This is where we’ll talk about the the Anne Wysocki’s chapter in Writing New Media, “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty.
This perhaps says as much about me as a reader/scholar/thinker as it does anything else, but I think this is pretty much the best essay in the book, and one of the best (maybe the best) essay in the class. I really love her complexity, her questioning of conventional wisdom regarding design, her tone, everything. But I do realize too that this is a tough piece. So a few tips in reading:
- First read the stuff on C.R.A.P. because Wysocki assumes that her readers are familiar with these basic rules/guidelines for “good design.” This should help you get into a basic sense of just what it is she is critiquing here.
- I’m not that familar with Rudolph Arnheim’s work, though there is a nice little wikipedia entry about him here, and a more scholarly/informed discussion of the book in question. Note the “Complementary Texts” on this web site, btw. Interesting choices. Molly Bang is actually a very cool children’s book writer. The book that Wysocki is talking about here is Picture This: How Pictures Work; here’s a web site where Bang talks about this work a bit.
- And then she starts talking about Kant of all people! I’m not going to pretend to explain this any better than Wysocki does here, nor am I going to pretend that I completely understand what she’s getting at. But I will say this:
- One of the reasons why this is important is because Kant’s ideas of characterizing both “the beautiful” and “the sublime” and also the supposedly objective way he does this is arguably one of the assumptions behind a lot of critical thought on aesthetics in the western world for the last 150 years or so. Mind you, Wysocki is critiquing this assumption, but it’s an assumption that’s still there.
- There are a couple of basic summaries you might want to look at to help you make sense of this part of the essay. There’s this summary from (of all places!) Spark Notes, and our old friend wikipedia.
But like I said, if you don’t get each and everything thing here, that’s okay.
I think that’s it to get you started with this, so dive in, ask questions, and we’ll see how it goes.
In “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty,” Wysocki points out in the beginning of the essay that her anger cannot be removed from the aestetic appreciation of the Peek advertisement, and, in the two quotes at the start of the article, she illustrates how morality too has a role to play in the analysis of art.
As the essay goes on to utilize multiple strategies and theories to analyze the advertisement, I became frustrated that these initial themes of anger and morality were seemingly lost in the essay – until I reached the conclusion where Wysocki says, “But what my analysis here shows me is that we should see this objectification – and the violence against women that can follow from it – as inseparable from the formal approaches we have learned for analyzing and making visual presentations of all kinds.”
I think that Wysocki makes an interesting point here by explaining that art cannot be divorced from a sense of morality. With this particular piece of “art,” it isn’t any different. Exploiting idealized female forms to sell products and to draw attention has had dire implications in our culture – leading to eating disorders for women, sexual abuse towards females, and an overall objectification of women, to name a few.
I think this article in some very subtle ways points out that the message of art and the underlying philosophy (morality if you’d like to call it that) of the artist cannot be removed from the overall analysis of the work.
I agree with your statement here Andrea. Art is always making an argument, it’s always rhetorical, in some way even if we aren’t completely aware of it.
I agree in many ways, but this made me think of something else. The artist and his or her message is usually so deeply ingrained in any piece of work that’s it’s pretty tough to remove his or her “footprints from the sand,” so to speak. But what about when it comes to literature? We often say that author intention doesn’t matter and that the text speaks to the reader in whatever way the reader wants/needs it to speak to him. When we analyze a text from different viewpoints, we don’t necessarily take the authorial intention into consideration. So, if the author can be erased from a text, why isn’t it as easy with visual “texts”? Or is it?
Actually, I think it is as easy to erase the author. I mean, even with the photo that Wysocki is discussing here: I don’t think it’s never discussed on who took that picture, right?
Specifically, Andrea, dire implications on women across fields. Women have suffered in their professional lives in more than one way because of these images. A photo speaks a thousand words…right?
They speak to people in subtle ways but build these images of what a woman should be doing that eventually comes out in human behavior. And my particular interests are how these images and photos segregate women from playing a more powerful and healthier role in social and professional constructions.
There is so much research that supports this underlying theme.
Thank you, Dr. Krause, for saying that Kant still slightly confuses you, too. I definitely felt a bit lost during this part and wished Wysocki would have chosen a less confusing way to drive home her point.
I think Andrea’s comments on the ideas presented in the chapter are great. I found the message a bit lost around the middle, but that quote did tie it up nicely in the end. I feel that exploitation of all kinds does happen on a regular basis, some of it unintentional but most of it horribly intentional. People know what they have to do, create, say, etc. to get attention and they run for it. It is almost worse today than it ever was since we have more visual media present and more competition within those forms.
