The Ugly in Visual Culture

Art History 105U-01

Instructor:

Aaron Kerner

Office: Porter 207

Office Hours: Monday 2:00 ≠ 3:00

Contact:

amkerner@cats.ucsc.edu

459 ≠ 1486

Teaching Assistants:

Riet Delsing: rietdelsing@hotmail.com

Josh Southwick: himalayan@sbcglobal.net

Course Description: The ugly is no stranger to visual culture, and it has been applied to serve a multiplicity of purposes. In fact, Theodor Adorno suggests that the ugly precedes the beautiful; that it is the ugly that gave rise to the beautiful. It is often presumed that the ugly is the reverse-side of the beautiful. And there is some truth to this assumption. The course begins by surveying Immanuel Kantπs presentation of the beautiful in his Critique of Judgment. From this juncture we can establish an understanding of the theoretical structures of the beautiful and the ugly. Following this we arrive at the ideas of the contemporary theorist Julia Kristeva, whose conception of abjection corresponds to what we understand to be Kantπs presumed theory of the ugly. Although Kant does not offer a theory of the ugly per se, it is Kristeva who appears to address this ådeficit.π Establishing a theoretical framework, the course proceeds to interrogate the multitude of representations of the ugly visual culture.

This is a thematic course, focusing on the various manifestations of the ugly in visual culture. The course aims to develop critical skills, by allowing the student to mobilize theoretical structures in an effort to analyze visual material.

Please note that some of the material presented here is challenging. Do not hesitate to contact me, or your TA, if you have any dilemmas with a particular screening.

The course will be assessed on three criteria:

Attendance 10%

Class Participation 10%

Two in class quizzes 20%

Two 5-6 page essays 60%

First Assignment: Choose any one of the following questions. Cite at least two outside resources, preferably from a scholarly source. I will discuss some research methods before the first assignment is due. Your paper should be 5 to 6 pages. See me, or your TA, promptly if you have any concerns or questions regarding this assignment. Papers should be figured in relationship to the course material.

1. Compare Doland Juddπs Untitled (1970) with Damien Hirstπs Some Comfort Gained for the Acceptance of the Inherent Lies in Everything. What makes these works different (or similar)? Provide an aesthetic analysis of the works.

2. In what ways might Jenny Savilleπs work illustrate our cultureπs fear of ugliness? In what ways might she convey the ugly?

3. Not a single word is spoken in Begotten. The film instead relies completely on the coupling of (pre-linguistic) sound and images. Provide an analysis of the film (or better, isolate a specific scene) that demonstrates not so much what the film means, but rather how the film constructs meaning. Think of the high contrast, the use of sound (e.g., of water, guttural utterances), the texture of the images, etc. Further how might Elias Merhige mobilize the ugly, and what purpose does it serve?

4. Andres Serranoπs photographs often employ substances that in themselves evoke the ugly, or the abject. But perhaps what Serranoπs photographs do most incessantly is to illustrate the fragility of borders, the delicate line between the pure and impure. Might these general assessments of Serranoπs work also apply to his images of KKK members? In what ways, for example, might his Morgue Series, be comparable to his KKK Series? Perhaps choose a single image from either series and compare them.

5. Survival Research Laboratories wants us to have a visceral experience. Explain, in aesthetic terms, the implications of their performances, and/or exhibitions.

Second Assignment: Choose any one of the following questions. Cite at least two outside resources, preferably from a scholarly source. Do not use the same image, or material, from your first assignment. Your paper should be 5 to 6 pages. Papers should be figured in relationship to the course material.

Questions to be announced.

Course Quizzes: There will be two quizzes, these will be an assessment of your comprehension of the course material.

Participation is obviously looked upon with great favor. We should be extremely mindful that some of this courseπs material can be challenging, and it is essential that students conduct their exchanges respectfully.

Week 1: Introduction to the course and the material ≠ What is the åUglyπ?

1. Wolfgang Kayser, ≥The Grotesque: The Word and its Meaning,≤ The Grotesque: In Art and Literature, trans. Ulrich Weisstein (New York: Columbia, 1981), 19 ≠ 28.

Week 2 The beautiful and its relationship to the ugly.

1. Immanuel Kant, ≥Analytic of the Beautiful≤ and ≥Analytic of the Sublime,≤ trans. J. C. Meredith, in Immanuel Kant: Philosophical Writings, Ernst Behler, ed., (New York: Continuum, 1986), 160 ≠ 161.

2. Salim Kemal, ≥The åAnalytic of the Beautifulπ,≤ in Kantπs Aesthetic Theory: An Introduction, (London: MacMillan, 1992), 23 ≠ 37.

Week 3 Abjection as the ugly.

1. John Lechte, ≥Horror, Love, Melancholy,≤ in Julia Kristeva, (New York: Routledge, 1990), 157 ≠ 198. Give specific attention to the section on åHorrorπ pages 157 ≠ 167.

2. Ruth Lorand, ≥Beauty and Its Opposites,≤ The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 52, no. 4 (Fall 1994): 399 ≠ 406.

3. Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism, Joseph Childers and Gary Hentzi, eds., s.v. ≥Abjection.≤

Week 4 Performing the ugly.

1. Allan Kaprow, from Assemblages, Environments and Happenings in Art in Theory 1900-1990: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Charles Harrison and Paul Wood eds. (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995): 703 ≠ 709.

