Reality in the eye of representation - Assignment Example

REALITY IN THE EYE OF REPRESENTATION: A case of works of the Eighties By For many decades, the use of signsin place of something, representation, has been understood as a copy of reality. Overtime, especially in eighties, many artists began to argue and understand reality to be an effect of representation. It is an argument worth considering given various works produced in the eighties in the support of the same. The main concern therefore is checking if representation is a true picture of reality. Various questions regarding how well representation shows the characteristics of the actual items thus becomes of great importance. The paper through analysis of various works produced in the eighties will give a clear picture of whether representation is a copy of reality or reality is a mere effect of representation. The use of signs in place of something else is known as representation. An artist can represent the world and reality through simple acts giving its element some unique attributes. The signs are thus organized in some kind of semantic construction and show relations. For example, both modern and ancient philosophers consider a man as a representative of all animals. The term representation can therefore be used to give various meanings such resemble or look like. It can also be used to stand for an object or individual. Representation therefore helps stimulate sensory information pertaining to an individual or item as described through a medium used. How perfect a representation look like the intended object depends on resolution that an artist assigns on the art and the word choice. Influence that presentation has on reality and the opposite of the same was a typical 1980s concern in art (Petrey 2004). Many arts were used to critique popular traditions. In 1980s videos portrayed the structural experiments of the past decades as political influenced. The arts instead looked to critique the social and economic premise on which the television was invented (Riegler 2009). The artist argued that the videos looked like TV shows though with something missing. The critique of representation became more popular during this period and Saussurean semiotic theory then stipulated the world ways through which people could earth as a compendium of signs. The sins according to the theory have been effectively pre-perceived for us. For many years texts or Language has been adopted as a means of literary. A significant point of concern in representation is in material applied to make the object used in representation (Fong & York 2011). For example one will ask how an object made of stone can be used to represent man. It can also be asked as to by what and by what agreement, does this understanding of representation occur. Is reality only apprehend-able through representation of reality? These representation can be via text, discourse, images. To give a clear picture, a representation must not give room to situations like indirect reality (Bolt 2006). It there imply that just because an individual can see reality only through representation it does mean that one does not see reality at all. Reality is mostly comprehensive and involving as compared to any system of representation. Status of reality accompanied by a sign, text or a genre is referred to us modality (Brenner 2008). According to Robert Hodge and Gunther Kress defines modality as degree of reliability assigned to its ontological status or simply put as its value of fact or truth. Clearly, the degree to which an art represent reality or perceived as real is determined by the medium used. Writing for instances tends to exhibit low modality as compared to television and film (Marshall & Kilmainham 2010). In deriving meaning of an art therefore artist usually make modality judgments about it, based on their understanding or experience of the real world of the medium. The medium will then be judged as real or not real, fact or fiction, live or recorded, and the interpreter can find the probability of the event shown. How we get along in the world to an extent a function of proper communication. Communication will include broad aspects of how we both make sense of, and organize, our societies (Holmes 2005). Components of communication range from written and spoken language to visual means through which interact (Schaeffer & With 2009). Though not the only means, representation is one of the ways through interact and pass message across. For example many traditions have used have used idols to stand for gods in earlier culture. Resemblance therefore provokes different points of view of organizing the world. Stuart Hall describe representation in the 1980s as a way of showing already existing items in a form that is easy to identify even in absence of the actual object. The idea in this case, the resemblance is taking to actually look like the intended body and just to signify the thing itself (Fong & York 2011). The most notable examples of representation include a portrait which looks like its intended subject, Pieces of clothes that look like feathers of a bird. Other aspects of representations such as representation-proper advocate for the fact that the representative should stand for the original object. Since early 1980s, representation has been applied and played a significant function in explaining literature, aesthetics and semiotics (Auerbach 2008). Plato and Aristotle, some of the ancient artist, played a very important in developing representation as a means of presenting literature. Aristotle For example treated representation of aspects such as visual or musical as same as human beings. In this context, Plato says that the only different between human beings and other inanimate creatures is their ability to assemble and create signs (Wodehouse 2010). Aristotle on the other hand considered nemesis as natural as human being and this means that according to him representation is the best and clear way of learning and being in the world. Plato however looked at representation cautiously and acknowledged the fact that literature is representation. However, Plato argued that representation reflected a world of illusion leading one away from the reality of life. According to Plato therefore, representation, like any other contemporary media, stands between human beings in their bid to assess real world (Sarbu 2006). Plato then concluded that representation needs to be