We’re half way through our semester and I’ve been taking stock of what issues this cIass has raised for me. More and more, I find myself thinking about methodology.
Questions keep popping up like:
What counts as cultural studies and for that matter who gets to decide?
What is literature’s relationship with the field?
Where do my allegiances and interests place me within the discipline?
What biases am I bringing to these texts?
What would Michael Bérubé say about my research interests?
It seems unsurprising then that I find myself drawn to write about the introduction of Guilbaut’s work. Of his own methodology he writes:
I am of course not unaware of the unpopularity of the kind of approach I am proposing. This has to do with resistance to the idea of dragging art’s ideal values rough the mud of politics and ideology. This objection I merely shrug off, for I am convinced that, while such treatment may somewhat dim art’s ethereal luster, this loss will be more than compensated by the gain in reality and truth. (12)
Now, I can get behind wanting to validate your methodology, especially when using it in a field that would prefer you use their own. And I don’t deny that this is certainly a charismatic passage. (In fact the entire book as a certain joie de vivre if you’ll pardon the pun). While in French the word choice is certainly poetic (réalité et vérité), both with its assonance and rhyme, when I read the words “reality and truth” in English, a red flag goes up for me. This is the main problem I see within the discipline of history, the idea that truth is discoverable if one collects all the data within the historic record. At best one can claim a greater knowledge is gained/produced, or a new context is made available, but calling it truth, or saying that a given disciple has the methodology to attain truth is outrageous to my mind. By not addressing the complicated nature of historic inquiry (who keeps the records, whose voice counted enough to be recorded, his own biases in which information he is seeking) Guilbaut is participating in the same behavior he critiques the art world of doing
I’m telling you, introductions are where all the real problems show up!
unrelated to my post and for your viewing pleasure, contemplate this Rothko:
This won't count as my comment (now that I've finished it, maybe it will?),
ReplyDeleteSteven when I read your post I thought you wrote "COMPLICATE this Rothko:"
ha ha, certainly this is what Guilbaut succeeds at doing! Guilbaut seems to value a reading that wants to complicate previous discourse rather than enjoy the mere contemplation of a work. Of course, this is not a problem in and of itself, we should always try to complicate discourse to develop new ideas and unearth disregarded connections, but I am also of the camp that loves to love the object as well.
My initial response to any art (cinema, painting, music, etc) will always be emotional before intellectual or historical. Yes, cultural capital plays a huge role in this, but seeming to deny these 'experiences'is always a complicated place to start a discussion.
I wish Guilbaut had provided a connective passage into the text, something emotional perhaps or even something to do directly with an art object to engage me as a reader not necessarily that interested in this art period or political discussions surrounding it.
Last week I was not looking forward to reading Cold War Orientalism, but Klein had a way of drawing me into the stakes and the discussions through a visual hook, of combining elements, and making accessible and challenging a discussion of which I was not as aware.
I keep asking myself with Guilbaut: What is at stake for an outsider in this text?