Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In recent years, art history has been criticized, de-centred and opened up,
amongst other things, by a growing interest in the wider field of visual
culture. But what of the cultures other than the visual – what of the other sense
perceptions that are also involved in experiencing and making sense of the
objects designated as art in Western societies? Can and should the authority
of the visual be deconstructed, and what role do the other senses play in
this process? We have inherited an art history dominated by the visual, in
both its Modernist developments,1 and its critiques since.2 The visual has
been privileged as a rational source of knowledge, able to transcend lowly
sensuality, while the proximity senses have been marginalized by aesthetics,
art history and criticism, disciplines that rely heavily on mechanical
reproduction techniques that have been available since the nineteenth century
but only for sight and sound.3 Discourses foregrounding the separateness and
independence of artistic practices as ‘visual’ continue to be influential; as the
contributors to this book demonstrate, however, artists from the nineteenth
century onwards have increasingly challenged, disregarded or worked
outside the hegemony of sight by producing works that include, or powerfully
evoke, non-visual elements. Art historical analyses, however, only rarely go
beyond the investigation of visually embodied observers.4 Fuller exploration
of the role of the senses in past and present artistic cultures has been left to
sociologists and anthropologists working on the senses’ socially constructed
nature. The contributions in this book explore the role of the non-visual
senses in making and engaging with the visual arts. By focusing on the role of
touch, taste, smell or sound; the interaction of all the senses in synaesthesia;
and the pleasures and pains of experiencing art and its objects, we propose
art historical methodologies that can account for bodily experiences and
the materiality of works of art. This provides a better understanding of
art, history and the senses
the ‘affective economies’ that are in circulation when the two meet,5 and a
powerful, much-needed contribution to theories otherwise based mainly on
verbal and visual communication.
The book covers the period from the beginning of the nineteenth century to
the present, a time of dramatic sensual changes related to the development of
mechanically produced and reproduced stimuli through technologies varying
from mechanical pianos to photographic cameras. As Caroline Jones points
out, ‘the human sensorium has always been mediated’.6 Air, for example, is
the basic medium through which we perceive sound. Yet this mediation has
increased as modern means of productions have developed numerous new
ways to amplify, shield, simulate, stimulate or irritate our senses, which have
been modernized through practices as diverse as waste management and
town planning (which took care of bodily smells),7 the development of sound
insulation (which sheltered the middle-class citizen from the noise of the
modern city at home or at work)8 and the development of artificial flavourings
and dyes.9 Through its own process of modernization, philosophy by the
beginning of the nineteenth century was no longer concerned with defining the
sensorium and discussing hierarchies of the senses, but with establishing the
scientific basis for knowledge.10 As the study of the senses became a scientific
pursuit, or a matter of chemistry and product design, their separation became
entrenched in the development of discrete specializations for the study of
each sense (opticians, otologists, naso-specialists, etc.), mirroring the status
of the senses in culture by giving more importance to sight and audition. As
Jonathan Crary argues, it was this physiological research on vision which led
to a change, in early nineteenth-century Europe, in the conceptualization of
the observer. No longer a figure based on the camera obscura as an actual and
metaphorical device to bracket off the body of the viewer to produce a ‘stable
and fixed … objective ground of visual truth’,11 the observer became endowed
with a body, in which the senses were not passive receptors but active agents
creating shifting, mobile and subjective sensations.12 In his account, however,
this body seems to remain largely without a gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or
indeed a full sensorium, as the research that reconfigured vision as subjective
also separated it from the other senses. Vision is embodied but does not lose
its precedence. Crary is aware that concepts such as ‘the observer’ or ‘a history
of vision’ are problematic, as all we have to work with is ‘an irreducibly
heterogeneous system of discursive, social, technological, and institutional
relations’ (p. 6), fragments from the past we can only use to have an effect in the
present. If, as Mitchell argues, Crary is too quick to generalize his claims into
sweeping master narratives of vision,13 this book, on the contrary, is not trying
to excavate a true, complete or hegemonic history of the other senses, but to
consider moments in this heterogeneous field. We want to mobilize fragments
from the past to be used in the present, in the belief that art history can take
up its position as a central discipline in the current ‘sensual revolution’ only if
Patrizia Di Bello and Gabriel Koureas
status than the applied arts or crafts. The concept of the aesthetic was crucial
in the process of defining art as opposed to or at least different from practical
or utilitarian concerns,16 and from cognitive or intellectual matters, despite
their coming together in late nineteenth-century notions of high culture ‘in
which the contemplative character of aesthetic disinterest acts as a modern-
day surrogate for the ancient contemplation of ideas’.17 In its original meaning,
the concept of ‘aesthetics’ coined by Baumgarten in the eighteenth century
(from the Greek aesthesis, meaning sensation or perception by the senses)
encompassed all the senses. As Peter Osborne argues:
particular (rather than the normal and the general of rational logic) in their
complex, diverse relations and connections.
