Questions of representation, authenticity, constructions and
the photographic nature of photography makes me reflect on a freelance job that
I did for an episode of BBC’ Panorama, titled ‘Inside Europe’s Terror Attacks (2016).
Within the episode, a series of ‘most wanted’ mugshots are displayed and shown
to be developed in a photographic darkroom before being hung up on a clothes
line in a row.
Figure 1. Panorama (2016) Still from the darkroom segment of the ‘Inside Europe’s Terror Attacks’ episode
My role in this production was to turn a series of digital
images into ones that could be processed in a darkroom and shown to appear
inside a darkroom as the journalist narration happened. To do this, I
re-photographed each of the images onto film and prepared a series of prints
with the latent image ready for processing during the filming. Incidentally, it
is also my hand in the film processing these images (Fig. 1).
The segment plays with our very notion of photography as
evidence through our collective awareness and an intertextual referencing of
primarily via film and TV (Fig. 2), of how a detective might use the darkroom
to illuminate and support an investigation, that lightbulb moment that shows
that you have found the smoking gun evidence that will close the case.
Figure 2. Funny Face (1957) Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire in the darkroom
This episode of the Investigative documentary series really
plays to the theatrics and performative nature of photography in showing the
images in this way and the perceived authenticity that photographs have, it was
heightened here to purposefully exaggerating the characteristics of the
photograph and increase the veracity of the moment. This also plays into the
notion of digital images being less authentic than those shot using film. The
images that were supplied to me to re-photograph were all digital files that
were printed digitally using an inkjet printer and then photograph using a copy
stand onto 35mm film. Do the images now become more authentic now that they
have become analogue? The supplied digital files were in some cases low
resolution screen grabs, some of which were also from social media.
In terms of its construction, it seems to have increased the
tension of the situation that a digital graphic may not have. Like a punctuated
moment away from the expected news style digital visuals that you would expect
to see through news gathering services and have become immune to. This feels
somewhat real with a heightened sense of urgency that someone needs to catch
the people depicted and that they are working hard to do so. It is a fiction, a
construction for the sake of the documentary, especially when we consider that
the methods on display are completely obsolete and the images would almost
certainly be viewed through a computer screen and potentially never reach the
point of a tangible print. There is also
the assumption that turning the images into black and white adds an inherent
‘truth’ to what we are viewing.
Bibliography
Funny Face. 1957. [Film] Directed by Stanley Donen. USA: Paramount Pictures.
Panorama: Inside Europe’s Terror Attacks. 2016. [Film] Directed by John O’Kane. UK: BBC
Panorama.
Following the plan I created to go out and do my first shoot based on a psychogeography route of the postcode of my local area (See Shoot 1 Planning Post). It was an interesting shoot and I managed to create some photographs that would be worth editing together to determine how they work as sets. The weather was very overcast and not what I was hoping to shoot in terms of the lighting, so for the most part, I think that this shoot was a worthwhile fact finding mission to scout out some future locations and develop the work. From my plan, I did also want to start to consider ‘the ostracised’ (Dias, 2018) however feel that this may have been a bit ambitious for the first shoot and will continue to develop this area of enquiry as I feel it could have some significance. It was a useful reference to take the Roy Stryker Shooting script with me to consider some of the images that I was shooting. I will continue to use this as it is a way of creating a taxonomy of what makes up a community environment.
Light is crucial to the way that I want my images to look. Moving forward, I aim to be more selective of the times that I will go out and shoot, weather permitting.
Now that we have had a couple of weeks of delivery of the modules, I am going to create more of a focus on the taxonomical patterns that my local community displays. The idea of the indexicality of what I am shooting is also something that I want to explore in a more intentional way. I am also considering the approach to the portraits within the work. I have had a fairly limited response from people I would like to involve in the project, so am considering an approach based on the week 3 constructions and will explore casting ‘actors’ to play a role in my look at my community which could form a strong link to this sense of a fractured community. Initially, I could approach this in a similar way to how Jack Latham shot subjects unrelated to the events of the Icelandic crime in his book ‘Sugar Paper Theories’ (2019).
References
Dias, D., 2018. The Ten Types of Human. 1st Paperback Edition ed. London: Windmill Books.
Latham, J., 2019. Sugar Paper Theories. 2nd Edition ed. London: Here Press.
