British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol 35, No 4, October, 1995

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

THE SELF-CONSCIOUS SPECTATOR
M.G. Benton

THE VIEWER S STANCE

PLAY WITH prepositions is the resort of those who would describe what hap-
pens between viewer and painting. Looking at, looking in, looking into,
seeing-as, seeing-in, are all familiar phrases in the titles and texts of recent
theorists. Prepositions, as they are genencally designed to do, situate the
viewer somewhere in relation to the object of attention. Moreover, the term
'viewer' does not grant the onlooker a natural persona: it may be modified
by 'implied' or, more notably, transmuted into the 'beholder'1 or the 'spec-
tator'2. Both terms colour the position, the one with a suggestion of reverence,
the other with the sense of looking on at ordinary events. Thus, whatever the
preferred vocabulary for viewing paintings, the basic concept of stance is
rendered elusive and obscured by accretions of meaning from other areas of
experience. Despite the variety of terms in current use, this paper neither
insists upon a single epithet nor invents a new coinage of its own: the term
'viewer' is regarded as having the most general and least encumbered meaning
(corresponding to 'reader' in literature), whereas 'spectator' is used to indicate
a particular role that the viewer takes on. Spectator theory has been a recurring
source of explanation, in both verbal and visual arts, for questions of how we
read and how we view, from the early psychologically oriented work of D.W.
Harding3 to Kendall Walton's4 recent studies in philosophical aesthetics. This
paper confines itself to the visual and draws upon the work both of theorists
such as Gombnch, who approach such questions from the standpoint of the
psychology of perception, and those like Walton who regard a work of art as
an invitation to an act of make-believe with 'the picture as a prop in a visual
game'.5 In particular the paper seeks to clarify the notion of viewer stance and
to explore aspects of visual understanding that follow from it. Viewer stance
is a problematic idea since it not only describes a position adopted in relation
to a picture but it also implies creative engagement with the picture. Initially,
however, we need to establish the viewer in situ before the painting and to
consider the experience that he or she is offered.
Diane Collinson puts herself engagingly into the spectator role and invents
a typical thought-track as a way of disentangling the elements that go to make
up the aesthetic experience of viewing paintings. She concludes:
© Oxford University Press 1995 361
362 THE SELF-CONSCIOUS SPECTATOR
Perhaps aesthetic experience is even better typified by the gaps between 'the ordin-
ary spectator's' phrases, by the wordless m o m e n t s w h e n the spectator is poised
in the act simply o f apprehending the painting rather than w h e n remarking on it.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

Indeed, if w e think back to the remark 'Ah, that sunlit field', it is the ' A h ' m o r e
than 'that sunlit field' that reveals the sensuous immediacy of the aesthetic
m o m e n t . For it is not an experience in which w e formulate an intellectual j u d g e -
ment to the effect that a vision of a sunlit field has been w o n d r o u s l y depicted.
Rather, w e experience the vision for ourselves, we are admitted to the painter's
point of view It is a distinguishing mark of aesthetic experience that it is one of
participating in, or inhabiting, the world of the picture M o s t of the c o m m e n t s
or remarks indicative of the experience are retrospective in that they are about it
rather than part o/it 6

