the individual self.

Consequently,

few

medieval

texts

are

autobiographical,

and

many

medievalartists remain

anonymous.4

Renaissance

society

found a new

approach

o

classical humanism. Public behavior was once

again perceived

as more

important

han the

pri-

vate

spiritual

ife,

and

the

status

of the

individual

was revitalized. Renaissance artists

invented

new forms of

self-presentation,

nd his new and

public

self was an external construct

( I

am

perceived by others ); but the Reformation

changed

the

relationship

between

spiritual

and

secular

life,

and

by

the

seventeenth

century

a

new interior

awarenessof the self had

emerged

( I

perceive myself ).5

Conditioned

by

this new interiorand intuitive

awareness of

self,

the seventeenth

century

phi-

losopher,

Rene

Descartes,

offered Western ivi-

lization the first

rational

notion

of the

individual

soul.6 With his new

approach

o the

discipline

of

philosophy,

Descartes offered

convincing proof

of the existence of the self and the

body:

he

convinced

European

hinkers hat the

reality

of

self

was

proved by

consciousness

(Cogito ergo

sum.),

and

physical reality

was

provedby

exten-

sion of the

body

in

space.

He

developed hrough

rigorous

Euclidean

logic

the

proposal

that the

concept

of self

describes an inalienable nature

that nvolves consciousness

(awareness,

eeling,

and

volition),

while

physical

existence involves

extension

(three-dimensional

xtensionand

po-

tential

mobility

in

space).7

The massive

social, economic,

and

political

changes that took place duringthe seventeenth

The Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49:4 Fall 1991


3/7

The Journalof Aesthetics and

Art Criticism

century

couldnot have

happened

withouta

major

shift in

self-concept:

The overthrow of

kings

requires

not

just

an

explicit

political theory

or

a

set of

grievances

but

also a

deep-seated

convic-

tion thatkingscan be overthrown. 8

Descartes had

succinctly expressed

a version

of the seventeenth

century concept

of

self,

and

this sense

of

self would dominate

the

point

of

view of

society

and

its

importantpainters

until

the middle of the nineteenth

century.

Italian

and

French

painters during

this

period

were com-

pelled by

their

assumptions

to

depict

the

exter-

nal world in a mannerthat accommodated

his

Cartesian

paradigm.

These self-centered

paint-

ings

were

geometrically

oriented

to,

and cen-

tered

upon,

that

specific

site outside the

painting

where

the

painter

is

geometrically implied

to

have stood

in

order

to

view

the

scene.

From the

psychological point

of

view of

a

perceptionist

such

as

Rudolf

Arnheim,

the location

of

an

appropriatelyplaced

viewer is

a

prerequisite

of

the

picture's

existence. 9

These

paintings

were unified by variousper-

mutations

of

the structuralelements of the Re-

naissance

system

of illusion:

a unified light

source,

the

separation

of

planes,

linear perspec-

tive, atmospheric

perspective,

and

color

per-

spective all worked in unison to depict every

figure

and

object

in

the

painting

from

one spe-

cific

viewpoint

only. Consequently,

all the ob-

jects

in

such

a

painting

existed

in

the same uni-

fied

pictorial

space.

Arnheim

explains

that the

Renaissance

system

of

perspective

was not in-

vented

in

order

to

create

likenesses, but to

provide

a continuumof

space

in

depth.

? These

paintings

were

unified

in

point

of

view

(atti-

tude),

as

well

as

viewpoint (location),

because

they

were

inspired by

nature,

thus

they pre-

sented a

vertical

head-to-foot

mage.

I maintain that such a painted text presup-

poses,

perhaps

ven

constructs, a specifickind

of

viewer,

in

the same

manner hat semiologists

insist

that written

texts

may imply

or

construct

a

specific

kind of

reader.

That is, the writerof any

text

may presume

hat his

readershavea specific

awareness,

knowledge,

or

orientation.