There is a ‘logic of the senses’ and this is ‘one of the central objects of
aesthetics’.23 As ‘the philosophy of sensitive knowledge’,24 aesthetics is not
just a philosophy of art, but of a way to grasp reality grounded in sensitive
experiences and representations. This ‘beautiful thinking’ (Baumgarten
Metaphisica, § 533, and Aesthetica, § 1) is ‘a way of thinking that is very much
aware of and sensitive to its object, and not the object alone but to all the
relations of that object’ (p. 411). This awareness is also the aim of the chapters
in this book, keen to explore not only how signs operate sensuously, but
also how all sensations have semiotic potential. For Baumgarten, sensitive
cognition, like all cognitive capacities, is
The Senses
Scientists on the whole agree that the senses are shaped by environmental,
cultural and social circumstances rather than being solely innate. They need
to be, as they need to adapt to changing circumstances to work efficiently as
tools of survival. The extent of their plasticity, however, is still much debated.
Do senses perceive the world, or do they make it for us, by shaping our
perceptions? How do cultural and historical differences impact on neurological
processes? More widely, how can we study the senses, if the senses of those
who study them are as culturally constructed as those under scrutiny? By
starting from our senses as socially constructed we can better understand
how we are constructed as viewers or sensors of works of art through a social
system that, of course, includes these works. As art historians, this poses
exciting if difficult research questions: if our present sensual perception of
music, paintings, sculptures – or any surviving material culture – cannot be
assumed to be the same as that from the past, how can we reconstruct not
only a ‘period eye’,28 but a whole ‘period’ sensorium? Rather than attempting
to construct an overarching theory of art and the senses, or to survey the
whole field, this book is concerned with analysing individual case studies
in specific social, historical, cultural and sensorial circumstances. As such, it
aims to contribute to Karl Marx’s idea of a history of mankind as a history
of the senses, as played out in some specific moments in the history of the
privileged domain defined as art.29
As in themselves the result of interactions between nature and culture,
body and mind, the senses are where these distinctions become problematic,
blurred and impossible to maintain. Yet splitting the senses seems to be
important to create disciplines and to establish notions of disciplined
behaviour – at art exhibitions, concerts, at the table, or in the laboratory and
the lecture room. Splitting the senses, at least in Western cultures, seems to be
Patrizia Di Bello and Gabriel Koureas
property of the works but it also amplifies our physical experience before a
Flavin and challenges recent scholarship that wants to situate Flavin in a more
illusionist and optical ‘light’.
Of course, the ‘buzz’ of Flavin’s installations is invisible in the photographic
reproductions used, amongst other records, to recreate them in contemporary
exhibitions and to illustrate verbal accounts of them. The move from fine to
visual arts to escape aesthetics as elitist obfuscation has also contributed to
block the consideration of the role played by the other senses in our experience
of multi-media works. Art reviews and first-hand accounts of installations
rarely focus on their multi-sensoriality. This failure is compounded by the
fact that installations, often on exhibition only temporarily, are more than
other works known through photographic reproductions. In ‘Niki de Saint
Phalle’s Hon: An Ethics through the Visual?’, Nicola Foster discusses a range
of philosophical positions on the senses, from Plato and Kant, to Lacan and
Irigaray, in order to deconstruct the dominance of the visual in Western
tradition. Through an analysis of Hon (1966) as a now-destroyed work of
installation art, Foster argues that simply replacing the aesthetic of the visual
with an aesthetic of multi-sensory experience does not solve the problem of
Modernist aesthetics and its focus on the visual. For the visual is problematic
in its deep connection to autonomy and mastery, to reason and knowledge. It
is not enough to suggest that this would be changed or resolved by a multi-
sensorial aesthetic, and by giving up reason and knowledge with it. Through
Lacan’s account it is possible to understand the visual as also hostage to the
gaze, not only master of it. This in turn might allow us to not only celebrate a
multi-sensorial aesthetic, but also prompt us to rethink models of rationality
and knowledge based not on distance and objectification, but on the ethics
and aesthetics of fully embodied beings.
