In the last blog post we learned all about discourse analysis I. However, today we are moving onto the second variation. The two methodologies overlap a lot and might be hard to differentiate. While doing my research, I found that what they both have in common in that concentration on the detentions of power and knowledge (Rose, 2001, p.164). When looking closer, you can find differences in the many characteristics of these two forms of discourse analysis.
The characteristics of discourse analysis II, however, is more concerned with the institutional reiteration of these productions (Rose, 2001, p.164). Foucault first started this methodology when he researched institutions such as prisons, hospitals and asylums (p.165). In these situations, there were clearly a power/knowledge hierarchy that came along with modernity. How prisons punished and ruled over the prisoners until they became “docile bodies’ shows this (p.166). At the time, panopticon (a prison design) was one method used as disciplinary measures.
Base on this, Foucault found the two ways institutions work: through their institutional apparatus and their technologies. When the term apparatus is use, it means the form of power/knowledge used by the institution while the technologies refer to the use of this power. These are linked to the regime of truth as it is the result of these institutional components (Rose, 2001, p. 166).
To apply discourse analysis II, I went to the Suermondt-Ludwig Museum (named after the patrons) in Aachen, Germany. It was located just outside of the old center of the city and was displaying medieval art (mainly Roman Catholic art) and Flemish artwork. The building itself is done in the Renaissance Revival style and has the traditional interior with ornamental and stucco accents scattered throughout. Here is the entrance and one of the more lavish rooms displaying the architecture. Please note that the main exhibition spaces were not this over-the-top. These characteristics relate to the institutional apparatuses described by Foucault (Rose, 2001, p.166).
Doing an analysis of the displays and architectural layout can help us understand how the institution is imposing a certain experience on the guest. On way in which the discourse was upheld was by keeping with the convention of having the paintings hung in an orderly way as well as having them separated by period and style (Rose, 2001, p. 173). Another example would be the obvious way through the different pieces of art we numbered in a clockwork order around the room in the first section of the entrance. The numbers correlated with a sheet of paper which help the labels and the basic information about the piece. This removed the labels from the wall, but kept with the conformity created over the last two centuries in art galleries and museums (p. 170). This technique is how the institution prioritized its information (p.178). It was more about the art than the context. In addition, the numbering imposes the narrative the museum curators want you to understand. Through these methods, the social positions and social subjectivities were enforcing. When visiting this museum, we became aware you were just a visitor and not a patron or curator (p. 173). This was also done by not including a lot of information about the art periods, the artists, the methods, etc. This was quite surprising, but then again also made sense considering the target audience would most likely be already informed the art history.
Another way the institution created a discourse was though placing the chairs one could sit on while looking at the art. This and how the art was displayed falls more into the category of institutional technologies. Throughout the museum, display cases, open displays, minor reconstructions and simulacra were all used. The majority of the paintings were framed and hung. These different techniques made the art distinguished and seemingly truthful. Not only this, but it also links to the spatial organization of the displays as it puts them all in relation to each other and how one should view them (Rose, 2001, p. 176). Regarding the chair in the photo bellow, this is how the particular “eye” of the visitor was also enforced (p.182). The chairs were only in front of certain pieces and gave them a heightened importance. This is an institutional clue to the visitor. However, it was also a way of hiding the huge heaters in the center of the room bellow.
Additionally, there was an excessive amount of surveillance going on, which relates to the idea of docile bodies, and one section banned photography. An additional way regulation was added in was through ticket cost. The friend I went with was over 21 and was no longer a student which meant he had to pay 8 euros to get into the private museum. Luckily for me it was free. Regardless, surveillance played a big part in the experience as it was a way to enforce the social order (Rose, 2001, p. 166).
Institutional discourse proves that museums are not neutral institutions.
Reference List
Rose, G.(2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage. (Chapter 7: Discourse Analysis II: Institutions and Ways of Seeing).