I was struck, though, by how Wysocki composed/ordered her entire piece and how this silently commented on the principles laid out in C.R.A.P. (How many jokes surround the fact that the acronym spells the word “crap?”) Not only were her words discussing finding logic and maturity in visual representations, but the piece itself was a testament to what happens when things aren’t obeyed– your eye wanders, you lose focus, it is harder to decipher an organizational thread, etc. I think it was interesting how all these ideas (morality, theory, art, composition, etc.) floated around in this chapter in a rather confusing way, but once you sit back and think about it, it’s slightly impressive.
As always with the Writing New Media text, I loved the lesson ideas at the end of the chapter. Has anyone tried approaching this subject with your students? Does everyone agree that it is important to approach?
Ashlee, I actually found the beautiful form of her essay to be an ironic statement. The visual signals, while harsh, seemed to align very much with the ideas of C.R.A.P. I’m no expert on these things, however.
In 444, I have a project that very much draws on the example that Wysocki describes as making an “ugly web page:” basically, as part of learning about CSS, I ask students to make two web sites, one that is “intentionally ugly” and one that both looks good and that is directed toward a particular audience. I think the idea of what elements are “intentionally ugly” are pretty interesting, actually.
I have to admit that this add is visually just about perfect, but while that is what makes it good it is also the biggest problem with the ad. This is not the only ad that has used a naked woman to sell its “product” it is done all the time. Clothing advertisers use naked women all the time to sell, of all things, clothing. Two items stuck out for me in this reading “We are not encouraged to ask about the womanin the ad as a woman only as a shape” (152) and so she is not a woman any longer but an object. And not only an object but a perfect one at that. It is not that men expect this from women but what women think that men expect from them as well as some men see that this woman as an object so they buy into that idea that women are objects as well. This creates this idea for both genders that women are to be objectified and why, in this so called day and age of “womans rights” this idea that women are still not equal to men. If women are objects they are not humans and dont deserve the things men do. So just because something is pleasing to the eye does not make it good and right. The other idea is on page 164 and says “When we judge something to be beautiful, it is because beauty is formally inherent in the object.” But im not sure about this. How do we know something in inherently beautiful and who gets to deciede this. I know they have done some scientic work on this but so many of the so called beautiful people (physically) are not really that beautiful at all.
This text is rich; allbeit sophisticated in its complexity but an accurate break down of violence against women in visual composition.
Wysocki is brilliant here in my humble opinion– I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to match this kind of analytical and philosophical thinking. I try. LOL
My favorite example in this text is Steiner’s reading of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. And also Tolstoy’s depiction of what is feminine beauty.
And I’ve read many people like Schopenhauer. Guys like him are no good and his ideas and many ideas like his are reinforced in so many social constructions. Women are discouraged from the deep philosophical thinking and encouraged to become baby makers and wives. Some people might think that this kind of thinking is not “out there” anymore but ask any woman who is an engineer or scientist.
Wysocki also touches on the problem with Robin William’s book, The Non-Designer’s Design Book, which I own. Yes, when we do not give narrative behind our principles, it damages our readers or students.
I’m frankly surprised by Williams because women’s issues in graphic and visual composition are seen everywhere and not enough people have addressed them.
My lesson from Wysocki is that we must push for deep analysis of visual composition or else I think what eventually happens is a whole lot of hurt, even wars, silent wars maybe.
It’s just terrible the way women are portrayed.
There is a fat battle going on in the fashion industry. Wysocki could do a lot of good there.
The thing that is really interesting about this chapter for me is that Wysocki is raising questions about both conventional notions of design (this is what Bang and Williams are talking about) and also the philosophic tradition of aesthetics (this is what Kant is talking about). And I think it’s fair to say that Wysocki’s analysis is not “Peek ad = BAD” or anything quite that simple.
It’s not that Williams and Bang offer bad advice– far from it. It’s just that it’s not enough to just have “good design.” This is a topic that comes up in professional/technical writing all the time, actually. There’s a famous example and series of articles about the memos the Nazis wrote during the Holocaust about the various problems of exterminating people. From the point of view of the format and “good design,” they’re great; but obviously, the content is rather evil.
I think this also figures into the teaching of writing too in that I think it’s fair to say it isn’t enough to just teach “proper form.” It’s not just about students writing well-crafted sentences, or, to extend it to the multimedia thing, to make really cool collages. There’s a moral/ethical component here too.
Wow. I really respect you for saying this. It’s not necessarily a popular viewpoint these days. Often “ethics” are seen as alien to the concept of art (visual and literary both included). Instead, I hear a lot more professors saying that every piece of art is “good,” simply because it’s art, and, in light of that, we analyze the art from the very standpoint that Wysocki says is problematic – analyzing the conventions of a piece of art without thinking about the ethical implications connected with it.
