Something that especially interests Foucault about Magritte’s painting is the way that it confounds our conventional perception of the relation between words and images. In chapter five, Foucault names this conventional mode of perception “resemblance,” while associating Magritte’s work with an alternative mode of perception, which he names “similarity.” How are words and images related in each of these two different modes of perception?
How does Foucault’s account of the difference between “resemblance” and “similarity” relate to Nietzsche’s account of the difference between concepts and metaphors?
While Foucault’s book on Magritte may seem a bit dry and disconnected from pressing social concerns, I want to suggest that there is a strong political charge to the text. What are some ways that Foucault’s critique of “resemblance” might be relevant for conversations about political or social issues?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Up to what Chapter was the class required to read T.I.N.A.P.?
ReplyDeleteIn response to the questions...
ReplyDelete1. “Resemblance has a model, an original element that orders and hierarchizes the increasingly less faithful copies that can be from its. It serves representation.Similarity serves repetition…resemblance reveals what is clearly visible or noticeable; similitude reveals what recognizable objects, familiar silhouettes hide, prevent from being seen, and render invisible.” Resemblance shows us what is on the surface of an image, while similitude takes us beyond what is physically in the image, pushing us to search for a deeper meaning than what is superficially depicted. Similarities, as Foucault describes, have a mind and agenda of their own, meaning they act freely and go beyond the rigid barriers of a picture; they transcend from the image a more profound meaning than what an image alone can offer. Resemblance always refers back to the original subject, while similitude can refer to many things. Written text resembles the drawing of written text; similarity has the power to mix and complicate the words and images that are presented to us, transforming them into a whole new medium.
2.Foucault’s account of resemblance is to Nietzsche’s account of concepts as his account of similarity is to Nietzsche’s account of metaphors. Resemblance, like concepts, brings us back to the original thought or image while similarity, like resemblance, twists and manipulates the original thought or image, bringing us further away from the original experience. Similarity establishes metamorphoses for whatever it portrays, changing and moving away from the original subject matter. But opposed to Nietzsche, Foucault sees similarity as something good while resemblance is something that poses criticisms.
3.Foucault’s critique of resemblance is that it only presents what is superficial or seen/known by all. While Resemblance brings us back to the original, it does not push people to “dig deeper” into the issues or ideas presented within the image. The critique of resemblance is relevant for conversations about political or social issues in that it makes us become aware of the fact that there is always more to an issue than is presented by the media or the authorities; we need to see both sides of the story. It is by using the technique of “similarity” that we can go beyond what is presented and find out for ourselves the validity of the political and social claims that are presented to us. Resemblance is very rigid and structured, always following the rules or given guidelines. We cannot do as resemblance does because then we would not think and judge for ourselves, always following the status quo, never questioning whether what is happening is right or wrong. In term of political and social issues, we must judge for our self what is the right course of action to take in regards to these issue and not act as the government or media has told us to act.
Byron -- Please read the entire book before class tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the questions to consider:
ReplyDeleteIn Foucault’s discussion of Magritte’s painting, he makes a distinct separation between two methods of perception. The first, resemblance, is a method by which the artist attempts to represent an original or optimum object with a copy of that object. Foucault classifies words in this method; words immediately go to the brain for analysis and end up with the understanding of an original object, or the prototype of a concept. Resemblance is used is in an attempt to give an illustration of what reality is in the physical sense, whether it be trees, buildings, or people. This mode of perception is related to Nietzsche’s idea of concepts in that it is already defined and we have a fixed understanding of what it is. In contrast, similarity, or similitude, uses art to represent the relationship between objects and concepts. This mode of perception is related to Nietzsche’s idea of metaphors, because it allows new experiences to creep into the conscious. In these paintings by Magritte, well-known concepts are produced in art in a slightly different manner than one is used to. The similarity of the painted object to what it would normally represent or copy allows that object to be recognized, but it also gives an original view of the object and the concept behind it. Everyday objects are reproduced in such a manner as to completely change the significance of the artwork.
In Magritte’s painting Ceci n’est pas une pipe, there is a combination of text and image. While the image seems to be a resemblance, and, at first glance, so do the words, they combine to create similarity. There is a disagreement between the two methods of conveyance that requires questions. If the words are considered first, what exactly is not a pipe? And if the image is followed by the words, which is to be believed? This questioning allows for a complex meaning of the concept of a pipe, and leads to a questioning of reality, both physical and conceptual. Foucault says that “Magritte’s painting doubtless rests here, where thought in the mode of resemblance and things in relations of similitude have just vertically intersected” (47). In other words, the combination of two media (image and text) gives a very powerful collision of modes of perception. On the one hand, the image is supposed to form a similarity to a given object; on the other hand, there is the understanding of the words that are so in contrast to the image in question. As the knowledge of the image seen progresses, so does an understanding of the complete effect.
As a side note:
Whenever I paint, I tend to take an obvious and well-known concept, such as a flower or building, and put my own ideas into it, changing the appearance just enough to force viewers to think about what they see (at least, that is the goal). In this way, I am able to communicate what I think in a way that disturbs the viewer just enough to change or develop their perception of that object. It seems to me that the point of Magritte's art is to do this--to communicate an understood concept through a change in the understanding of perceived reality. In Ceci n'est pas une pipe, the object communicates one thing while the words say something else, and this gives rise to confusion and thought. To me, this is the best way of communication through art; otherwise, the only thing shown is the artist's rendition of a physical object. To add another dimension of thought or context increases the chances of a deeper understanding.