I have been quite enthralled by the topic of representation
and authenticity during this week’s discussion and webinars. I have been
incredibly guilty in the past of considering that what I do is a pure form of
truth telling and visual record of the facts, when in actual fact there is no
such thing as a neutral image (Luvera, 2020). Authenticity
appears to be assumed on the part of the reader merely because the photograph
is able to reproduce in a naturalistic manner.
Figure 1. Phil Hill (2010) Dawn on Bamburi Beach, Mombasa, Kenya.
Unconsciously, I have always used the notion of representation in my own work. This was very prevalent during the time I was shooting for freelance for travel editorial publications. I would knowingly select and edit out the images that would not present a location in a positive light (Fig. 1), however unaware of the implications of representing an actuality (Berger, 2013, p. 8). As an example, I shot some images of Bamburi Beach in Mombasa, Kenya showing how beautiful the location was however neglecting to also photograph the immense poverty that was sometimes literally outside of my frame (Fig. 2). This has much to do with the context of how these images are consumed however, figure 2 for example was part of a set of images that were used to illustrate a story on illegal mining practices in parts of Kenya (Kivner.
As I discussed earlier for an experimentation into how I might portray community through creating a set of images that utilise a forensic approach due to the upcoming sale of my rented home by my land lady.
Figure 2. Phil Hill (2010) Illegal gold miner, Kenya. Image also uploaded to Alamy archive.
My initial plan for this experiment was to photograph all of the negative aspects of the house in which I live and are in a state of disrepair. These images would be in direct contrast to the attempt to gloss over the detrimental view of the house that the estate agents would ultimately take (See Post). I have just started to scan and edit these images to remove the dust that attached itself to the negative during the scanning process. A fairly standard practice for film images. However, this week have raised a number of questions:
Figure 2. Phil Hill (February, 2020) Scanned image from medium format negative that has been retouched. ‘Moth Trap’ from my evidence experiment.
In terms of authenticity, a film image is behold as containing more ‘truth’ over digital, which is perceived to be easily manipulated and has caused concern in this regard since its introduction (Cosgrove, 2020). However, the modern workflow process of scanning and digitising negatives creates an even more problematic version of this truth if we still consider it to have more veracity then a digital image. My first scanned image (Fig. 3) required quite a bit of ‘spotting,’ as a result the image that also contains quite a ‘busy’ layer of all of the retouching, healing brush that I used, which poses the question of how much of the original is left, and how much of this naturalistic reproduction can be consider an icon; how much of this image is now indexical.
Figure 3. Phil Hill (February, 2020) Retouching layer from ‘Moth Trap’
To highlight the difference, I have saved a version of the image that only shows the retouching layer against a white background (Fig. 4). This image feels indexical to me, that it is based on the things that existed in the real world but bears no real resemblance to it anymore. Any amount of editing and retouching could be considered in this way.
Bibliography
Berger, J., 2013. Understanding a Photograph. London:
Penguin Classics.
Cosgrove, S., 2020. Week 2 Presentation: Is it Really Real?, s.l.: Falmouth.
Hill, P., 2010. Dawn on Bamburi Beach. Mombasa, Kenya. [Photo].
Hill, P., 2010. Illegal Gold Miner, Kenya. [Photo].
Hill, P., 2020. Moth Trap. [Photo].
Hill, P., 2020. Retouching Layer from ‘Moth Trap’. [Photo].
Kinver, M., 2013. Nations agree on legally binding mercury rules. [Online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21078176 [Accessed 7 February 2020].
Luvera, A.,
2020. Countercurrent Podcast: Anthony Luvera in conversation with Roger
Kneebone [Interview] (13 January 2020).
Everyone seems to want to defend their own reading
and interpretation of an image that they have taken, especially their own
images, and this includes me and my own images. It is interesting that through
the forums this week I have noticed that many of the descriptions of the
presented images do not necessarily translate to what I can see in the image.
Although, what is being written of the image is indeed what the photographer
believes that image to be about, or what did occur at the moment of when that image
was captured, it is telling that with this text removed, the image would read
differently to me.
