The fragmentary nature of perception: perception of sexuality in artistic representation is inherently fragmented due to the subjective reception of spectators
Ways of seeing
Why these objects (across time and space)
Possible perceptions in their time
How sexuality was lived in each of the periods
Can we really perceive like them?
Critique os sexuality as a modern construction
Monopolisation of art by the elite
Imposition of “meaning”
Possible perceptions now
Mystification and commodity fetishism create passive audiences that don’t really engage with the material.
Search for authorial intent?
Doesn’t make sense to look for authorial intent or a “true” meaning when so little is known of the author or the work.
“Death of the author is birth of the audience” – important to break with mystification and authority’s imposition of meaning.
Opportunities thanks to current material conditions
Public galleries + mechanical reproduction + the internet
Usefulness of the democratic praxis
Active spectatorship as antidote for alienation
Fragmentation is constructive for the ways of seeing.
I have combined Ways of Seeing with ideas from other critical theorists to give it more dimensions.
I think we can explain our case-studies simultaneously in each point, so we can cover all the mains points of Ways of Seeing for each of the objects and show that the ideas are somewhat universal because they can be extrapolated to other examples of art through time and space.