An

au-

thor

may

even

attempt

to

modify the reader's

consciousness,

to

constructa

readerwho might

better be

able to

understand

or

sympathizewith

his

text.

With their

unified

space

and viewpoint, the

self-centeredpainted llusions of the ItalianRe-

naissance,

the

baroque

and rococo

periods,

and

the first half of the nineteenth

entury,

construct

a Cartesian

viewer. In other

words,

the

very

structureof the

painting

implies

that it is

to

be

viewed by a single viewer who stands in one

specific

location and

visually

extends a sense of

self

through

a

window-like

transparentpicture

plane

into an illusionistic

pictorial space

in

the

painting,

as

if both

body

andconsciousness

might

travel

into and move

through

he

same

pictorial

space.

But WalterMichaels

points

out that

oward he

end of the nineteenth

century,

Charles

Sanders

Peirce,

perhaps

the

most

respected

American

philosopher, xpressedmajordisagreements

with

four

principal aspects

of the

Cartesian

method

and

spirit.

Peirce

was

not

the first to

probe

these flaws

in

the Cartesian

method;

some of

these concerns

were

expressed by

Descartes's

earliestcritics

during

his own

time.'12

But

Peirce

offered

a systematicalternative pproach

o

phi-

losophyand the philosophical elf.13

In his

arguments,Peirce

makes three

points

thatare important

n the understanding nd

per-

haps in

the developmentof the world view

that

created postmodern

painting: 1. We

have

no

powerof

Introspection,

but all

knowledge

of

the

internalworld s derivedby hypothetical eason-

ing from our knowledge

of external

acts. 2. We

have no power of

Intuition,

butevery cognition

is

determined

ogically by previouscognitions.

3.

We haveno

power

of thinkingwithout igns.

4

In short, Peircecontends:

We do not intuitan

internalnotion of self

as Descarteshadinsisted;

we arrive

at such knowledge

externally,

by in-

ference and hypothesis

(that is we construct

a

concept

of self by trial and error);

urthermore,

we

know reality only through

signs. Peirce de-

velopedthroughextended

argument he concept

thatthe self does not only interpret; he self is

itself an interpretation.15

eirce argues

elabo-

rately andconvincingly

thatwe understand

ven

this

personal

self externally,

as a linguistic

sign.'6 The structuralist

Freudian psychoana-

lyst,

Jacques Lacan, agrees

with Peirce's con-

struct when he insists: I identify

myself

in

Language. 17

Kindled by Peirce and fanned

by Ferdinand

de

Saussure,

this spark

of aporiaaboutthe

rela-

tionship

of

the external

to the internalquality

of

self

has blossomed into reams

of poststructur-

alist discourse about inside and outside :

332


4/7

Dunning

The

Concept

of Self

and Postmodern

Painting

the

hors d'oeuvre

(what

is

inside or

outside the

work);

Jacques

Derrida-who

gave

us decon-

struction,

the word and

the

strategy-writes

at

length

of the

parergon

(what

constitutes the ac-

tual workandwhatmay be conceived as beside

the

work).'18

Peirce andhis

concept

of the self are

particu-

larly

interesting

to us because his

invention,

the science

of

semiotics,

was a

powerful

influ-

ence

on

Saussure,

whose

linguistic metaphor

has

become the foundation

of twentieth

century

crit-

icism:

formalism,

structuralism,

poststructural-

ism,

and

deconstruction.'19

urthermore,Mar-

garet

Iversen insists that

Peirce offers a richer

system

than does Saussure

for the

purpose

of

formulating

a semiotics

of

visual

art,

for while

Saussure ends to focus

on the

arbitraryqualities

of the

linguistic sign proper,

Peirce focuses on

the motivated visual

signs-the

icon and

the

index-as

well as the unmotivated

sign proper.

