Irit Rogoff on Studying Visual Culture

• How will you utilize your own word to describe the visual culture? What will be included and/or conflated inside?

The visual culture is tangible, recognized, and expressive. Encompassed in this culture are different factors that come into play a few being economical, social, and ideological. We create and add meaning to the things that we see and encounter by responding to our interactions. It's in our responses that meanings that add to visual culture are changed individually for us and possibly collectively for a community. Inside visual culture there is so much room for difference in perspective which allows for it to be an ever-changing and dynamic being that ebbs and flows with the changes in society.

• Why it is important to be able to ask “new and alternative” questions in visual culture?

As visual culture is so dynamic we must alter our questions about it to keep up with the change and growth of the area. We need to push our questions to allow for beneficial growth to occur and we must question our role and relation to visual culture and how that gives meaning. New ideas push the boundaries upon which we think is possible and for the culture to be truly challenged, questions about it must be reinvented and reimagined for new and updated answers to emerge.

• How will you utilize your own word to restate Rogoff’s arguments on “speaking about” and “speaking to?”

"Speaking about" seems like the viewers reverberation of what they are looking at. They're looking at a subject and they're describing from their own reinterpretation more about that topic. "Speaking to" on the other hand seems to be an area where a viewer gives their perspective on the topic and therefore can alter meaning. "Speaking to" also implies that the viewer is giving comments on or discussing something whereas "speaking about" seems much more disconnected and obligatory.

• Rogoff mentions her opinions about using “curious eyes” to replace “the good eyes.” How do you think about her comments? Agree or disagree? Please make your own arguments.

I agree that having "curious eyes" allows for a much more open mind and a wide platform for new perspectives. "Good eyes" can be specified in determining things that are widely known but this idea is limiting and somewhat narrow. In order to achieve "good eyes" it seems that you must follow a formula and therefore be awarded the title of having a "good eye" for visual recognition. Having "curious eyes" means that there is space for new ideas and there isn't a formula to confine concrete ideals but instead a seemingly more interpretative lens that is put on thought.

• What does the term “gaze” mean in visual cultural studies?

Gaze while a nuanced idea, could simply be described as the manner in which people look at subjects in a certain contextual situation. There are so many different filters that can adjust gaze dependent on situation, predetermined beliefs and other traits which is why it's such a complex topic. Gaze in the study of visual culture could be the way in which we realize things taking into account why we view things in the ways that we do.

• What possibilities could be brought to us by making, seeing, and living critically in visual culture?

The possibilities to contribute to culture in a constructive way could arise and the opportunity to be better art historians, designers, writers, etc. Living critically would allow for a much deeper thought process not only in our fields of study but also in our everyday interactions in the world. We seek to be challenged in order for growth and taking a critical standpoint could push the boundaries upon which we express our beliefs and would push us to make changes for the better in our communities.

• What are some examples that we see in our own lives of the impact that living critically have had on visual culture? (artist examples, personal)