In her essay The Biological Gaze,Evelyn Fox Keller raises the questions: Can we look without touching? and What exactly does it mean to look without touching?
The notion of the gaze, which is most often associated with femininst discourse, implies looking with an erotic male gaze. However in The Biological Gaze, Keller states, "in scientific discourse, looking is associated with innocence, with the desire to understand, while touching implies intervention, manipulation and control." Having stated this she asks what exactly does it mean to look without touching? Keller argues that there is no way to look without touching, "looking always touches us, at least metaphorically. " As the article goes on, Keller focuses on how looking touches the object, the material entity that we are looking at.
This article suggests that we cannot look without touching. Keller uses the microscope, x-ray, and other forms of technology associated with looking to prove that the eye is not a purely passive instrument for study, from the light that is shined upon the object that is being gazed upon to the manipulation of its environment, technology merges looking and touching into an unified act. Though Keller is not concerned with the gaze as metaphoric rape, I think it is important to think about when discussing the biological gaze. As previously stated, in scientific discourse looking is associated with innocence because one looks to understand, and touching implies intervention, manipulation, and control. However I believe that looking involves just as much intervention, manipulation, and control. The biological gaze is very closely associated with Laura Mulvey's defintion of the gaze because they both are based around notions of control. The other day in class we used the term eco-porn, which suggests that looking at "nature" becomes just as stimulating as looking at sexualized bodies. How do we separate looking as a means to understand, from looking as a way to stimulate?
In the article, Art is Nature, the question is raised, what does darwinism have to do with contemporary art? Darwin described nature as a material system in which all living things are a kin. Most contemporary art focuses on the human figure, artifacts or technology and nature is merely used as a backdrop or stageset, but is not meaningful itself. However there are several artists such as, Helen and Newton Harrison, David Kremer, Gary Scheider, and Eduardo Kac, who center their art around nature itself. Helen and Newton Harrison, create watershed perserves; David Kremer creates "live art" through genetically altering E.coli bacteria; Gary Schneider examines his own body through x-ray's; and Eduardo Kac created a genetically engineered rabbit that contains a jellyfish gene. This article suggests that these artists explore art as a part of nature by working respectfully with other living things. However do these artists really work respectfully with with other living things or do they just affirm traditional notions of man's power over nature?
Sara Sze sculptures are flowing structures consisting of a conglomeration of small-scale household items that respond to and infiltrate the surrounding architecture. Sze's sculptures mimic plant life, growing from the gallery floor towards the light (artifical and/or natural), and often incorporate a live plant within the structure. I thought Sze's work was interesting in regards to the Art is Nature article because she both works with nature and mimics it. Sze's work also raises questions of technology and nature.
Carrie Schneider's series Queen of the Island, Schenider wears suits she creates from "natural" objects such as tree bark and moss. These photographs are both an intrusion upon nature as well as in attempt to blend in with nature.
For the series Fallen Women, Schneider photographs herself caressing the beautiful landscape that she has "fallen upon." I view these photographs as an illustration of humans inability to look without touching, however they show the artist's interaction with nature as tender and loving rather than intrusive, Schneider embraces the grond as if it were her lover.
No comments:
Post a Comment