Discover Top Posts Tagged with #essaythoughts

Mark Cousins “The Ugly”//1994

(Concepts and Contexts) pg145-151

Cousins’ opening paragraph in the extract puts ugliness into a category which negotiates the truth/beauty of something, in regards to beauty “possessing a privileged” (145) while the ugly comes from a place of error “Ugliness is condemned to a the role of the mistake, to the role of the object that has gone wrong…” (145) just as media, advertising and society’s ideals of beauty, portray the idea that if you’re ugly, you are missing something/missing out on something. “Ugliness will be thought of from the point of view of beauty” (145). This ‘philosophical drama’ is subject to contingency and individuality. Cousins is then wanting to argue that the ugly and the beautiful are two very separate things. Referencing Aristotle, beauty has been regarded through objectification of the “totality” (145) “the perfect object is, rather, one which is finished, completed.”(145) With thoughts attached to fragmented narratives and photography’s stillness, it can be said that what is presented in an image, as a final product, something of totality, is something that cannot undergo any change, because then it’s perfection will be redundant. Therefore, what exists in that frame is the only representation of that moment. It is not present in real time. In comparison, the ugly demonstrates an individuality with is not in continuity with the ideal. What Cousins then pushes is that beauty is “triumphant for having overcome the resistance of itself in its moments of ugliness” (146) which only heightens this ideas that beauty is merely a snapshot of the tip of an ice berg, but does not show the hideous nature below. This state of zenith awakens the fear of an unreachable location. Much like the fictitious nature of a film set, so remarkable and desirable, but not real. But, there is some safety in the barrier between our reality and these fake worlds we want to be in…

Cousin’s wishes to address the concept of beauty and ugliness in regards to it being a relationship between subject and object, opposed to a definitive thing, because it is all a personal experience, it cannot be defined. Stating that these concepts cannot be “reduced to a set of attributes” (147) but that “It exists, decisively and fundamentally, within the relation. But what is this relation?”(147). Cousins then proposes a hypothesis “The ugly object is an object which is experienced both as being there and as something that should not be there” (147) re-referencing it as an error. Again, this is not a definitive theory where there should be a ‘right’ place for the ugly, but more its presence in relation to the subject. He forms some connections by questioning what makes dirt, dirty. And why must we believe a stain must be cleansed? “Is this because the stain is ugly?” (148) It’s not an issue of its aesthetics, but that it is in the wrong place and should be removed. This idea can be played up physically and metaphorically. To enter a place where one should not be, it does have to cross some boundary. A place of prohibition. But what constitutes this space of the ugly? There is the outside representation of the object and the inside existence of the object. But it’s inside is larger than its outside.

#essaythoughts #documentsofcontemporaryart #markcousins #wiriting #beauty #ugly #artstudent #elam #criticalthinking #auckland #newzealand

Laura Mulvey ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ 1975

An interest in the history of the celluloid Mulvey looks at the “established interpretation of sexual difference which controls image” (1) on how the unconscious patriarchal society has influenced cinema formalities. Phallocentrism has led women to rest in this ugly/other state, only due their difference to men. Much like Mark Cousin’s essay on ‘The Ugly’ which categorises the outsiders as something with a mistake. Women are without a penis. Thus, women only exist as a carrier of male fantasies. We are the “bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning”.

With this, the cinema is dominated through ways of looking at women and the spectacle of women, through patriotic eyes.

With shifts in the glorification of cinema as a Hollywood spectacle, and it’s translation into artisanal construction, the pleasure of looking was destructed. Cinema was no longer this monolithic spectacle based on capital game. It became an art form. Mulvey’s article sets out to analyse beauty through cinema in a way which detracts in from its detonated meaning and pulls it down into the world of the ugly.

Cinema provides a means of accessible scopophilia. There is pleasure in looking, and pleasure in being looked at. The ease cinema provides gives permission for this invasive, sick act to be activated. This has taken people and put them into an objectified position under a “controlling and curious gaze”. The position of the viewer is of repression, where their thoughts (constructed by a society) are projected onto the performer, thus allowing a voyeristic moment through the cinema based on the illusion of looking into a private world. And much like viewing yourself in the mirror, we attach ourselves to the personas in the monitor as a means of understanding this anthropomorphic story. Again, like looking in the mirror, what we see is a is recognition as it is overlaid with a more perfected view, or under perfected view, rather than a realistic recognition. But is this truly possible?

This connects directly to Warhol’s discussion around photography being a framing of the most perfected image of ourselves, or this moment of ourselves much like Sherman’s various characters, rather than us in an actualised time and space relating to people around us.

This becomes the genesis of self-awareness. Cinema has provided an escapism into deconstructing the representation of the human, simultaneously breaking down the ego and building it up again. Mulvey is explaining that the personas in film let us be them and forget who we are, while in reverse they inject into our subconscious what we discovered through these characters. We are all made up of fragments of other characters.

So, cinema has provided this scopohillic narcissistic matrix where we experience an unavoidable sense of pleasure and self identification.

“pleasure in form, can be threatening by content” (4) because we take this larger than us idea and insist it play a role in this reality, but these two dimensions of time and space do not merge. Like oil in water. And much like the ugly, we feel as if we’re mistakes, or incomplete, because we’re not living up to this bigger idea.