Installation art, however, seems to have provided contemporary artists
working with smell with a more productive model than that of the concert
proposed by Hartmann at the beginning of the twentieth century. Jim
Drobnick’s chapter, ‘Airchitecture: Guarded Breaths and the [cough] Art
of Ventilation’, investigates contemporary artistic interventions with air
conditioning in order to question indoor climate controls. Whereas in the
nineteenth century the weather and its spectrum of mercurial and sublime
effects inspired artists such as Constable, Turner, Whistler and Monet,
the latter half of the twentieth century and the first part of the twenty-first
evidenced a shift to the indoor climate, where mastery over the weather has
been presumably achieved. Within these standardized, neutral and isolated
environments, artists have appropriated the ventilation apparatus to introduce
idiosyncratic, discomforting and ecologically informed disturbances. Canned
air is denatured air, and if Modernist technology has purged air of its vestigial
mythologies and folklore, artists have intervened to re-endow it with a host of
new meanings through air deconditioning. By exaggerating air conditioning’s
Patrizia Di Bello and Gabriel Koureas 13
Conclusion
Since the 1970s and 1980s cultural studies and critical theory have
dominated discourses on art with their critique of aesthetics as an ‘anti-
14 art, history and the senses
Notes
1. The writings of Greenberg are exemplary here: ‘The human body is no longer postulated as
the agent of space in either pictorial or sculptural art; now it is eyesight alone’; C. Greenberg,
‘Sculpture in Our Time’, Arts Magazine (June 1958), reprinted in Clement Greenberg: The Collected
Essays and Criticism, 4 vols, ed. J. O’Brian (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986–93), vol. 4,
p. 59. For a discussion of visuality in Greenberg’s writings, see C. Jones, Eyesight Alone: Clement
Greenberg’s Modernism and the Bureaucratization of the Senses (Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 2005).
2. See for example M. Jay, Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought
(Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1994).
3. See for example Art History through the Camera Lens, ed. H.E. Roberts (Australia: Gordon & Beach,
1995).
4. Exemplary of this tendency is J. Crary, Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the
Nineteenth Century (1990; Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1996).
5. S. Ahmed, Cultural Politics of Emotion (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004), p. 15.
6. C. Jones, ‘The Mediated Sensorium’, in Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and
Contemporary Art (Cambridge MA: MIT List Visual Arts Center and MIT Press, 2006), pp. 5–49,
p. 5.
7. A. Corbin, The Foul and the Fragrant: Odour and the French Social Imagination, trans. R. Porter et al.
(Leamington Spa: Berg, 1986).
8. See Jones’s discussion of the problem of noise in the modern city and the development of sound
insulation in ‘Hearing Echoes’, in Eyesight Alone, pp. 399–414.
9. On Liebig’s Extract of Meat Company, founded in 1865 (later Oxo), see W. Brock, Justus von
Liebig: The Chemical Gatekeeper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); on monosodium
glutamate, isolated in 1908, see H. Kikuchi, ‘Umami’, in Jones, Sensorium, pp. 227–8; on the
development of artificial dyes in the nineteenth century see S. Garfield, Mauve (London: Faber &
Faber, 2000).
10. R. Jütte, A History of the Senses: From Antiquity to Cyberspace (Cambridge UK and Malden ME:
Polity, 2005).
11. Crary, Techniques of the Observer, p. 14.
12. Contemporary neuroscience is now giving further scientific underpinnings to an understanding of
the senses not as passive receptors but as active agents creating sensations; see Art and the Senses,
eds F. Bacci and D. Melcher (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).
13. W.J.T. Mitchell, ‘The Pictorial Turn’, Artforum 30 (1992), reprinted in his Picture Theory (Chicago
and London: University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. 11–34.
14. M. Bull, P. Gilroy, D. Howes and D. Kahn, ‘Introducing Sensory Studies’, Senses and Society
1 (2006), 5–7. This journal and the Sensory Formations series published by Berg indicate the
importance of this ‘sensual revolution’.
15. G. Simmel, ‘Sociology of the Senses’, in Simmel on Culture, eds D. Frisby and M. Featherstone
(London: Sage, 1997), pp. 109–19, pp. 118–19; subsequent references in the text.
16. R. Williams, Keywords (Fontana/Croom Helm, 1976), pp. 27–8.
17. P. Osborne, ‘Introduction: From an Aesthetic Point of View’, in From an Aesthetic Point of View:
Philosophy, Art and the Senses, ed. P. Osborne (London: Serpent’s Tail, 2000), pp. 1–10, p. 1.