I too thought that the idea of looking at these texts from an ethical viewpoint was rather novel as well. It’s not a concept I had ever really thought of before. I mean, sure, I think about pretty much everything I do before I do it to make sure I always make the most ethical choice possible at the moment, but to think about those implications in the classroom and in the creation of art is something that is usually overlooked for the sake of “artistic evolution”.
Ethics get left out a lot of writing classes, too. For example, while I have heard some teachers say something like “if a student can write a really good essay, supported with evidence, that supports the Nazis, then I have to get a good grade,” I’m of the opinion that teachers do have a certain ethical responsibility to weigh in on this stuff at some point in the process.
Yes they cant just write what they want they really need to think about what they are saying AND say it well.
Of all the things in this essay — as you’ve said, there are many! — this idea of how design is often presented as benign and neutral when it is actually value-laden and historically situated got me the most (though each time I go back to the text, something else grabs me). Wysocki’s deconstruction of the various designs is complex — as it should be — and insightful in that she talks about how what becomes “most valued…is the form” without regard for the “social…consequences” or how our conceptions of the content are “shaped by the viewing” of the image (152). This makes a lot of sense to me and explains much of my frustration with several friends’ design projects.
Where I get a little lost is when Wysocki discusses the egocentricity of form as it is inscribed on other objects (157). Is she saying that we each bring to the act of viewing our own habits and biases, which affects what and how we see the images and designs? She also mentions the generalized body as something we can all relate to, as discussed in her quotes from Arnheim and Bang. I don’t think I grasp her argument here. What I took from it is there is no such thing as “unmediated understanding,” but I’m sure it’s more complex than that. Help?
I’m still working on the part about Kant’s Critique of Judgment… will follow up on that later.
I think that she is saying that in the Arnheim/Bang view of form, that we are seeing images and designs devoid of any habits and biases. That we are seeing them in a non-human, disembodied way, as a self that is independent of body but at the center of how we view things. I guess, kind of in a “Being John Malkovich” kind of way. Maybe not…. but that’s how I thought of it.
I think what Dave is saying about your question on Arnheim and Bang is about right, though I wouldn’t say “non-human” but “every human” instead, if that makes sense.
As for Kant, I think one passage that I grabbed on to is on the bottom of page 162/top of 163, that a judgment of aesthetic beauty begins with the object itself (and not an individual interpretation) and judgments of beauty apply universally. Now, it might be easy to reject all this, but Kant (not unlike Plato, actually) is one of those philosophers that so much is built upon. And besides that, I’ve seen articles where people were trying to argue “scientifically” about the the “universal” ideals of what counts as a beautiful woman/man, based on things like the shape of the face, etc.
Just a quick thought I had stemming from your last statement, Renee… Last night (or maybe a couple nights ago) I flipped over to the last five minutes of Nightline before Jimmy Kimmel came on. I don’t really know the context of this, but they were ending the broadcast with a “viewer poll question.” It was… “Is being fat okay?” (I’m assuming it was a lead-out from a story the did) What’s interesting is that I had a similarly “mixed” reaction to this like Wysocki did to the Peek ad. At first, I chuckled to myself at the ridiculous-ness of posing such a poll question on Nightline. Then, I was kinda disgusted at the ridiculous-ness of posing such a question at all, because it implies a moral element to being overweight, asking if it’s “okay.” I guess I was just a little more aware of what disgusted me about it than Wysocki was.
Yes, there is a huge debate, Dave. It is sad. I guess Kevin Smith got kicked from a plane because he was “too fat”. People have suggested that obese people should pay more because they take up more space.
But let’s not get into it because man, it breaks my heart.
This was a beautiful essay. I have to say, it started slow but gained momentum and I was sold completely at this line: “But what my analysis here shows me is that we should see this objectification – and the violence against women that can follow from it – as inseparable from the formal approaches we have learned for analyzing and making visual presentations of all kinds” (168). If the piece were to end on this note it would become another fine contribution to feminist thought. But Wysocki achieves things beyond the realm of a single theoretical school. She weaves a balanced theoretical thread throughout her essay in maintaining that she derives both pleasure AND anger over the Peek ad. Moreover, she rounds out the shape of her argument by concluding with a pragmatic and fair classroom application. In doing this, she implicitly reinforces what she already explicitly stated regarding Kant: that there is “some” value to his theory of beauty (the statements regarding gravity), while maintaining its implications for how we make gender.
