Empathic
Vision: Affect, Trauma and Contemporary
Art
by Jill Bennett
Stanford University Press, Stanford, California,
2005
208 pp., illus. 23 b/w. Trade, $49.50;
paper, $19.95
ISBN: 0-8047-5074-2; ISBN: 0-8047-5171-4.
Reviewed by Alex Rotas
Bristol, UK
alex.rotas@bluyeonder.co.uk
This is an insightful, timely book. The
common notion that the particular experience
of looking at art provides access to broader
truths is a vague adage that doesnt
take us very far. It needs opening up;
just how does this leap from an embodied,
aesthetic experience to thought occur?
Bennett describes this as the link between
affect and cognition in the visual arts,
and this is the issue she explores.
Art, she argues (drawing from Deleuze),
has "unique capacities" to trigger an
empathic response from the viewer which,
far from being an end in itself, ideally
leads to thought and critical enquiry.
The affective power of the visual is particularly
demonstrated in the case of art that draws
from trauma, which as she observes, is
traditionally defined as being beyond
both language and representation. Nonetheless,
traumatic experience such as child sexual
abuse, the tyrannies of war, civil war
and political oppression, the Holocaust,
and the events of 9/11 have
provided artists with opportunities to
engage visually and conceptually in difficult
and painful arenas. In particular, she
charts the emergence of the thematic category
of trauma art since the late
1990s. Interweaving theory drawn from
trauma studies, literary studies, art
history, visual culture and cultural studies
with detailed case-histories, she examines
how contemporary art can "engage trauma
in a way that respects and contributes
to its politics."
Her interest, however, is more than with
a specific grouping of works and with
a particular politics. Her illuminating
treatment of the artworks that form her
case-studies are already reason enough
to buy the book but Bennett has a more
ambitious aim. As a contemporary art historian,
she sees her remit not as writing about
the artworks that form the focus of
her inquiry or with demonstrating what
they mean, or what trauma is depicted.
It is how they work that interests her.
How does the particular affective
imagery of art drawn from trauma
engage us, she asks, and where does it
take us? Unlike narrative film, visual
art doesnt draw us into an emotional
response with a traumatised subject. Equally,
it does not elicit a specific moral
response, although there are plenty of
worthy artworks around that, in telling
us what to think, certainly set out to
do just that. Yet it is arts affective
component, she argues, that paradoxically
leads to critical thought just as it is
through relinquishing any moral position
that a particular piece can enable ethical
inquiry.
This is a book aimed at a theoretically
fluent constituency. Bennetts analysis
embraces theoretical discussions of memory,
testimony, subjectivity, pain, trauma,
and loss plus victim and stranger discourses
as well as more art-related issues of
representation and the relationship between
visual and cognitive processes. It will,
therefore, delight a broad, if sophisticated,
readership. Nonetheless its primary audience
will be readers from art-theory/visual
culture/cultural studies backgrounds together
with those interested in trauma studies
or postcolonial theory. Innovative, courageous
and unashamedly attempting to push "the
analysis of culture onto new ground",
Bennett makes a powerful case for her
central thesis that visual arts practice
is generative rather than representative.
Theory, she sets out to demonstrate, can
be derived from visual domains and not
just applied to them.
The ambitious remit of the book, however,
is both its strength and its weakness.
It is indeed, as the back-cover proclaims,
"written at the highest level" but this
implies a readership that can keep up
with dense yet often economically argued
prose. Bennett covers a lot of ground
in this slim volume. Rather surprisingly,
the central notion of affect
is never defined (or even discussed) and
we are left wondering if the affective
experience is synonymous with the
aesthetic experience, as Bennett
herself implies towards the end. If so,
of course, what exactly does this mean?
And though keen to emphasise the open-ended
nature of the empathic response, she does
assume that when she enjoys the affective
element in an artwork, we all will; with
the gloriously named Gordon Bennetts
work, for example, much as I was fascinated
by her analysis, it just didnt happen
for me (poor illustrations didnt
help).
Nonetheless, these are quibbles. This
is an exciting read that more than repays
the efforts that Bennett demands. Thought-provoking
and at times startling, Empathic Vision
opens up new ideas that stay with you
long after you have closed its covers.
And it deals with issues that are now
relevant to us all; as Bennett observes,
since 9/11, trauma has become
a globalised phenomenon.