This account focuses us upon 'the sensuous immediacy of the aesthetic

moment', upon the spectator as an 'insider', lost in a painting (as in a book)
in the sense of becoming absorbed for a time in the 'world' that is to be
explored. But absorption is a variable quality of attention, not a stable state;
the viewer can only recognize it by being self-consciously aware of its oppos-
ite—of standing back in relative detachment, maybe to analyse and comment.
Just what happens in these moments of viewing is the puzzle. Formulations
vary (see Figure i) but the essential dualism between an aspect of aesthetic
response located in the primary world we all share (the materiality of the
painting) complemented by an aspect located in the secondary world of indi-
vidual imagination (the artistic illusion) is common to all such accounts. The
relationship between the two elements remains debatable in respect of their
importance, precedence or simultaneity; what is less contentious is that the
problem only exists because we are aware of two aspects of our viewing. We
are defined, when standing before a painting, as self-conscious spectators.
By describing such perceptual activity as self-conscious I do not imply the
modern meaning of being unduly aware of oneself as an object of attention,
but rather the original sense of'having consciousness of one's identity, actions,
sensations . . . [of being] reflectively aware . . . of action, thought, e t c '
(Oxford Universal Dictionary). The former describes an aspect of social beha-
viour; the latter constitutes an element of self-knowledge. This reflexive self-
consciousness is a useful concept in holding together the variety of descriptions
and diverse terms that critics have employed in their attempts to capture what
happens when we engage with a work of art, for it focuses both upon the
object of contemplation and upon the subjective reaction. The self-conscious
look entails a contraplex process. It cannot look outward at a painting without
an accompanying sense of the response evoked within; it cannot look inward
without the awareness of the object out there as its catalyst.
Armed with this notion of reflexive self-consciousness, my particular pur-
poses are to examine some of the main positions that have been adopted on
the inherent dualism of aesthetic response through a scrutiny of their preferred
vocabulary and definitions; and to reconsider the concept of 'aesthetic dis-
 M.G. BENTON 363
7
tance' as a continuum, to explain how the mind does two things at once
during the process of viewing. These considerations lead to a critical appraisal

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

of Wollheim's notion of 'the spectator in the picture' and to a discussion of
the viewer's awareness of occupying a pre-fabricated narrative stance as the
principal way in which he or she is implicated in this duahstic activity.

(UN) DIVIDED ATTENTION

In the course of a well-known discussion of whether we can 'attend twice at
once', Ryle comments:
The fact that we speak of undivided attention suggests that the division of attention
is a possibility, though some people would describe the division of attention as a
rapid to-and-fro switch of attention rather than as a synchronous distribution
of it.8

Subsequent debates of this dualism in the visual arts have reflected both
descriptions. Indeed, Wollheim9 has acknowledged that he has adopted both
positions at different times. For clarity's sake, the three main contributions to
the debate—those of Gombrich (i960), Wollheim (1987), and Podro (1991) —
can be presented in tabular form (Figure 1), together with those of two
others—Clark (i960) and Koestler (1964) —whose comments help to illumin-
ate the point in the context of their writings on other issues. All the termino-
logy is direct quotation 10
CONCEPT MEDIUM VIRTUAL
SUBJECT

CLARK transformation salad of brush illusion

strokes

KOESTLER bisociation medium motif

GOMBRICH guided projection mosaic of strokes illusion

and dabs on the
canvas

WOLLHEIM twofoldness marked surface depicted subject

PODRO disegno material represented

procedure subject
Fig. 1. The vocabulary of visual perception

The five concepts vary in their degree of technicality but all are attempts to
explain the experience of viewing representational painting within the general
364 THE SELF-CONSCIOUS SPECTATOR

framework of the psychology of perception. They focus upon 'the aesthetic

moment'—or, maybe, a series of such moments, as will be suggested pres-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

ently—when the spectator's self-conscious evocation of the painting consists
of a double vision of the virtual subject and of the medium in which it is
portrayed. Articulating the experience of this double vision labours under a
double handicap. As Clark" comments: '. . . quite apart from the shortcom-
ings of perception, there is the difficulty of turning visual experience into
language.' Yet, it was his account of his attempts to 'stalk' Velasquez's Las
Meninas that initiated the renewed debate. He described his experiments in
trying to discover how the illusion was effected as follows:

I would start from as far away as I could, when the illusion was complete, and
come gradually nearer, until suddenly what had been a hand, and a ribbon, and
a piece of velvet, dissolved into a salad of brushstrokes I thought I might learn
something if I could catch the moment at which this transformation took place,
but it proved to be as elusive as the moment between waking and sleeping.12

Clark's final remark suggests that in looking for a single moment we may be
seeking the wrong solution; what in fact he describes is a transformational
process —a series of moments during which the emphases of our perception
change. Nonetheless, this has not deterred others from trying to pin-point
this phenomenon.
Koestler's13 theory of bisociation is one that seeks to account for all creative
activity. It distinguishes between the single-minded routine skills of everyday
thinking, and creative thinking which is described as 'a double-minded, trans-
itory state of unstable equilibrium where the balance of both emotion and
thought is disturbed.' When he comes to discuss painting14, Koestler's dualism
is conveyed through the terms 'medium' and 'motif. He reminds us of the
familiar point that 'the impact (of a painting) does not take place on the canvas,
but in the artist's mind, and in the beholder's mind.' Because of the 'limitations
of the medium' and 'the prejudices of vision' the painter is forced to cheat
and the viewer is forced into complicity

