One year ago, being keen to contextualize my artistic practice as an emerging art painter, I stepped into the enigmatic realm of visual culture studies with no clear idea about it. However abstract this subject sounded at the beginning, the understanding of it has extended and even redefined my perspective on visual arts and their context. By referring to Mithcell's critique of visual culture, through this article, I want to present a different approach to visuality and the act of seeing, which is critical in the predominantly visual era that we are exposed to. If you are new to the field of visual culture and, at the same time, curious enough about this subject, then the following text might help you build a clearer understanding of it.

It is a well-known fact that we consume visual representations every day, and we cannot so easily avoid being exposed to them. Even more, we rarely tend to consider the implications of visual consumption on our reality and how they construct our perception of the world. According to Mitchell (1998), visual culture studies the experience of seeing from a multidisciplinary point of view (sociological, economic, political, etc) by going beyond the aesthetics of visual representations. To put it simpler, when one encounters an image, the experience of seeing it is informed by one’s background and filters as well as by the context of that image. Thus, the act of seeing should be approached as a multi-dimensional process, where both the subject and the object of seeing have their influence over the specific moment of visual consumption. By acknowledging this, we can understand and analyse the experience of seeing as an individualistic and contextual act. In this sense, Manguel (1998, p. 117) claims “I come to a work of art with my historical and geographical baggage, but the baggage I bring is always changing and allows me to see something else in the work almost every time”. In other words, we always bring something different to the images we look at, and the images can express and represent something different depending on the time and context we look at them.

Further, Mithcell introduces the dialectical relationship of vision and how it influences visual culture – the visual and social construction of vision. The concept of social construction entails that the experience of seeing is culturally determined and, thus, vision is a cultural activity. In other words, the act of seeing is influenced by the inherited practices of our culture: race, language, values, traditions, education, etc. On the other hand, the concept of visual construction underlies the idea that vision is also a natural activity, determined by the physiological response of seeing. It is important to acknowledge that before getting to the disciplinary and interpretive forms of seeing an image, we respond to the visual part of it.

For example, when being exposed to this painting, firstly we face the simple act of looking at it and physically analysing it. Its size, texture, materials that were used, the contrast, and the combination of colours and shapes – all construct the visual reality of this image, which is then projected on our cultural perception of it. As Mitchell suggests, the act of seeing can be approached as a universal language, inherited genetically, that informs us about the physical features of the visual. When looking at it, we see a mixture of colours and tones, organized in levels or even waves. Bright blue and orange tones are contrasting with purple and black. Because of their hue and brightness, some of these colours stand out, while others blend into the background. Before trying to decode and interpret this image in relation to the used colours and contrasts, we embrace the warmness or coldness of tones that affect our minds and feelings. Our natural response to the physical exposure to warm or cold colours is determined by the way our body reacts to them.

When looking at this painting, we also see various undefined shapes, which combined together might allude to natural depictions. Before trying to connect them and understand their meaning, we face the incompleteness, blurriness and unclarity that they create and which, in a way, might provoke confusion and disorientation. This is mainly due to the way our mind reacts to unclear images and shapes. It always seeks to connect, associate and, thus, create a visual reality of what we see. This is how the natural activity of our vision works, which is the opposite of the social construction of the visual field and, at the same time, its complement.

Once we have visually constructed the reality of this image, we face the interpretive act that is more culturally determined. When trying to decode and interpret the social construction of this image, we refer to our background, education, social and cultural context at this moment. We might start by connecting all the shapes and colours in order to find a way to read this image. The fact that there are no clearly defined shapes and figures tells us that the painting is an abstract one. Being taught by our culture what are the characteristics of the abstract genre in art, this knowledge informs the way we approach this painting. If we were looking at it in the 19th century, before the abstract genre being defined, we would have approached it differently, perhaps more critically and sceptically. Once we know that this is an abstract painting, we might look for deeper meaning or a metaphor to decode the underlying message. It is something that we learn from our culture, that each artist is trying to convey a message or a story through their work, and no expression or visual representation is purposeless. Therefore, we immediately look for clues, connections, symbols, motifs or repetitions in the artist's work, each of these being learnt culturally. Furthermore, we might look for a personal connection to the painting – what it reminds us about or how our emotional and social background reflects in it. Whether I see transformation or lostness, isolation or freedom, the reflection is connected to my personality and my culture and is different from the way someone else would see this painting. Working as a code, a language that is culturally learnt, the cultural dimension of our vision is the one that conveys colours, shapes, materials and other physical features into ideas, messages or emotions. However, as Mitchell suggests, it is important to equally recognize and examine both dimensions of our vision – natural and cultural, since their dialectical relationship is the one that determines our experience of seeing.

As we are more often exposed to visual representations, whether digitally or physically, we should acknowledge that the act of seeing is more than just a sight experience – it is a both naturally and culturally informed process. Why is this important to know? Firstly, to accept various and even opposing interpretations of visual representations. Secondly, once we understand that there are more factors involved in the construction of a visual experience, we might see things differently – become more critical and try to dismantle every visual representation as a coded message. In a way, delving into the field of visual culture studies opens up more questions related to the widely accepted visual representations as normalities. In the end, what I am trying to suggest is to acknowledge that nothing is normal or naturally given, and asking questions about what we see can help us better understand the underlying beliefs and structures of the visual era that we are living in.

Written by Vera Doarme, 2022