I imagine the fact that this article uses so many of the gendered visual signals Wysocki points out to form its look on the page, as well as mold the shape of the argument itself, is not lost on the author. But I do not feel so much anger in reading the piece, but rather a great smile – does my gender account for this joy?
Just to piggy-back a bit from what Brian said, I too thought that one of the most galvanizing aspects of this essay was that she admitted that she did also take pleasure in this ad. She could have easily avoided this complication and instead simply condemned the sexist nature of it. And she would have been right. But by admitting that there is a beauty to it and instead, looking at what the causes and implications of this beauty are, made her argument just that much stronger. And, I think that her assertion that studying form independent of the ethical and moral narratives that drive the philosophies of the form itself, is what camoflages the often stigmatizing, violent and manipulative consequences of such images.
I don’t know, Brian, if it is your gender or not.
But I’m going to play devil’s advocate.
I was kind of afraid to say this because it seems perhaps inappropriate for a woman to say, but I also thought the form of the woman was beautiful. When I think of all the beautiful forms I saw in the Sistine Chapel, or the statues in Athens, I didn’t think “objectification” of women, I thought beauty. (with males as well as females) So, what does it say about our society when a beautiful picture such as this immediately brings us to think the worst? Is it just because it is advertising something?
I am not totally sure I understand Kant either, but Wysocki’s reference to him understanding beauty for his time ( I thought I marked the quote and cannot now find it, so this is a paraphrase) certainly seems critical here.
If, in my time, I see a Michelangelo, I don’t think badly of, or for, the woman in the painting, but when I see an ad for an almost naked woman, I do and I am seeing them both in my time, there seems to be a contradiction. Hmmmm. I am pondering!
Interesting point Judy! What if in today’s society our modern day Michelangelo works as a photographer for Sports Illustrated or Playboy… would we know him if we saw him and his work or would we simply write him off as sexist and vulgar? Many of the greatest artists from the past painted and carved naked men and women and we saw them as pristine examples of beauty, and they still bring great joy to those who get to view these works of “art” today. One of my instructors said that we in the modern day US are all a bunch of prudes. We get mad about everything we see and hear and take offense to even the smallest cuss word in YA lit and ban it right away… I’m still thinking as well Judy!
Thanks for that, Angie.
I was afraid I might get pounced on a little bit–appreciate the support! I am usually the most conservative, but I really see two views on this whole thing and I don’t think I can get them to coincide peacefully with each other.
I guess beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.
Nah, no pouncing on anyone!
Wysocki doesn’t talk about this directly in this article of course, but she is indeed indirectly talking exactly about this fuzzy definition between “art” and “porn.” As Judy points out, the nude has always been a part of what we deem to be art. My wife and son and I took a trip to Italy and Germany four or so years ago, and it is indeed how much nudity you see in the art in churches and in places like Florence! And the Kant figures in here because he’s talking about this kind of art as being universally beautiful (basically).
But to bring this back to more modern/contemporary times and this photo (and ones like it): all of us can probably recall images we have seen in the past which we could show to the group and we’d all say “now that’s pornography.” Conversely, there are probably nude photographs we would all look at and say “that’s art.” This particular photo seems somewhere in-between those two, and maybe it is its placement in the realm of being an advertisement that pushes the boundaries.
Anyway, it again is the appeal of this article to me because Wysocki does a really good job of wrestling with a complex topic and she does not simply say peek ad=bad.
These articles made me see online web pages in a new light. I never really thought of them as their own genre in the past, with conventions that make them “work” or not. I teach a workshop at the UWC about organizing and structuring your writing and these articles were like that workshop. It’s all about readability and making conscious decisions about the flow of a paper. I liked Rundle’s examples and thought they were helpful, demonstrating what he meant allowed me to see these four principles in a new light. Like the picture of the eyes, everything on that page stood out and my eyes flowed easily around the page. The Grumman’s example had too much clutter in comparison and proved that web designers need to put a lot of thought into how they implement the different functions on their pages. I’d probably say that’s the biggest thing I got from these articles, that like essay writing, web pages also need thoughtful decision-making in order to be successful in their readability.
As for Wysoki, throw in some pictures and I am hooked. Something about the visual aspect grabs me, which is why I don’t think we can avoid it in our teaching.She says that unless the text we’re looking at follows the “standardly efficient production and consumption” it doesn’t help us read the “other” types of texts out there. I don’t like the idea of standardization, but for web pages it might be helpful to have the clear, crisp organization. She teaches her students that yes, there are principles, but that sometimes it is good to push against them as well (172-173). I thought the handout she gives to students on page 179-180 would be very helpful walking students through the analysis process.