18. Osborne, ‘Introduction’, pp. 2–3.
19. See for example The Linguistic Turn: Recent Essays in Philosophical Methods, ed. R. Rorty (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1967). On the implications of this for art history see M. Bal and
N. Bryson, ‘Semiotics and Art History’, Art Bulletin 73 (1991), 174–208. For a critical discussion
of this linguistic turn see ‘The Pictorial Turn’ by W.J.T. Mitchell, in his Picture Theory. For an
introduction to the current ‘sensual turn’, see Empire of the Senses: The Sensual Culture Reader, ed.
D. Howes (Oxford and New York: Berg Sensory Formations Series, 2005). For Howes’s analysis of
these various paradigm shifts in the humanities and social sciences, and his critique of both the
16 art, history and the senses
linguistic and the pictorial turns as rather cerebral and disembodied, see ‘Charting the Sensorial
Revolution’, Senses and Society 1 (2006), 113–28.
20. N. Davey, ‘Baumgarten Aesthetics: A Post-Gadamerian Reflection’, British Journal of Aesthetics 29
(1989), 101–15, 107–8.
21. S.W. Gross, ‘The Neglected Programme of Aesthetics’ in British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (2002),
403–14.
22. Gross, ‘The Neglected Programme’, 410, his translation from Latin.
23. Jütte, History of the Senses, p. 146.
24. Gross, ‘The Neglected Programme’, 405; subsequent references in the text.
25. T. Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), p. 13.
26. S. Buck-Morss, ‘Aesthetics and Anaesthetics: Walter Benjamin’s Artwork Essay Reconsidered’,
October 62 (1992), 3–41, 6.
27. Osborne, ‘Introduction’, p. 7; subsequent references in the text.
28. M. Baxandall’s term from Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1972).
29. ‘The cultivation of the five senses is the work of all previous history’; K. Marx, ‘Economic
and Philosophic Manuscripts’ (1844), in Karl Marx: Early Writings, trans. R. Livingstone
(Harmondsworth: Penguin and New Left Review, 1975), pp. 279–400, p. 353. The sentence
comes in the context of a discussion of the effects of capitalism and private property on
the ‘physical and intellectual senses’, which become estranged and replace by ‘the sense of
having’ (p. 352).
30. On abjection and the concept of the ‘clean and proper’ self in individual and group identity from
a, respectively, psychoanalytical and anthropological perspective, see J. Kristeva, Powers of Horror:
An Essay on Abjection, trans. L.S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), and M.
Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concept of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1966).
31. Oxford Dictionary of English (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
32. S. Shaw-Miller, Visible Deeds of Music: Art and Music from Wagner to Cage (New Haven CT and
London: Yale University Press, 2002); M. Bull, ‘iPod’, in Jones, Sensorium, pp. 156–8.
33. H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. D. Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), p. 200.
34. W.J.T. Mitchell, ‘There Are No Visual Media’, Journal of Visual Culture 4 (2005), 257–66, 259.
35. M. Bal, ‘Narrative Inside Out: Louise Bourgeois’s Spider as Theoretical Object’, Oxford Art Journal
22 (1999), 103–26, 126.
36. Ibid.
37. S. Buck-Morss interviewed by G. Kester in ‘Aesthetics After the End of Art: An Interview with
Susan Buck-Morss’, Art Journal 56 (1997), 38–45, 39.
38. Jones, Eyesight Alone, pp. xxii–xxv.
39. B. O’Doherty, Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space (Santa Monica CA: Lapis Press,
1986).
40. M. Selzer, ‘Wound Culture: Trauma in the Pathological Public Sphere’, October 80 (1997), 3–16, 4.
41. M. Bal, J. Crewe and L. Spitzer (eds), Acts of Memory: Cultural Recall in the Present (Hanover NH
and London: University Press of New England and Dartmouth College, 1999), p. vii.
42. Bal, ‘Narrative Inside Out’, 103.
43. R. Culbertson, ‘Embodied Memory, Transcendence, and Telling: Recounting Trauma, Re-
Establishing the Self’, New Literary History 26 (1995), 169–95, 169.
44. J. Bennet, ‘Art, Affect and the “Bad Death”: Strategies for Communicating the Sense Memory Loss’,
Signs 1 (2002), 333–51, 334–5.
45. Osborne, ‘Introduction’, p. 2.
Patrizia Di Bello and Gabriel Koureas 17
46. Symptomatic of this is the title of the conference at which some of these papers were first aired,
Art and Art History: Content, Discontent, Malcontents (Association of Art Historians, University of
Leeds, 5–7 April 2006. We want to thank in particular Fred Orton for his support of our session on
‘Other than the Visual’.
47. Davey, ‘Baumgarten Aesthetics’, 110–11; subsequent references in the text.
48. M. Merleau-Ponty, The World of Perception (1948); trans. O. Davis (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 101;
subsequent references in the text.