The way he (the painter) cheats, the tricks he uses, are partly determined by the
requirements of the medium itself—he must think 'in terms of stone, wood,
pigment, or gouache—but mainly by the ldiosyncracies of his vision: the codes
which govern the matrices of his perception. Whether Manet's impression of The
Races of Longchamp looks more 'life-like' than Fnth's academically meticulous
Derby Day depends entirely on the beholder's spectacles. An artist can copy in
plaster, up to a point, a Roman copy of a Greek bronze head; he cannot 'copy'
on canvas a running horse He can only create an appearance which, seen in a
certain light, at a certain distance, in a certain mood, will suddenly acquire a life
of its own It is not a copy, but a metaphor. The horse was not a model, but a motif
for his creation —in the sense in which a landscape painter looks for a romantic or
pastoral motif.15
 M G BENTON 365
Koestler is not as explicit about the operation of the split-mindedness of
medium and motif in painting as he had been earlier when discussing verbal

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

creation. There he affirms that artistic illusion is 'the simultaneous presence
and interaction in the mind of two universes, one real, one imaginary.' 15 He
conceives of the aesthetic experience as 'depending on that delicate balance
arising from the presence of both matrices in the mind; on perceiving the hero
as Laurence Olivier and Prince Hamlet of Denmark at one and the same time;
on the lightning oscillations of attention from one to the other . . .'1? Where
painting is concerned he places less emphasis upon simultaneity and more
upon the viewer's awareness of artistic convention18 and what he refers to at
one point as 'the various bisociative, or bi-focal, processes'19 of looking at
paintings. Bi-focahsm, in fact, is a useful term in that it suggests both a near
focus and a more distant one in combination, and the necessary and rapid
movement between the two.
Gombnch's concept of 'guided projection' as a means of explaining the
viewer's perceptual process takes Clark's transformation further by stressing
the virtuality of the image in a way that is consistent with the bi-focahsm
suggested by Koestler. For Gombrich has continued to maintain that it is
literally inconceivable for the viewer to focus at the same time both upon the
illusion and the 'strokes and dabs on the canvas' that produce it. If visual
perception entails experiencing the virtual presence of the image while the
material painting remains on the gallery wall, how can one's attention to both
be anything but divided? Simultaneity between the scene seen and the actual
surface is a psychological impossibility. Here is how Gombrich, speaking of
impressionist painting, describes what happens to the viewer:20

the beholder must mobilize his memory of the visible world and project it
into the mosaic of strokes and dabs on the canvas before him It is here, therefore,
- that the principle of guided projection reaches its climax The image, it might be
said, has no firm anchorage left on the canvas . . it is only 'conjured up' in our
minds. The willing beholder responds to the artist's suggestion because he enjoys
the transformation that occurs in front of his eyes The artist gives the
beholder increasingly 'more to do', he draws him into the magic circle of creation
and allows him to experience something of the thrill of 'making' . . .

There is a lot of action here: mobilization, projection, transformation, 'more

to do', 'making' —the viewer's perceptual activity loosens an image from the
canvas and fastens it in imagination. Both exist simultaneously in their separate
states for the duration of the viewing, but we cannot attend to both simultan-
eously. We switch between the two, yet each needs the other for the aesthetic
experience to be sustained. Mobility between the 'conceptual image' and the
actual picture is the key: the image requires constant feeding from the canvas;
the canvas requires the viewer's continuous effort of attention if it is to be
more than an object on a gallery wall.
366 THE SELF-CONSCIOUS SPECTATOR

Gombrich 2 ' has not helped his argument against simultaneity and for alter-
nating attention by basing his case on the well-known figure-ground reversals.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

