The only way I can explain where I stand on contextualism is to use examples from what I study, which means art. I think that I am justified in using a specific work because in art historical discourse, art is read as text. That is unless one is only analyzing it from a formal perspective (light, colour, perspective, line, etc.), which is actually not common practice anymore. This is because art does not exist, nor is it created in a vacuum.
The example I am going to work with is a miniature mosaic (see illustration) that is located in the Louvre. It was donated to the museum in the late 19th century by an aristocrat who procured it in Italy. Those are the facts about it. I am currently writing a term paper for another course on this work. I have learned that all of the other information attached to it is the product of hypothesis and guesswork. What is that information? Well, its place of production has been labeled as Constantinople (Istanbul) during the late Byzantine period, around the early 14th century. The figure depicted is generally agreed upon to be St. George (although through other labeled art and textual sources it is known that George was not the only saint during this period to be illustrated slaying a dragon), but there is no definitive indication on the mosaic.
Okay, so if I look at Skinner’s three assumptions: writing as extension of speech, contexts are readily discernable, authorial intention is usually unproblematic to locate (139). The first doesn’t apply to the visual arts, but the second two will never be possible realistically. It won’t be known who made it, who it was made for or why? Does that mean it is unreadable? Likewise, with Pocock’s assertion that “most interesting acts of translation in interpretive traditions are anachronistic” (140). If that were the case, then wouldn’t that be imposing my own bias onto the work? Wouldn’t my interpretation be informed by later images influenced or not by the original? BUT if I attempt the opposite does that put a premium on authorial intent? I think that even if the work is readable without that information, in the study of a history it does violence on the originator of the piece not to attempt to understand the original context. Particularly when dealing with traditions that have not been dominant in the university.
Such as the Byzantine Empire.
BUT that does not address the issue of Nietzsche’s umbrella. In other words, artworks don’t exist for the historian alone. And I think that is where the meat of the issue of contextualism comes in.
Is the mosaic not readable if you don’t know anything about the alleged place/time of its creation? St. George? Or even horses, dragons, knights? The historian would claim that unlike Derrida (142) the work isn’t “fully” readable without a history, BUT with so much guesswork involved that is a big assumption. Also, that would imply that the historical context is essential, that without text the mosaic isn’t understandable. And considering that the current text associated with it is less than two centuries old – what would that mean for the viewers before it entered the Louvre? Does that not limit the work to a hypothesized origin with no later value? Unfortunately my paper and most of art history focuses on the place/time of creation. This would make it hard to incorporate the criticisms of contextualism.
Okay, so if I look at Skinner’s three assumptions: writing as extension of speech, contexts are readily discernable, authorial intention is usually unproblematic to locate (139). The first doesn’t apply to the visual arts, but the second two will never be possible realistically. It won’t be known who made it, who it was made for or why? Does that mean it is unreadable? Likewise, with Pocock’s assertion that “most interesting acts of translation in interpretive traditions are anachronistic” (140). If that were the case, then wouldn’t that be imposing my own bias onto the work? Wouldn’t my interpretation be informed by later images influenced or not by the original? BUT if I attempt the opposite does that put a premium on authorial intent? I think that even if the work is readable without that information, in the study of a history it does violence on the originator of the piece not to attempt to understand the original context. Particularly when dealing with traditions that have not been dominant in the university.
Such as the Byzantine Empire.
BUT that does not address the issue of Nietzsche’s umbrella. In other words, artworks don’t exist for the historian alone. And I think that is where the meat of the issue of contextualism comes in.
Is the mosaic not readable if you don’t know anything about the alleged place/time of its creation? St. George? Or even horses, dragons, knights? The historian would claim that unlike Derrida (142) the work isn’t “fully” readable without a history, BUT with so much guesswork involved that is a big assumption. Also, that would imply that the historical context is essential, that without text the mosaic isn’t understandable. And considering that the current text associated with it is less than two centuries old – what would that mean for the viewers before it entered the Louvre? Does that not limit the work to a hypothesized origin with no later value? Unfortunately my paper and most of art history focuses on the place/time of creation. This would make it hard to incorporate the criticisms of contextualism.
4 comments:
Jen,
I’m still loving the art examples, you really make the comparisons interesting. And I learn so much. You are so right about they example of something still being readable if there is no information about intention. This example makes it clear that we can’t, as researchers, have our views depend solely on such issues. Very insightful.
Hey Jen,
I, too, am still impressed with the way you've managed to incorporate art into the subjects at hand -- a really interesting perspective!
Also, I thought that you offered a good challenge to Skinner's position.
And also, I agree with you that to some extent it does do violence to a creator of a piece (art or writing) if one doesn't attempt to understand the original context in which it was created -- even in my field you can see the atrocities that can potentially come from this (here I'm thinking of anti-semitism as a 'justified' reading of the gospel of Matthew once you don't factor in his historical situation [that he was as 'Jewish' as his opponents, and as such it was sort of a sibling-type quarrel). However, I also agree with your later point that not knowing the originating context does not necessarily make a text/piece unreadable.
Anyhoo, thanks again for another interesting blog!
Hi Jen,
Your blog was very interesting once again, I like the way you related it to your field of study. It is very hard to discuss this piece since there are only contemporary writings available on it. I also, agree that the history is important. Just a few suggestions, I think this should be mentioned in your paper, also a closer look into the works available today is essential. This can be a start in order to see what the authors used as historical evidence, or what support their assumptions are made on.
Hi Jen,
Once again, I found your blog quite interesting. I see your point that "even if the work is readable without that information, in the study of a history it does violence on the originator of the piece not to attempt to understand the original context." I thought your use of the mosaic to illustrate your point really brought out some great questions and points regarding contextualism.
Post a Comment