Peirce even isolates

two useful

sub-categories

of

the

iconic

sign:

images

and

diagrams.20

Taking

a cue from

David Carrier

in The

Deconstructionof Perspective,

I contend

that

traditional erspective atisfies

a Cartesian

iewer

who

relates

to

the

external

world in

a series of

momentaryviews, each

located at a single

point

in space. This external world is typically the

worldof nature n which,

at any one

moment,

all

objects are

viewed from a single

location.

Car-

rier

maintains

hat such a Cartesian

viewer pre-

sumes

that

this external world can

be repre-

sented

in

a unified,

picture-like construct.2'

Consequently,

he

unified, monolithic

system

of

Renaissance

perspective

implies or

constructs

Cartesian viewers who are inclined

to extend

themselves visually into

the pictorial

space of a

painting

(which

was

inspired

by nature).

But

such

a Cartesianconcept

of self may

have little

relevanceto today's,perhapsmore mature,plu-

ralistsociety,which we

now perceive

to be influ-

enced more

by

culturethanby

nature.

In

our

postnatural

ulture,the

abiding aware-

ness of

pluralist realities-multiple

points of

view-makes us question

the completeness,

if

not

the

veracity,

of

any

world that can

be fully

depicted

from

a single

viewpoint. The

isolated

Cartesianself

seems to

be an anachronism

s we

close the

twentieth century. Consciously

or un-

consciously,

our

painters and

critics insist

on a

new construct of

self,

a self

that reflects

our

current

beliefs and understandings.

Arnheim

contends

that

in

spite

of

the fact thatwe have

a

strong tendency

to

perceive

the world

as cen-

tered around he

self,

as we maturewe learn

that

our environments dominated

by

other

centers,

which force the self into a subordinateposi-

tion. 22

Postmodern

painters,

with their new

interest

in a

pluralist viewpoint,

often

reject

the

single

viewpoint

and unified

perspectives

of

the Re-

naissance,

because

the

principal

purpose

of

such

conventions

was to

unify

the world around

a

single

center:the viewer. In 1972 Leo

Steinberg

introduced

he

term

flatbed

picture

plane

in

reference to

the

flatbed

printing press-a

hori-

zontal

bed that

supports

a

printing

surface. He

maintains

hat his

term describes he stateof the

picture

plane

after the

1950s,

and

his idea

has

been

adopted

by

severalcurrentwriters to

refer

to:

(1)

a

picture plane

that

implies

a

horizontal

surface,

and

(2)

a

fragmentedpluralist

orienta-

tion to

pictorial

space,

which

may

be a

charac-

teristic

of

many postmodernpainters.23

In the first

partof

his argument-the

implica-

tion of

a

horizontal surface-Steinberg

insists

that traditionalpaintingsare inspiredby

the nat-

ural

world and evoke

responses that are

nor-

mally experienced

in an erect vertical

posture

with the viewer parallel to the picture plane.

Therefore he traditionalpictureplane, in

paint-

ings inspired

by the observationof nature,

af-

firmsverticality

as its essential condition. 24

Steinberg

maintains

hateven modernpainters

such as de

Kooning, Kline,

Pollock, and

New-

man-though

theywere attempting

o breakaway

from Renaissance

perspective-were

still

ori-

ented to a

vertical plane,

and their work ad-

dressed

us head-to-footbecause this is the

form

mandatedby

the construct

of the vertical

viewer.

It is in this

sense, Steinberg

contends, that

the

abstractexpressionistswereoften referred o as

nature

painters.Thus,

when postmodern

paint-

ers changed

their reference

from the vertical

to

the horizontal

latbed

pictureplane, their

paint-

ings began to

signify the

culture in which

they

lived, rather

han the slowly

perishing

world

of

nature.

Certainly

the postnatural

world is tyrannized

by human

culture,

and in such

a postnatural

world,

dominatedand

inundated

by the artifacts

and effects

of culture, the

works of artists,

like

the concept

of self,

mustbe shapedby the current

environment-by

culture,

not nature.