It is one thing to switch between the duck and the rabbit in a composite image
drawn in pencil and reproduced on the printed page, and quite another to
switch between the scene and the surface of a painting in a gallery. Gombrich's
main opponent in this argument is Wollheim22 who insists upon the unitary
nature of 'twofoldness' as being fundamental to visual competence: surface
and scene are essentially part of the same phenomenon of aesthetic viewing.
Yet, while it is easy to counter Gombrich's reliance upon figure-ground
reversals because they comprise two homogeneous images, rather than the
heterogeneity of surface and scene, it is unconvincing in the light of common
experience to wrap up both aspects in a single enclosing concept which ignores
the mobility of imaginative participation and the variability of attention that
the viewer customarily exhibits before a work of art.
Wollheim is explicit that this foundational concept of'seeing-in' is a 'distinct
kind of perception', suggesting that it is biologically grounded and that young
children use it in their learning about the world. 23 To see-in is to have a
dual-aspect yet unitary experience in response to a painting. It is unitary in
that the viewer's absorption in the image is inclusive of two features: the
viewer sees both the 'depicted subject' and yet also sees the 'marked surface'
as evidenced in, say, the brush strokes, the density of the texture, the cracks
in the paint, and so on. Wollheim argues that these are

. . . two aspects of a single experience, they are not two experiences They are
neither two separate simultaneous experiences, which I somehow hold in the mind
at once, nor two separate alternating experiences, between which I oscillate. . . '24

These two aspects of viewing are thus distinguishable yet inseparable and
captured in the concept of 'twofoldness'. He calls the two complementary
aspects of seeing-in the recognitional aspect, where the spectator discerns some-
thing in the marked surface, and the configurational aspect, which indicates
the spectator's awareness of the marked surface per se. Both aspects of this
twofoldness operate in the spectator together, and it is this simultaneous
awareness of 'a depicted subject' and 'the marked surface' which ensures that
the framed scene registers both in depth and as flat.
Even though Wollheim avoids the difficulty of divided attention inherent
in Koestler's and Gombrich's accounts, his two-in-one combination produces
a synthetic concept without telling us anything about its modus operandi. As
Martin Kelly25 has pointed out, Wollheim does not elaborate on the 'in' that
he attaches to 'seeing' other than to say that figures are seen in a marked
surface. Prepositions, as suggested at the outset, locate the viewing experience,
and may, as here, indicate its salient features, but they say little about it as a
dynamic process. For some insights into this we must turn to the last of the
five formulations.
 M G BENTON 367
26
In his paper 'Depiction and The Golden Calf, Podro borrows a term from
Vasari and develops what he calls 'the disegno thesis —the thesis that we follow

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

the formulating as a way of perceiving what is represented' (p. 185). His paper
is concerned with a sense of abstraction which he elaborates as

. . . the sense in which the painting selects from, connects and reconstructs the
subject in the medium and procedures of painting; and, because these things are
indissolubly connected, it is concerned with the way that the drawing or painting
directs itself to the mind of the perceiver, who sees the subject remade within it,
sees a new world which exists only in painting and can be seen only by the spectator
who attends to the procedures of painting 27 (My italics.)

The key words here are 'in', 'world', and 'procedures', for they take us on
from Wollheim's 'seeing-in' to theorize what the 'in' implies. This is formu-
lated in terms of a virtual world which, in turn, is sustained by the way the
viewer's attention is undivided in that subject and medium interpenetrate each
other in the viewer's awareness of the procedures of painting.
In his discussion of 'how we see the painting procedure in the subject as
well as the subject in the painting procedure', the notion of the 'marked
surface' is problematic. Podro comments:

To talk of our sense of the surface may appear to be returning to the notion that
attention to surface and attention to represented subject compete or are reciprocally
independent, while in our account we assume the opposite 28

He overcomes this difficulty by conceiving of the painted surface in two

different ways which he terms, at different points-in his paper, 'material pre-
condition' (p. 170) and 'material procedure' (p. 185). The first describes the
material precondition of depiction—our scrutiny of the surface to recognize
the look of figures, flowers and so on. The second requires us to conceive of
the surface as itself having an appearance, one which interplays with the look
of the represented subject. He takes issue with Wollheim's account of repres-
entation on the basis that it implies that in following the fiction of what is
represented we become indifferent to the real properties of the object, thus
giving 'a logically secondary place to observing the material procedure of
painting and that procedure's relation to the depicted subject'. He concludes:
'we should be seeing the material as a representational medium, under the
concept of depiction'.29
The third key word identified above is 'world'. When Podro asks: 'how do
we, the spectators, use . . . the interpenetration of the painting's real presence
and the projected or imagined world?', he frames his answer by saying that:

. the subject becomes directed to us and we to it by both of us participating

in a new kind of world, a world in which the relation between the spectator and
368 THE SELF-CONSCIOUS SPECTATOR
the subject is mediated by the art and procedure of painting; it requires a particular
kind of attentiveness on our part and reveals the subject as it can be seen only in
painting. 3 0

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

Given Podro's premiss that it is the spectators who are active and it is they
who need to bring 'a particular kind of attentiveness' to bear, it is unclear what
is meant by 'the subject becomes directed to us.' When viewing a painting, the
initiation of the imagined world must start with the spectator's activity. While
it is notionally acceptable for the purposes of elaborating the disegno thesis to
hypothesize a sense in which the painting is active in creating a world, the
self-conscious spectator's experience of where that world is and how it comes
into being is most accurately located as being neither wholly within the paint-
ing nor wholly in the mind of the onlooker. It exists in the space between in
what Winnicott has called the 'third area'31 between the subjective self and the
external world of objects. Podro's 'new kind of world' is described in terms
of the relatedness between the spectator and the art-work and thus avoids the
need for a psychological explanation. Others have employed the same notion
with different emphases. Indeed, the 'imagined world' is, perhaps, the com-
monest of all metaphors to describe mental activity and has particular appeal
in the area of aesthetic experience. In recent years it has been developed from
many standpoints, notably in reading theory,32 in psychological enquiry,33 and
in philosophical discourse.34 In the arts, Tolkien's35 coinage of 'a secondary
world' has found a special resonance and has been elaborated by Auden36 and
Benton.37 As a metaphor for perceptual activity it is a useful indicator of the
virtual power that imaginative engagement with a work of art can generate;
but, used on its own, it takes us little further in understanding the actual
process of that engagement. Podro's disegno thesis provides one explanation
through its discussion of the 'material procedures' available in the art-work.
A complementary account is to explain this process of engagement through
the mental procedures inherent in the viewer's response. To do this, we need
to reconsider the concept of aesthetic distance.
Kris38 has argued that genuine aesthetic response takes place only when, in
the mind of the viewer of a painting, there occur shifts of psychic level and
psychic distance. The idea is of the mind in continuous movement between
these two interlocking axes: 'level' conveys the constant interplay between the
conscious and unconscious, the controlled and regressive elements; 'distance'
catches the continuous fluctuation in the degree of involvement with an art
object. Clearly, both dimensions are intimately related and suggest funda-
mental elements in the perceptual activities of the self-conscious spectator; it
is the dimension of 'distance', however, that is most useful in helping to
conceptualize how the secondary world is experienced by painters and
viewers. Both undergo phases of relative absorption with and detachment
from the depiction. Painters' makings of their secondary worlds entail some
 M.G BENTON 369

periods of intense absorption during which they seem a part of the very world
they are creating; at other times their role, physically and mentally, may be

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

to stand back, to put some distance between themselves and the 'world' they
are shaping and, consequentially, to become more aware of the materials with
which they are working. For the viewers, too, the onlooker role is not con-
stant. Their spectatorship will vary in the intensity of its commitment and
attention at different phases of the viewing process. (Clark39 hints at this in
his account of his customary pattern—impact, scrutiny, recollection and
renewal.) The axis of psychic distance expresses our sense of relationship with
the depiction; it acknowledges that our sense of scene and materiality is in a
state of continuous change; and it indicates the horizons beyond which the
secondary world ceases to exist. For if involvement becomes obsessive and
takes on psychotic characteristics, it leads to hallucination. (Koestler's theory
of bisociation gives a plausible account of how the mind protects itself from
this extreme.) Conversely, if the sense of detachment from the secondary
world is taken to the limit, it is but a short distance before painters or viewers
become disengaged and the process of depicting or viewing is suspended. At
the extreme, the work may be abandoned by the artist, or a painting may be
deemed incomprehensible by the viewer.
What does the reconsideration of this notion of distance achieve? Essentially,
it restores mobility to the process of visual response by means of a continuum.
The viewer's attention is itself best viewed neither as divided nor undivided
but as constantly moving, enabling a range of responses to be generated,
some simultaneously, some successively, as the eye perceives and the brain
constructs. Spectatorship is not a stable state but the adoption of a continu-
ously shifting viewpoint—a concept that has been developed in relation to
literature by Iser40 and which, both there in respect of fiction and here with
reference to painting, denotes not arbitrary movements but ones regulated by
an awareness of the qualities of the object of attention. This, in turn, suggests
that there is an 'implied viewer'41 (to adapt a term from literary theory) con-
structed within the painting whose stance is pre-determined and whose view-
ing experience is partly orchestrated by the form and medium of the painting.
As he or she is drawn into the secondary world the self-conscious spectator
looks around, as it were, fully aware that the engagement with the painting
has both determined and undetermined elements. What the spectator brings
to this experience clearly matters, but the basic schema for the viewing process
is laid down in the painting. The painting contains its own directions as to
how it should be viewed; the self-conscious spectator knows this.

