Week 9: Phenomenology (Amelia Jones)

 

Blog Post Topic:

"Meaning, Identity, Embodiment:

The Uses of Merleau-Ponty’s

Phenomenology in

Art History"

by Amelia Jones

Amelia Jones: USC Roski School of Art & Design
Robert A. Day Professor of Art and Design / Vice Dean of Faculty and Research

Photo credit: Harry Gamboa, Jr., 2019
roski.usc.edu/profile/amelia-jones

This week we read another writing by Amelia Jones, "Meaning, Identity, Embodiment: The Uses of Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology in Art History," in Art and Thought was a tedious and extensive read. There were many long run-on sentences that wound around the same point several times. This reading was written about how you embody your own specific perspective while viewing and experiencing the world, which is called phenomenology when you study this phenomenon more in depth. Jones goes over how Merleau-Ponty was a great influence in her understanding of this phenomena, and wrote, “Merleau-Ponty, I will argue, provides a crucial way of thinking about how we make meaning from the world, from other subjects, and for ourselves as embodied subjects; … his model indicates precisely that these determinations are never fixed but, rather, always fluid.” I understand this to mean we are each building upon and seeing from a perspective that is always learning and changing. Going through the unique journeys of our own life is all we can know, and interacting with others leads to even greater understanding.

A point that stood out from Jones' writing was reciprocity. She argues along with Merleau-Ponty that a person’s body and identity are interlinked in the way they interpret and relate meaning to what they see or experience. As I understood it, Jones makes a very thorough point in that we embody our whole selves at every moment and cannot imagine a disembodied understanding without all elements. Ultimately, there is no way to separate your unique perspective, shaped by your life, from the way you perceive everything with both your body and mind.

This reading was somewhat interesting in the way that it explained a pretty obvious and mundane concept to the point of dead-horse kicking, and I do agree overall with her assessments. Jones has a habit of responding to other art critics in a contradictory way, and so I do enjoy the pushback on what is usually the unquestioned opinion of an overly confident man. I’m glad there are people saying more accurate statements about art. Unfortunately, the language and drawn-out points made this writing tedious and redundant to read. I attempted to find other interpretations or evaluations of Jones’ writing, but found none as this one was from 2003. I’m surprised this writing is as recent as it is, as it was very dull and seemed not modern while I tried to get through it.

It was a struggle for me because the style of writing seemed pretentious and unnecessary. I understood the general point she was making because I have thought a lot about perspectives and who people are when they say their opinions. I’ve always noticed that people are simply speaking from their own perspectives, and that includes their lives, what they have gone through, the body they’ve brought with them, and so forth. Overall, I thought this week’s reading was mildly interesting but tiresome.

Jones, Amelia. “Meaning, Identity, Embodiment: The Uses of Merleau‐ponty’s Phenomenology in Art History.” Art and Thought, January 2003, 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470774199.ch4.