Bakhtin Reframed: Interpreting Key Thinkers for the Arts (Contemporary Thinkers Reframed)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Deborah J. Haynes uses Bakhtinian concepts to interpret a range of art from religious icons to post-Impressionist painters and Russian modernists to demonstrate how the application of his thought to visual culture can generate significant new insights. Rehabilitating some of Bakhtin's neglected ideas and reframing him as a philosopher of aesthetics, Bakhtin Reframed will be essential reading for the huge community of Bakhtin scholars as well as students and practitioners of visual culture.
that moment one is transformed into a subject in a power relationship. While this process of hailing may appear to take place outside of ideology, it is actually ideological. Ideologies are also made visible through representations. As Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright have suggested (2008), ideology presents itself (or, more accurately, is presented by someone) as a complex of common-sense and self-evident propositions about the world. But it is actually an arrangement of social practices and
his need for time to work and his worries about their future. He also experienced the ﬂow of natural time, time made visible in the phenomena he studied such as the changes in light, weather or tides. As his letters indicate, he was frequently frustrated because the very ephemerality of these phenomena made representing them difﬁcult. In terms of depicting light, Monet experimented with three pictorial devices that had been used by others. Like Rembrandt, he tried to capture shadows and tonal
(topos), both of which always change: ‘Time…thickens, takes on ﬂesh, becomes artistically visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of time, plot and history’ (Bakhtin 1981a: 84). In fact, change is essential. Therefore subjectivity and created objects are always constituted differently, something we clearly know in Monet’s painting. I believe we can incorporate some of Bakhtin’s literary insights in analysing paintings, but we must describe the chronotope somewhat
content that characterised Russian Symbolism, Futurism and Formalism. For the earlier positivists, against whom the Symbolists revolted, form was simply the outer expression of content, a ‘purely external embellishment with which one could dispense without any appreciable damage to communication’ (Erlich 1981: 35). The Symbolists wanted to eliminate this kind of mechanistic dichotomy. For Russian Symbolists in particular, art became a form of higher knowledge, capable of revealing ultimate truth
get us very far in interpreting the atal. Third, it cannot provide the basis for understanding and interpreting form because it fails to see the complex processes through which particular cultural and individual forms evolve. Bakhtin placed a diverse group of philosophers – Lipps, Cohen, Robert Vischer, Johannes Volkelt, Wilhelm Wundt, Karl Groos, Konrad Lange, 17 Bakhtinian aesthetics Arthur Schopenhauer and Henri Bergson – in this category of expressive aesthetics and tried to develop an