Steinberg

333


5/7

The Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticism

contends that

in

painting,

it was the

work

of

Dubuffet, Johns,

and

Rauschenberg

hat

began

to indicate his substantial

hange

in our

concept

of

self,

and art

began

to demonstratea cultural

influence, rather hanthatof dying nature.

Though

we still

exhibit

postmodernpaintings

vertically-in

the same manneras we tack

maps,

plans,

or horseshoes to the

wall-Steinberg

claims

these

paintings

no

more insist or

depend

upon

a vertical

posture

than

does a

tabletop,

a

chart,

a studio

floor,

or

any receptor

urface

on

which

objects

are

scattered,

on which data is

entered,

on which information

may

be

received,

printed, impressed-whether coherently

or

in

confusion. 25He

reasons that when Rauschen-

berg

seized

his own

bed,

smeared

paint

on its

pillow

and

quilt

coverlet,

and

uprighted

t against

the

wall,

it constitutedhis most

profound

sym-

bolic

gesture.26

But I

am not

entirely

comfort-

able with this

first portion

of

Steinberg'sargu-

ment-the

horizontal

orientation

of

the

picture

plane.

I

do not see the

evidence or the result

in

current

paintings,

and

I

do not

feel this

portion

s

convincingly

developed

or

argued.

For

instance,

the

pattern

of

paint (strokes,

runs,

and

drips)

on

Rauschenberg's

Bed (1955)

clearly

indicates

that

the

bed

was

first

placed

upright,thenpainted n that verticalposition: it

was not

painted

and

then

placed

upright,

as

Steinberg suggests. This,

it

seems,

should dis-

qualify

Rauschenberg's

Bed

as an

example

of

the flatbed

picture plane

since

Steinberg

does

not

hesitate

to

disqualify

Pollock's

paintings.

He

reasons that

even

though

Pollock

started his

paintings

as

they

lay

horizontalon

the

floor,

he

later tacked them to

the

wall to develop them

further.

Thus,

he

concludes,

Pollock livedwith

the

painting

in

its

uprighted state,

as with a

world

confronting

his

humanposture. 27But the

patternof dripsclearly indicatesthatRauschen-

berg

also lived with Bed in

theuprighted tate

as had

Pollock,

and the

bed

certainly

asserts

a

stronger

head-to-foot

orientation

han Pollock's

does.

Furthermore,Steinberg

does not develop any

important

conceptual

differences

between

his

concept

of

the

horizontal

orientationof the

pic-

ture

plane

and

numerous

horizontaldome, floor,

and

ceiling paintings

from

history,

which

were

orientedto

a

viewer-perpendicular,

rather han

parallel,

to

the

surface of

the

painting-who

standsbelow

and looks

up

at the work.

Nor does

he

include in his invoice the

horizontal

mplica-

tions of

Degas'

worm's

eye

and bird's

eye

views

which afford a near frontalview of a horizontal

surface.

But in spite of this inchoate first section of

Steinberg's

hesis

(the

horizontal

orientationof

the

pictureplane),

I believe the second

portion

of

Steinberg'stheory

(the

fragmented

multiple

viewpoint)

stresses

an

important eparture

rom

traditional

perspectives

and merits a more

rigo-

rous

development.

The second

portion

of

this

theory suggests

a new

approach

o

pictorial

pace

and an

important

new

concept

of the

picture

plane.

Even

the cubistsandthe abstract

expression-

ists-claims

Steinberg-assumed

that

painting

represented

Cartesian

worldspace.

But

post-

modern

painters

use

multiple viewpoints

to

createwhat

he

called

a flatbed

picture

plane -

a

fragmented

horizontal

picture plane

with

a

profusion

of perspectivesrefuses to locate

the

viewer in any specific

position

or

identity.28

Carrier

reasons thatthe series of visual

choices

allows

viewers to

playwith the instructions

hey

receive from the

multiple perspectives

con-

structed

on such a flatbed surface and

create

multiple viewer locations

outside the

picture

plane. The flatbedpictureplanegeneratesa more

complex relationship

between viewer and

paint-

ing;

no single point is defined

as the

right

viewing point. 29

Rauschenberg

aid his paintings

flat,

Stein-

berg insists,

in

order

o impress

several

separate

photographic

ransfers onto

their surface,

and

these

multiple photographs

ragmented he

pic-

ture

plane.