controlled in order to limit the most cases of illusion from representation. One important note in Plato’s argument is the fact representation fails to give the real emotions associated with real world. In making representation aspects to do with accuracy of information can never one hundred percent guaranteed (Petrey 2004). Lack of accuracy can be attributed to the fact that representation work through various interrelated signs that can never be interpreted in by itself without consideration of other cultural factors (Newton 2007). Due to this lack of accuracy other authors like Barbara Stafford indicates resemblance is an attempt to find the similarity in difference, for example it is an attempt to see how wavy line can be seen as a body of water. In all these arguments, one thing that stand out is the fact things can precisely stand for or perfectly represent another even though there are ways of finding points of connection between the item and the actual body (Schaeffer & With 2009). It is this point of connection of medium of presentation and the actual object that help us make sense of the world (Loewenberg 2010). To make sense of the world in this case, the interpreter is required to ignore the real differences and take into consideration only the points of connection. For example a drawing of a smiley-face in isolation only stands for itself and only itself. The interpreter first acknowledges the fact that there is a similar face outside there that might not be one hundred percent represented by the drawings. It is up to the interpreter to assess and join the similarities while ignoring differences in order to match the drawings to the actual face (Fong & York 2011). Here the decisions made of the representation are based on connection and not just of reflection. It is very important to note however that all representation is only partial and contingent (Brenner 2008). Signs used in representation therefore interpreted in order to extract the intended truth. Schopenhauer says that as much as there are physical objects, they are not the ultimate or independent reality that we naively take them to be. Taking this Schopenhauer argument it only means that while empirical reality is real, the object itself is never as real as considered by human beings. What Schopenhauer attests to is that his argument is not just subjectivity of the matter for all representation must be of something by nature. It therefore means that Schopenhauer believes that nothing can be represented unless that which is reflected by the mind (Bolt 2006). People holding the same stand as Schopenhauer in the 1980s were always left wondering what objects really are. Schopenhauer holds the class of thought that representation is the other way of saying that what you see is what you get. The problem therefore vanishes the moment you find out that realize the realist presupposition of self-governing universe only become a success in getting involved in an imaginary perception (Marshall & Kilmainham 2010). In other words when individuals go for objectivity they do it by simply imagining another subjectivity. Representation can be said, from Schopenhauer works, as construction by the mind according to its conditioning forms of space. The conditioning forms can be founded from objects which are personalized or selected by mind (Riegler 2009). As objects they form part of representation and become subjects to certain kind of arguments by means of our faculty. In other words these presentations become premises of our reasoning. As much as representation forms reasoning according Schopenhauer two points are worth noting. Firstly, it must be known that reasoning is to be not confused with a cause. Second consideration is that not all representations can be captured by principle of sufficient reason (Schaeffer & With 2009). According to Schopenhauer ideas are imaginary representation which is results of perpetual kind fashioned by thinking. Schopenhauer also acknowledges that there are some representations which, even though dependent on minds are never dependent of the rules of sufficient reasoning. The argument also take considers the objects of experience or memories. Such objects are poses basic content not necessarily founded on sufficient reasoning (Holmes 2005). Schopenhauer finally a firms the idea that man is a rational animal by arguing that animals have intellect but not reason. From these analysis it can be said that, in eighties reality was seen as effect of representation (Auerbach 2008) through the deep argument of Schopenhauer and others mind forms reality of the world through sufficient reasoning. Sufficient reasoning therefore provided a premise of justification that representation is not just a copy of reality but instead reality itself is effect of representation. Bibliography Auerbach, E 2008, Mimesis: The representation of reality in Western literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bolt, B 2006, Art beyond representation, the performative power of the image. London: I.B. Tauris. Brenner, J 2008, Logic in reality. Dordrecht: Springer. Eldridge, R 2005, Beyond representation: Philosophy and poetic imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fong, W., & York, N 2011, Beyond representation: Chinese painting and calligraphy, 8th-14th century. Holmes, J 2005, Refiguring mimesis representation in early modern literature. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Loewenberg, P 2010, Fantasy and reality in history. New York: Oxford University Press. Marshall, C., & Kilmainham, D 2010, Breaking the mould: British art of the 1980s and 1990s: The Weltkunst Collection. London: Lund Humphries. Newton, N 2007, The art of representation: Support for an inactive approach. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Petrey, S 2004, The Reality of Representation: Between Marx and Balzac. Critical Inquiry, 14(2) 448-448. Riegler, A 2009, Understanding representation in the cognitive sciences does representation need reality? New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Sarbu, A 2006, The reality of appearances: Vision and representation in Emerson, Hawthorne, and Melville. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Schaeffer, J., & With, C 2009, Think art: Theory and practice in the art of today. Rotterdam: Witte de With. Wodehouse, H 2010, The presentation of reality. Cambridge University Press. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Read More