05 INDEX

     REQUEST: Everyone, please be prepared to discuss three things related to   Krauss' readings.

1.      Something that intrigued you…

2.      Something that you disagree with…

3.      Something that a classmate will talk about… 

QUESTIONS:

# 1, 1 1/2:

    Krauss talks about the “psychic gestalt” (Part 1, p. 197, bottom) as well as the Symbolic and the contrasting Imaginary stage of Development (Part 1, p. 198, top).

    In general, Gestalt is a phenomenon in the field of psychology (actually, a whole branch). Along with other terms that are well known in psychology, Gestalt isn’t discussed in the reading even though it refers to it. In short, it studies the whole as a sum of its parts (Similarity, Closure, Continuity, Common Movement, Proximity and Figure-Ground). In addition, Gestalt also refers to theories of visual perception: principles that we rely on while working on projects of sorts (Symmetry, Closure, Continuity, Order, Proximity, and Figure-Ground).

    If we think about the symbolic (with its somewhat clear characteristics) and the imaginary (in parallel to its innate mysticism) in terms of indexing means of visual production, does the imaginary have any place under the Strong Visual Techniques umbrella? Can it effectively adopt Gestalt characteristics without losing its enigmatic attributes?

# 2, 2 1/2:

    Marcel Duchamp is considered a genius (in his own right) by many, if not most artists and other people, due to the originality of his pieces (means of representation, ideas, etc.)

    How do you define originality? Is it something that you have never seen or dared to imagine before, or is it a mere representation of an idea that contradicts “your own” beliefs and assumptions about the world and its conventions which you “had no role in shaping”, or is it something else entirely?

# 3, 3 1/2:

    From the standpoint of general associations, ‘70s art and factions go hand in hand. ‘70s art diversity and presumed lack of a collective style may or may not be an indicator of an irrefutable difference.

    The Collective unconscious (a term presented by psychiatrist Carl Jung) represents “a form of the unconscious (that part of the mind containing memories and impulses of which the individual is not aware) common to mankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain… collective unconscious contains archetypes, or universal primordial images and ideas” (www.britannica.com).

    Can ’70s factionalized nature actually be interpreted as a manifestation of the greater collective unconscious with all of its complexities (hence, the numerous factions in ‘70s art)? If so, can it be concluded then that 70’s art is not as diversified and original, but it is simply a representation of the complex whole as a sum of even more convoluted parts that we are not aware of, but already exist from the inside out?