What can a photograph of a person
tell us about that individual?
It can in the first instance tell us about their physical appearance
although I don’t think there this is a ‘value-neutral’ phenomenon, because
aspects of appearance will be coded complexly to reveal diverse:
·
Behaviours
·
Deducible Attitudes
·
Meanings,
·
Emotions,
·
Evaluations
·
Interactions between these things.
In a sense it tells us about all of these things and their relative
priority for the person or none of these things in itself and only the viewer’s
priorities since, even appearance is codified by an onlooker, a viewer, the
gaze of the other. In some senses it can tell us nothing about the ‘individual’
but only codable categories of gender, supposed class and so on. Together with
context, we might be able to tell that that the aspects of social role
designated are being playacted or found naturally in everyday life but not
always.
At the moment I am taking Campbell’s University of Tokyo course on the
image and text in photographs – as well as painting since that sets a context
for uses of the photograph in the 1860s and onwards after the Meiji restoration
(and the turn to Western Values). Here text is used to domesticate and
acculturate meanings in the visual imagery.
How does photography reinforce our
understanding of people as representatives of groups or types?
This happens without necessary pre-intention – the Brown sisters
photographs show this where the artist does not intend a portrait of
developments of American upper class life but produces it anyway – in the eyes
of others as he sees it. The wonderful Palestinian photographs of El Madani allow
the person to choose appurtenances of their role – ijn trhe case of the studio
photographs a gun. However, the gun has different meanings for each participant
and interacts differently with contextual objects – such as toys. We are forced
to examine meanings and values as in contest and I’m not sure we are allowed
the comfort of a ‘true’ reading of anyone photograph. This can help to
breakdown stereotypes based on visual cues and strong cultural associations as
in the wonderful photos of fair striptease dancers we saw earlier. This is
employed a lot in the wonderful work based on gender and sexuality by Zanene
Mukholi. Stereotypes of lesbians and women are forcefully challenged – perhaps too
those vof lesbians held by white lesbians in the ‘overdeveloped’ world.
How does a picture
of a subject who is aware of the camera differ from one whose subject is not?
Of course it would be easy to say that the person can act rather than be
themselves, but this is a false opposition i think since even everyday life
contains performance values – of clothing choice or mandation, gesture and so
on. Roles are dispersed for most people so that acting always occurs. Is there
a true unitary self? We needn’t answer that but the suggestion is strong in
itself. In effect photographs of people will always explore this dilemma of who
and what am I, and what is my agency in providing or presenting this ‘image of
self’ whether to others (as in Mead and Goffman) or to ourselves in a real or
notional mirror (Lacan and others).
The best answer is to insist that there is no binary difference since
awareness of self in the gaze of the other operates already at different levels
in intrapersonal, interpersonal and social interaction. In a sense we don’t
need CCTV to be always in the camera’s gaze – performing roles from a
repertoire (a very incomplete one) at our death might add up to the diverse thing
we are. In early Meiji Japan it was common for people to compose a self-reflection
in words (in stanza form) as near to their death as they could. One I’m
studying at the moment writes (in classical Chinese – the sign of the
traditional Japanese intellectual): ‘This image is one of that very heart’.
Here words try to fix an appearance in the manner of the dignity a life has
tried to attain (with the cultural standards) that can be equated not only with
‘heart’ but ‘spirit’. If I* can I’ll include the photo.
MoMA Photography Course: People in Photos
4.10 Discussion Questions
What can a photograph of a person tell us about that individual?
It can in the first instance tell us about their physical appearance although I don’t think there this is a ‘value-neutral’ phenomenon, because aspects of appearance will be coded complexly to reveal diverse:
· Behaviours
· Deducible Attitudes
· Meanings,
· Emotions,
· Evaluations
· Interactions between these things.
In a sense it tells us about all of these things and their relative priority for the person or none of these things in itself and only the viewer’s priorities since, even appearance is codified by an onlooker, a viewer, the gaze of the other. In some senses it can tell us nothing about the ‘individual’ but only codable categories of gender, supposed class and so on. Together with context, we might be able to tell that that the aspects of social role designated are being playacted or found naturally in everyday life but not always.
At the moment I am taking Campbell’s University of Tokyo course on the image and text in photographs – as well as painting since that sets a context for uses of the photograph in the 1860s and onwards after the Meiji restoration (and the turn to Western Values). Here text is used to domesticate and acculturate meanings in the visual imagery.
How does photography reinforce our understanding of people as representatives of groups or types?
This happens without necessary pre-intention – the Brown sisters photographs show this where the artist does not intend a portrait of developments of American upper class life but produces it anyway – in the eyes of others as he sees it. The wonderful Palestinian photographs of El Madani allow the person to choose appurtenances of their role – ijn trhe case of the studio photographs a gun. However, the gun has different meanings for each participant and interacts differently with contextual objects – such as toys. We are forced to examine meanings and values as in contest and I’m not sure we are allowed the comfort of a ‘true’ reading of anyone photograph. This can help to breakdown stereotypes based on visual cues and strong cultural associations as in the wonderful photos of fair striptease dancers we saw earlier. This is employed a lot in the wonderful work based on gender and sexuality by Zanene Mukholi. Stereotypes of lesbians and women are forcefully challenged – perhaps too those vof lesbians held by white lesbians in the ‘overdeveloped’ world.
How does a picture of a subject who is aware of the camera differ from one whose subject is not?
Of course it would be easy to say that the person can act rather than be themselves, but this is a false opposition i think since even everyday life contains performance values – of clothing choice or mandation, gesture and so on. Roles are dispersed for most people so that acting always occurs. Is there a true unitary self? We needn’t answer that but the suggestion is strong in itself. In effect photographs of people will always explore this dilemma of who and what am I, and what is my agency in providing or presenting this ‘image of self’ whether to others (as in Mead and Goffman) or to ourselves in a real or notional mirror (Lacan and others).
The best answer is to insist that there is no binary difference since awareness of self in the gaze of the other operates already at different levels in intrapersonal, interpersonal and social interaction. In a sense we don’t need CCTV to be always in the camera’s gaze – performing roles from a repertoire (a very incomplete one) at our death might add up to the diverse thing we are. In early Meiji Japan it was common for people to compose a self-reflection in words (in stanza form) as near to their death as they could. One I’m studying at the moment writes (in classical Chinese – the sign of the traditional Japanese intellectual): ‘This image is one of that very heart’. Here words try to fix an appearance in the manner of the dignity a life has tried to attain (with the cultural standards) that can be equated not only with ‘heart’ but ‘spirit’. If I* can I’ll include the photo.