Scopic Regimes of Modernity

In Martin Jay’s “Scopic Regimes of Modernity”, the author discusses three types of visual representation, or what he calls “scopic regimes”. When studying the classification of the many movements in art history, one question that tends to pervade is how an artist is able to portray a three-dimensional world or experience onto a two-dimensional canvas. Which paintings are more realistic than others, and is a mathematically accurate representation of space a measure of value? Most of Jay’s discussion focuses on Cartesian perspectivalism and the methodical representation of a three-dimensional reality. Jay describes Cartesian perspectivalism as de-narrativized, emotionally detached, and a purely mathematical, geometric illustration of space. The movement borrows much of the philosophical and scientific ideas from the Renaissance and uses art as a means of “explaining” reality instead of “describing” it. The Renaissance perspective derives its value not from creative or emotional involvement but from an accurate portrayal of our visual experience of space. Cartesian perspectivalism turns physics and science into artwork. Jay mentions that many debunk Cartesian perspectivalism for its rigid commitment to scientific display as an unemotional, cold realism. However, such claims run under the assumption that science, creative value, and emotional involvement cannot coexist. But, is “an artist’s emotional outpour onto a canvas” necessary for art? This issue of the coexistence of art and science in a single medium reminds me of the “Bodies Exhibition”, where the scientific display of the human body is turned into art. Similar to Renaissance perspective works, the cadavers are systematically dissected and prepared and uphold scientific representation as a guiding principle for their creation. Are the cadavers any less artistically or creatively valuable than a Van Gogh?