LOOKING AROUND
Another preposition has now appeared. Adopting the metaphor of the second-
ary world invites us to speak of the spectator looking around this creation.42
Looking around describes the spectator's imaginative participation and sug-
370 THE SELF-CONSCIOUS SPECTATOR

gests the pleasures of exploration and discovery that are commonly felt before
a painting in those moments that Collinson characterizes as 'sensuous immedi-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

acy'. Yet such participation is not a licence to roam without restraint. The
self-conscious spectator knows the rules governing the process, the main one
of which is that looking around can only be conducted from a vantage point
predetermined in the painting. In this sense the painter makes the viewer in
the course of making the depicted subject: the viewer is pre-positioned not
only in self-evident ways that control the angle of gaze and the sense of
distance from the depicted subject, but through less obvious means that decide
the amount and nature of the work needed to fill out the indeterminancies of
the picture's 'incomplete images'43 in Gombnch's phrase.
If we draw on the idea of reflexive self-consciousness again and ask what
sort of activities pertain in this viewer-object relationship, the answer can
most plausibly be framed in terms of the responses of the viewer constructed
in the painting. This 'implied viewer' is what Wollheim44 appears to be after
in his distinction between the 'spectator of the picture' and the 'spectator in
the picture'. The external spectator is located in the actual space the painting
occupies in the gallery; the internal spectator is located in the virtual space the
painting represents. Wollheim's subsequent discussion of Manet's portraits
speaks of this interior persona as a 'mobile spectator' and 'the peripatetic
spectator in the picture' (p. 161), recalling Iser's45 concept of'the wandering
viewpoint' that the reader of fiction experiences during absorption in the
world of a novel. When he describes the actual process of viewing, however,
Wollheim is considerably more mechanistic than words like 'mobile', 'peripat-
etic' or 'wandering' suggest. He outlines the process as follows:

The function of the spectator in the picture is that he allows the spectator of the
picture a distinctive access to the content of the picture.
This access is achieved in the following way First, the external spectator looks
at the picture and sees what there is to be seen in it, then adopting the internal
spectator as his protagonist, he starts to imagine in that person's perspective the
person or event that the picture represents, that is to say, he imagines from the
inside the internal spectator seeing, thinking about, responding to, acting upon,
what is before him, then the condition in which this leaves him modifies how he
sees the picture The external spectator identifies with the internal spectator, and
it is through this identification that he gains fresh access to the picture's content.46

As a way of describing our engagement with a painting, Wollheim's account

has the virtue of capturing that sense of an inside viewpoint within a reflexive,
self-conscious experience; but the specificity of the stages—of looking, of
adopting a role, of starting to imagine and so on—seems over-prescriptive.
Our engagement with paintings is unlikely to be susceptible to such a strictly
delimited procedure. While this account may accurately describe Wollheim's
own habitualvprocess of viewing (cf. Clark's customary pattern, noted above),
 M G BENTON 371
it is unlikely that the 'access to the picture's content' that he speaks of is
achieved in the same way by everyone else. Moreover, apart from this suspi-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

ciously neat sequence of stages, it is not at all clear what Wollheim means by
'identification'. As a word to bring together his two types of spectator, it is
as open to criticism as when used to describe the relationship between a reader
and a character in fiction, as D. W. Harding47 memorably demonstrated.
Wollheim seems to suggest that, following the suspension of disbelief, an
imaginative role-play takes place which leads to a degree of empathetic insight.
Whether such an experience can be aptly described as identification is uncer-
tain. Either way, Wollheim develops his spectator theory in words that tacitly
acknowledge that disbelief is suspended, as Coleridge states, only 'for the
moment'.48 Wollheim continues:

. once the spectator of the picture accepts the invitation to identify with the
spectator in the picture, he loses sight of the marked surface. In the represented
space, where he now vicariously stands, there is no marked surface. Accordingly,
the task of the artist must be to recall the spectator to a sense of what he has
temporarily lost The spectator must be returned from imagination to perception:
twofoldness must be reactivated. Otherwise the distinctive resources of the
medium will lie untapped 49

Absorption is temporary, variable, unstable. Sooner or later the mind becomes

more alert to the marked surface and, consequently, less alert to the invented
world depicted in it. Moments later, the viewer may become re-absorbed,
and so continue to shuttle to and fro in what was termed above 'the dimension
of psychic distance', experiencing varying degrees of involvement in and
detachment from the represented world and varying degrees of critical or
analytical insight into the ways in which the work is constituted.
It follows from the above that the stance of the implied viewer, or
Wollheim's 'internal spectator', is predetermined and self-consciously occu-
pied. The self-conscious spectator's position can be defined initially as a nar-
rative viewpoint from which the painting is to be interpreted, since the
interpretation is driven by the impulse to 'storying', to narrativize the repres-
entation as a way of making meaning. In this respect, Culler's remark about
how we make literary meaning can also apply to the viewer's construction of
visual meaning. Culler comments: 'To speak of the meaning of the work is
to tell a story of the reading'.50 For the viewer, such stories are regulated by
the angle of gaze the picture dictates, and then in more subtle and mobile
ways by the form and medium of the representation.
The process of implicating the viewer begins with the establishment of this
viewpoint, situating the viewer as, say, a play-goer in the stalls who observes
the eye-level scenes of Hogarth's Marriage a la Mode, or as a voyeur in the
street who observes characters through the windows of lighted rooms in
Hopper's Nighthawks or Automat, or, ambiguously, as Suzon's customer in
372 THE SELF-CONSCIOUS SPECTATOR

Manet's A Bar at the Folies-Bergere. Most paintings designate stance less expli-
citly than these examples but all pre-define the position from which they are

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

to be viewed: the self-conscious spectator soon becomes aware of how his or
her angle on the depiction is being manipulated.
The process of implicating the spectator commonly develops as a growing
awareness that one's attention is orchestrated by the lines, the spaces, the
disposition of colours, the nature of materials used and so on that constitute
the form and medium of the painting. The spectator may be drawn in by the
looks, gestures and body language of represented figures or the way the paint
has been applied to the canvas. Viewing instructions are inscribed in the form
and materials of paintings, literally, wherever we look. Again, to cite well-
known examples which are easily brought to mind, the spectator's responses
to Turner's dramatic Rain, Steam and Speed are mobilized and controlled by
the wedge-shaped form and swirling colours, just as surely as they are by the
short, thick, gashes of paint of a Van Gogh landscape, or by the eye-lines of
the depicted figures and the focusing effect of the light in Wright of Derby's
An Experiment With An Air Pump.
In summary, awareness of stance, form and medium are the principal ways
in which the self-conscious spectator is implicated in the aesthetic experience.
The 'looking around' the secondary world of the painting that then becomes
available is both created and controlled by these factors. The interplay between
the spectator's sense of the represented subject and the medium in which it is
cast is best conveyed by reconsidering the idea of aesthetic distance and, in
particular, by invoking the concept of a shifting viewpoint. This concept
facilitates not only such 'looking around' but also reflects the spectator's
awareness of the continuously changing, unstable relationship between surface
and scene. It acknowledges the inevitable mobility of the process and allows
for greater flexibility and variety in the ways spectators operate than does the
'viewing template' that Wollheim's spectator theory would place over the
experience.

M G. Benton, School of Education, University of Southampton, Highfield,

Southampton SO9 5NH, UK.

