[*]In trying to understand the subjects of human artifacts (ie, works of man such as artworks, literature or science), one must consider the worldview of the creators of those artifacts. Not doing so would limit one’s understanding of the subject, since they are depicted through the prism of the worldview of the creators of the artifacts.
One example of this limitation is Orientalism, which according to Said is “a way of coming to terms with the Orient that is based on the Orient’s special place in European Western experience.” Artifacts like Flaubert’s novels or Marco Polo’s travel journals are made by individuals who are outsiders to the culture of the subject, presenting to individuals who are likewise outsiders.
The view through this prism is further refracted when the creator of the artifact is politically dominant vis-à-vis the subject. Said points out that the “relationship between Occident and Orient is a relationship of power, of domination, of varying degrees of a complex hegemony […]” and that “In a quite constant way, Orientalism depends for its strategy on this flexible positional superiority, which puts the Westerner in a whole series of possible relationships with the Orient without ever losing him the relative upper hand.” This political reality unavoidably “tinges all academic knowledge” on the dominated Other because “if it is true that no production of knowledge in the human sciences can ever ignore or disclaim its author’s involvement as a human subject in his own circumstances, then it must also be true that for a European or American studying the Orient there can be no disclaiming the main circumstances of his actuality: that he comes up the Orient as a European or American first, as an individual second.”
The limitation of viewing a subject from a dominant outsider’s point-of-view can be compounded by the subjects’ adoption of that point-of-view in viewing themselves. According to Poshyananda, “The concept of Orientalism has the tendency to dichotomize the human continuum into us-them contrasts resulting in the othering of artificial entities such as “Oriental,” “Asiatic,” or within collectives such as “race,” “mentality,” and “nation.”” When the subjects look at themselves using this dichotomy, one common reaction is ethnocentrism. In the case of the arts, “predictably, traditional aesthetics has often projected the inside-outside schism where external influences are “bad” whereas inward-looking strategy into one’s own roots and culture is preferable.” For artists who fall into this ethnocentric stance, “there is a danger of falling into the trap of self-Orientalizing mode […]”
While it is clear that there are limitations to understanding subjects as depicted by a dominant outsider, these depictions are not without value. Said warns that “it would be wrong to conclude that the Orient was essentially an idea, or a creation with no corresponding reality” and that “One ought never to assume that the structure of Orientalism is nothing more than a structure of lies or of myths which, were the truth about them to be told, would simply blow away.” Said points out that there is value in artifacts made through the prism of Orientalism, but one needs to keep in mind the factor of the prism. Orientalism, he says, is “an accepted grid for filtering through the Orient into Western consciousness […].”
Disregarding the prism through which artifacts are created lends one to a limited understanding of the subject of the artifacts. Furthermore, the subjects themselves may be inordinately influenced by this prism in understanding themselves. To have a fuller understanding of the subject depicted, one must have an understanding of the one depicting the subject, as well as the political relationship of the depicted and the one depicting.
[*]This is a post is about the following essays. All quotations come from either source.
Said, Edward. “Orientalism.” In Francina, F. and Harris, J. (Eds.) 1992. Art in the Modern Culture. HK. Phaidon Press. PP. 136-144
Poshyananda, Apinan. 1993. “Traditional Aesthetics in the Visual Arts of Thailand”
kunohay 