In The Art of Describing,

Svetlana

Alpers

concurs that

the fragmentationof

the

image so

characteristicof seventeenth

century

Dutch

painting is also a characteristic

of

pho-

tographs. Though the AlbertianItalian model

constructeda painting

hat wasperceived

as

an

object

in

the world, a framed

window to

which

we bring our eyes,

the northern model

per-

ceived

the paintingas taking he place of the

eye

itself (or the focal

plane of a camera),

not as

a

plane section

through he cone

of sight.30

Con-

sequently the picture

plane, the frame,

and the

viewer's location is

left undefined: If

the

pic-

ture

takes the placeof the eye,

then the viewer

is

nowhere. 31 I contendthe Albertian

model

log-

ically

constructs

a Cartesian viewer,

but the

northernmodel does

not. If the northern

model

334


6/7

Dunning

The

Conceptof Self

and Postmodern

Painting

of the

picture plane

is identified

with the

retina,

the viewer cannot

logically

then extend

himself

intothe

pictorialspace

of his own

retina.

Each

photograph

n

Rauschenberg'spainting

was itself a separate llusion, and each of these

illusions was oriented

by

its own

perspective

o a

separate

viewer location.

Steinberg

reasons that

in

order

to

maintain

relationships

between

these

fragmented mages,

Rauschenberg

was

obliged

to conceive

of

his

picture

plane

as

a

surface

to

which

anything

reachable-thinkable ould be

attached:

his

painting

had to become whatevera

billboard

or

a bulletin board is.

If

one

of

the

photographs

or

collage

elements created

an un-

wanted llusionof

depth,

he

casually

stained

t or

smeared

it with

paint

as a

gentle

reminder

hat

the

surface

was flat.

Any

kindof

photograph

or

object

could

now be

attached o the surface

of

a

painting

because such

objects

no

longer

repre-

sented an individual's view

of

the

world,

but

rathera

scrap

of

printed

material.32

These

fragmented images

seem

impeccably

tailored

to

the

fragmentedperceptions

of view-

ers conditioned

by rapidly

escalating

demands

on their

attention

from

a

multiplicity

of

ever

more

fragmented

media and

a

plethora

of

public

personalities. Braudy

says today's

viewers are

collage personalitiesmade up of fragmentsof

public people [and

other

role modelsi who

are,

in

turn,

made

up

of

fragments

hemselves. 33

Like

Rauschenberg,

many

current

painters

tend, through

one

pictorial

device

or

another,

o

prevent

he viewer from

visually extending

into

the

pictorial space

of

the

painting.

These

paint-

ers

often render their

images

in

multiple per-

spectives:

a series of

fragmented

Derridean

apos-

trophes, digressions-footnotes

rather hana co-

hesive central

text-each

in

turn, turning away

from

the

main

body

or

text. Each apostrophe,

each footnote, constructs a different viewing

location

or

a

separate

spectator,

hus

implyinga

pluralist

rather

han a

single viewer.

Steinberg

contends

that the flatbed

picture

plane

has liberated

postmodern

paintingand en-

abled it to

pursue

a more

unpredictable

ourse.34

The

integrity

of the

pictureplane, which once

hinged

on

the

painter's

rigorous control of illu-

sion,

is now an

accepted

given.

The

flatness of

the

painted

surface is

no

longer

a

pressing prob-

lem

that

requires repeated

proof. As the post-

modern novel is no

longer obliged

to

maintaina

single

voice or

point

of

view,

neither is the

postmodernpainting obliged

to

maintaina sin-

gle point

of view-or

viewpoint.