2. Peggy Phelan, ≥The Ontology of Performance: Representation without Reproduction,≤ in Unmarked: The Politics of Performance, (New York: Routledge, 1993): 146 - 166

3. Diamanda Gal·s, interviewed by Andrea Juno, Re/Search: Angry Women, Andrea Juno and V. Vale, eds. (San Francisco: RE/SEARCH PUBLICATIONS, 1991), 6 ≠ 22.

Week 5 War: ≥ä the horror, the horror.≤

1. Lucy R. Lippard, ≥In åThe Worldπ,≤ in A Different War: Vietnam in Art, (Bellingham, Washington: Whatcom Museum of History and Art; Seattle: The Real Comet Press, 1990), 12 ≠ 65.

Week 6 Celluloid ugly.

1. Allan Woods, ≥A Walk Through G: Some Organizing Principles,≤ in Being Naked Playing Dead the Art of Peter Greenaway, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996): 9 ≠ 29.

2. ≥Continual Excitement,≤ an interview with Peter Greenaway, in Woods, Being Naked Playing Dead, 261 ≠ 284.

3. Ina Blom, ≥The Touch Through Time: Raoul Hausmann, Nam Jun Paik and the Transmission Technology of the Avant-Garde,≤ Leonardo vol. 34, no. 3 (2001): 209- 215.

Week 7 The Monstrous-Feminine I ≠ The Horror of Woman

1. Barbara Creed, ≥Introduction,≤ and ≥Kristeva, Femininity, Abjection,≤ in The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, and Psychoanalysis, (New York: Routledge, 1993), 1 ≠ 15.

2. Carol Clover, ≥Her Body, Himself: Gender in the Slasher Film,≤ Representations, 20 (Autumn 1987): 187 ≠ 228.

Week 8 The Monstrous Feminine II ≠ Transgressive Acts

1. Leslie C. Jones, ≥Transgressive Femininity: Art and Gender in the Sixties and Seventies,≤ in Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art, (New York: Whitney Museum, 1992-93), 33 ≠ 57.

2. Linda Williams, ≥A Provoking Agent: The Pornography and Performance Art of Annie Sprinkle,≤ Social Text 37 (Winter 1993): 117 ≠ 133.

Week 9 Holy Shit!

1. Gerald Silk, ≥Myths and Meanings in Manzoniπs Merde dπartista,≤ Art Journal vol. 52, no. 3 (Fall 1993): 65 ≠ 75.

2. John Miller, ≥The Fig Leaf Was Brown,≤ Art Journal vol. 52, no. 3 (Fall 1993): 76 ≠ 78.

3. Lenore Malen, ≥Postscript: An Anal Universe,≤ Art Journal vol. 52, no. 3 (Fall 1993): 79.

4. Dominique Laporte, ≥Non Olet,≤ trans. Nadia Benabid and Rodolphe El-Khoury (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993): 76 ≠ 86.

Week 10 The ugly as the other.

1. Julia Kristeva selection from Strangers to Ourselves, in The Portable Kristeva, Kelly Oliver, ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 282 ≠ 292.

2. Ewa Ziarek, ≥The Uncanny Style of Kristevaπs Critique of Nationalism,≤ Postmodern Culture vol. 5, no. 2 (1995): ∂ 28.

Suggested Readings:

Theodor Adorno, ≥On the Categories of the Ugly, the Beautiful, and Technique,≤ in Aesthetic Theory, Gretel Adorno, et al. eds., trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor (London: The Athlone Press, 1997), 45 ≠ 60.

Georges Bataille, ≥Reflections on the Executioner and the Victim,≤ trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg Yale French Studies: Literature and the Ethical Questions 79 (1991): 15 - 19.

Dorrian, Mark. ≥On the Monstrous and the Grotesque.≤ Word and Image vol. 16, no. 3 (July-September 2000): 310 ≠ 317.

Hal Foster, ≥Obscene, Abject, Traumatic,≤ October 78 (Fall 1996): 107 ≠ 124.

Gigante, Denise. ≥Facing the Ugly: The Case of Frankenstein.≤ ELH vol. 67, no. 2 (2000): 565 - 587.

Denis Hollier, ≥The Caesarean,≤ in Against Architecture: The Writing of Georges Bataille, trans. Betsy Wing (London: Routledge, 1995).

Denis Hollier, ≥The Use-Value of the Impossible,≤ in Bataille: Writing the Sacred, Carolyn Bailey Gill, ed. (London: Routledge, 1995), 133 ≠ 153.

Lyotard, Jean-FranÁois. Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime. Translated by Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994. See especially his chapter, ≥Aesthetics and Ethics in the Beautiful and the Sublime.≤

McAfee, NoÎlle. ≥Abject Strangers: Towards an Ethics of Respect,≤ in Ethics, Politics, and Difference in Julia Kristeva, Kelly Oliver, ed. (New York: Routledge, 1993): 135 - 149.

Moruzzi, Norma Claire. ≥National Abjects: Julia Kristeva on the Process of Political Self-Identification,≤ in Ethics, Politics, and Difference in Julia Kristeva, Kelly Oliver, ed. (New York: Routledge, 1993): 179 ≠ 195.

Pere Salabert, ≥The Signifier in Painting: Shit,≤ Semiotica vol. 81, no. 3-4 (Fall 1993): 345 ≠ 356.

Simon Taylor, ≥The Phobic Object: Abjection in Contemporary Art,≤ in Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art, (New York: Whitney Museum, 1992-93), 59 ≠ 83.