REFERENCES

1 4
E H Gombnch, 'The Beholder's Share', in K. Walton, Mimesis as Make-Beheve, On the
Art and Illusion (London Phaidon, i960) Foundations of the Representational Arts
2
R Wollheim, 'What the Spectator Sees', in (Cambridge, MA Harvard U.P , 1990)
5
Painting as an Art (London Thames and Ibid , p 301
6
Hudson, 1987) D Colhnson, 'Philosophy Looks at
3
D W Harding, 'Psychological Processes in Paintings', in E Deighton (ed ), Looking into
the Reading of Fiction', in British Journal of Paintings (Milton Keynes Open U . P ,
Aesthetics, Vol 2, No 2, 1962 1985), pp 271-4
 M G. BENTON 373
7 31
E Kris, Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art D. W. Winmcott, Playing and Reality
(New York- International U P., 1952/64), (Harmondsworth Penguin, 1974) pp 102-
P 256 3-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/35/4/361/21864 by University of Newcastle user on 30 October 2018

8 32
G Ryle, The Concept of Mind F S m i t h , Understanding Reading ( N e w Y o r k -
(Harmondsworth Penguin, 1949/63), p Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971)
33
158 J Bruner, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds
9
R Wollheim, 'What the Spectator Sees', in (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U P , 1986)
34
N Bryson, M A Holly and K Moxey T Pavel, Fictional Worlds (Cambridge, MA
(eds), Visual Theory (London Polity Press, Harvard U P , 1986)
35
1991), p 146 n i J R R Tolkien, 'Fairy Stones', in Tree and
10
E H. Gombnch, Art and Illusion (London- Leaf (London Unwin, 1938/64)
36
Phaidon, i960), R Wollheim, Painting as an W H A u d e n , Secondary Worlds (London
Art (London- Thames and Hudson, 1987), F a b e r , 1968)
37
M Podro, 'Depiction and the Golden Calf M Benton, Secondary Worlds Literature
in N Bryson et al (eds). Visual Theory Teaching and the Visual Arts ( M i l t o n K e y n e s
(London Polity Press, 1991), K. Clark, Open U P , 1992)
Looking at Pictures (London John Murray, 38
E Kris, op at., p 256
i960), A. Koestler, The Act of Creation 39
K Clark, op. at., p 16.
(London Picador, 1964/75) 40
W Iser, The Act of Reading. A Theory of
11
K Clark, Looking at Pictures (London John Aesthetic Response (London Routledge and
Murray, i960), p 17 Kegan Paul, 1978)
12 41
Op cit pp 36-7 W Iser, The Implied Reader (Baltimore
13
A Koestler, The Act of Creation (London Johns Hopkins U P , 1974)
42
Picador, 1964/75), pp 35 el seq Kendall Walton gives a powerful account of
14
Op at., pp 366 et seq the nature of this experience. His description
15
Op cit , p 372 of the viewer's visual activities before
16
Op cit , p 306 Hobbema's 'The Water Mill with the Great
17 Red Roof and the fictional truths that the
Ibid.
18 experience generates is akin to what I mean
Op. cit , p. 376
19 by the self-consciousness of the spectator
Op. cit , p 383
20 See K Walton, 'Looking at Pictures and
E H Gombnch, Op at., i960, p 169
21
Op a t , pp 4-5 Looking at Things', in P Alperson (ed.),
22
R Wollheim, op a t , 1987, pp. 46-47 and The Philosophy of the Visual Arts, (Oxford
360 Oxford U P , 1992), p 103
23 43
Ibid E H. Gombnch, op. a t , p. 119
24 44
Op at., p 46 R Wollheim, op at., 1987, p 102
25 45
M Kelly, 'Richard Wollheim's 'Seeing-In' W Iser, op a t , 1978, p 109
46
and 'Representation", N. Bryson et al (eds), R Wollheim, op at., 1987, p 129
47
op a t , 1991, p 161. D W Harding, 'Psychological Processes in
26
M Podro, 'Depiction and the Golden the Reading of Fiction', British Journal of
Calf, N Bryson et al (eds) op at., 1991, Aesthetics, Vol 2, No 2, 1962
48
pp 163-189 S T Coleridge, Biographia Literaria
27
Op a t , p. 164 (London- Dent, 1817/1949), p 17
28 49
Op. a t , p 170. R Wollheim, op a t , 1987, p 166
29 50
Op. at., p 185 J. Culler On Deconstruction (London.
30 Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983), p. 35
Op. at., p 173.