Painters no

longer

feel

obliged,

as de

Kooning

did,

to

adjust

each

area,

stroke

by

stroke,

until it is

carefully

resolved intohomogeneousconformitywith the

over-all llusionistic voice

of the

painting.

InRecent

Philosophers,

JohnPassmore

points

out that the traditionalview of self

equatedper-

sonal

identity

with the

continuity

of

memory:

identity

was our

ability

to

think

of

ourselves

as

being

ourselves at different

times

and

places, yet paradoxically

we insist

upon

the con-

tinuity

of

body

when we consideran amnesiac o

be the same

person

as before the

memory

oss.35

But Saussure's

metaphor

of

the

linguistic

sys-

tem,

which structuralists ave

applied

o all dis-

ciplines,

has led Derridato

propose

a new con-

cept

of

personal identity,

a

concept

with

which

the ancient

philosopher

Heraclitus

might

have

agreed.

Derrida

displaces

the idea of

identity

as

defined

by

difference-in

both

the

sign

and the

self-with the term

differance,

which

implies

both differinganddeferring.Our dentity s now

defined by the manner

n which we are different

from others within a particular ystem, and this

identity s neverfixed, or

determined; our 'na-

ture' is always 'deferred.'

36

Structuralistsand poststructuralists ontend

that deas and anguagebelongto no one because

the very conceptof ownershipdependsupon an

obsolete concept of the self.

Derrida, insists that

structuralismheralds the end of private prop-

erty, but the real meaning

of this statement s:

Poststructuralism ortends he end of the private

self.37

In

Interweaving Feminist

Frameworks,

Elizabeth Dobie describes currentworks, such

as

Hera

Totem

1985), by

Nancy Spero as sepa-

rate images-words and icons-on horizontal

pieces of paper, two-hundred eet long, strung

like unwoundscrolls around he room, or hung

in

vertical strips from the

ceiling. Each image is

frontal, seen from a location

directly in front of

the

image; thus, each image

is delineated rom a

separateviewing location.

Her images are often

appropriated

rom

many different sources and

styles, and they presenta

momentary mage; the

images are not related in

a linear or narrative

sense.38Dobie insists that feministwork refuses

to

strive for a single voice and thus bears an

intrinsicaffinityto pluralism thuspostmodern-

ism].39 Consequently such postmodern

works,

335


7/7

The Journalof Aesthetics and

Art Criticism

which alter the

position

of women

within dis-

courseand

their relationto

it, 40

are

pluralist

n

both

viewpoint

and

point

of

view and

might

thus

be said

to reflect a new and

more

complex

con-

ceptof self.

WILLIAM V. DUNNING

Art

Department-Randall

Hall

Central

Washington

University

Ellensburg,

WA 98926

1. This article

expands

substantially

on an idea I first

touched

upon

in

my

book

(William

V.

Dunning,

Changing

Images of

Pictorial

Space:

A

History of Spatial

Illusion in

Painting, [Syracuse:

SyracuseUniversity

Press,

1991],

221-

26).

2. Anthony Wilden, Lacan and the Discourse of the

Other

in The

Language of

the

Self

trans. with notes and

commentaryby

Anthony

Wilden

(Johns

HopkinsUniversity

Press,

1968),

pp.

178-79.

3.

Walter

J.

Ong, Orality

and

Literacy:

The

Technologiz-

ing ofthe

Word

New

York:

Methuen,

1982),

pp.

29-30.

4.

Leo

Braudy,

The

Frenzy of

Renown:

Fame and

Its

History (New

York:

Oxford

UniversityPress,

1986), pp. 17-

18,213.

5.

Ibid., p.

343.

6.

Charles

Sanders

Peirce,

Lowell

Lecture

XI in Writ-

ings of

Charles S.

Peirce,

vol.

1, 1857-1866,

ed. Max H.

Fisch

(Indiana

University Press, 1986),

p.

491.

7. Edwin Arthur

Burtt,

The

Metaphysical

Foundationsof

Modern

Physical

Science

(New

York: Anchor,

1954

re-

vised), pp.

105-106.

8.

Braudy,

The

Frenzyof

Renown,

p.

342.

9. Rudolf

Arnheim,

The Power

of

the Center: A Study

of

Composition

in

the Visual Arts

(Berkeley:

University

of

California

Press,

1982

revised), p.

49.

10.

Ibid., p.

185.

11.

WalterBenn

Michaels, The Interpreter's

elf: Peirce

on

the

Cartesian

Subject',

in

Reader-ResponseCriticism:

From

Formalismto

Post-Structuralism, d. Jane

P. Tomp-

kins

(JohnsHopkins

University Press,

1980), pp.

188-89.

12.

Ibid.,

p.

190.

13.

Ibid.,

p.

192.

14.

Charles

Sanders

Peirce,

Some Consequences f Four

Incapacities,

in

Writings

of

Charles

S. Peirce, vol.

2,

1857-1866, ed. Max H. Fisch (Indiana University Press,

1986), p.

213.

15.

Michaels,

The

Interpreter's

elf, p. 199.

16.

Ibid.,

p.

194. Husserl had insisted that because the

signifier

I refers to

a different

person

each time it is

used,

it

constantly

akes on a new

signified; Heidegger's oncept

is

very

close to Peirce's

concept

of

the 'I' as one

type

of

indexical

symbol,

substituting

he

concept

of

designation

or

that of signification (Wilden, Lacan and Discourse,

pp.

179-80).

17.

Jacques

Lacan,

The Functionof

Language

in

Psy-

choanalysis

n The

Language

of

the

Self;

trans. with notes

and

commentary

by Anthony

Wilden

(Johns

Hopkins

Uni-

versity

Press,

1968),

p.

63.

18. See

Jacques

Derrida,

Writing

nd

Difference,

trans.

Alan Bass

(University

of

Chicago

Press,

1978),

p.

112;

and

the

Parergon

ection

in

Derrida,

The Truth n

Painting,

trans. Geoff

Bennington

and Ian McLeod

(University

of

Chicago

Press,

1987),

pp.

15-120.

19. Frederic

Jameson,

The Prison-House

of Language:

A

Critical Account

of

Structuralismand Russian Formalism

(Princeton

University

Press,

1972),

p.

101.

20. MargaretIversen, Saussure versus Peirce: Models

for

a Semiotics

of Visual Art in The New Art

History

(Atlantic

Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press

International,

1988),

pp. 84-85, 90.

21. David Carrier, The Deconstruction

of Perspective:

Howard

Buchwald'sRecent Paintings, Arts Magazine

60

(1985): 28.

22. Arnheim, The Powerof the Center,pp.

4-5.

23. Leo Steinberg, Other Criteria: Confrontations

with

Twentieth-century

rt (New

York:OxfordUniversity

Press,

1972),

p. 82.

24. Ibid., p.

84.

25. Ibid.

26.

Ibid.

27.

Ibid.

28. Ibid., p. 82.

29. Carrier, The

Deconstruction

f

Perspective,

p. 28.

30. SvetlanaAlpers, TheArt of Describing (University

of

Chicago Press, 1983),

p. 45.

31. Ibid.,

p. 47.

32. Steinberg,

Other Criteria,p. 88.

33. Braudy,The

Frenzyof

Renown,

p. 5.

34. Steinberg,

OtherCriteria, p.

88.

35. John

Passmore, Recent Philosophers (La Salle,

Illi-

nois: Open

CourtPublishingCompany,1985),

p. 18.

36. Ibid., p. 31.

37. Ibid.,

p. 33.

38. Elizabeth

Ann Dobie, Interweaving

Feminist

Frameworks,

The Journal of

Aesthetics

and Art

Criticism

48 (1990): p. 382.

39. Ibid.,

p. 381.

40. Ibid.,

p. 384.

336

the+concept+of+self+and+postmodern+painting+constructing+a+post-cartesian+viewer

Documents