Context and meaning are going to fall away from the
image, especially over time (Sontag, 1979, p. 106), so it is important
to realise that your work will inevitably be read in multiple ways. I do find
this somewhat a challenging concept in the present as the temptation and habit
of adding a certain amount of attributed information is ever present in the
attempt to help others understand my work. I guess, that is the challenge for
many practitioners, do we have the confidence to remove all of this attributed
reading of our own photography to allow others carte blanche to make their own
assumptions and interpretations.
Figure 1. Nadav Kander’s triangle (Kander, 2019).
Authenticity appears to me, bound by context, or at least a viewer’s understanding of context. Representation is bound by the subject’s understanding of the use of the image. Is it for authors to attribute either context, or use without the collaboration of the other two. This is a clear link to the triangle (Fig. 1) that Nadav Kander refers to (Kander, 2019), and the death of the author analysis by Roland Barthes (Barthes, 1977, pp. 142-149).
Where this applies to my own work, I think that I am quite interested in the notion of the photograph as a valuable index of truth (Snyder & Allen, 1975, p. 159). As I have commented in the previous forum, I think that when you consider the definition of representation, it is to take the broad consensus of ideas and opinions which I think is where the photograph can occupy and create authenticity. So it is not a complete evidential and based on all the facts, however there are traces of facts embedded in the image, perpetuated by the notion of its naturalistic appearance (1975, p. 144). This potentially, has more in common with ideology which assumes much about reality and certainly John Berger notes this by stating that photography can play an important role in ideological struggle, in reference to the way media use photography (Berger, 2013, p. 21).
For my work to move forward, I need to consider the
indexical nature of my own photographs and perhaps construct images that use
this as a means of communication. However, this is potentially something that
will be more prevalent during the editing stage of the project.
Countercurrent Podcast
This week, I also listened to an episode of Countercurrent podcast featuring Anthony Luvera discussing his approach to socially engaged photography (Levera, 2020). The subject of representation came up during the discussion and the power balance that exists between the artist and the subject of their art. Traditionally, there have been a number of incidences throughout the history of photography where a particular group or culture has been photographed in a particular way and has led to tropes which has a knock on impact of effecting the way they are represented and even the conversation, political, and societal decisions are affected by these representations. Although not referred to in the podcast, this reminds me of the work that Patrick Waterhouse did when working with the Walpiri of the Northern Territory in Australia (Fig. 2), which was a way of considering, not only the colonial gaze, but also the way anthropological photography was used as a method of reducing the value of cultures other than the white European (Waterhouse, 2019).
Figure 2. Patrick Waterhouse (2019) From the book ‘Restricted Images’ by Patrick Waterhouse and the Walpiri
Levera does not believe that the problematic
photographic representation can easily be solved and that no photograph is
neutral, however we can aim to redress the balance through collaborative
practice (2020).
It was also noted that a tension exists between the
artist and the subject when any kind of process of working together exists and
when circulating this work to audiences.
Index and the Icon
How I use these within my own work has been useful
to consider. I believe for the most part my photography uses the iconic, I
photograph things that look like what they are supposed to, for the most part.
I consider how this has changed in the present short term (assuming that I continue to focus on the iconic in my work) from the commercial practice, where I would use elements such as photo-blur to get around such things as model releases for people on the street. This also had the added aesthetic quality of creating an atmosphere of a busy urban area. The work that I have been creating for the last module concentrates on what is in front of me, what exists in the real world. Context is a driver of how we can present the icon and the indexical, during the seminar the example of wedding photography was given in that the audience of this work expects to see a certain image of the posed groups. This reminds me of the work of commercial photographer John Keatley who has become well known for how he plays with the notion of the family portrait (Fig. 3), and has even taken it to the extreme of getting actors to pose in the images as him and his wife – although his children are the same (Keatley, 2018). This really plays with the icon and the indexical. Keatley us subverting the shared vocabulary of what we expect to see from a family portrait, an image of the family. However by removing himself from the image he has still created something that exists in the real world, the photograph is of something that exists, it is not a photograph of Keatley, even though he has titled it as such. Keatley has taken the image, could this be considered a trace? There is no truth to this image and the actors that are portraying the artist are arbitrary, however Keatley has had a tangible connection to the construction of the image.
Figure 3. John Keatley (2018) Keatley Family Portrait
A photograph is not nuanced in all things that are
based in the real world the way that photography is portrayed, It cannot
portray all of the subtle variety that exists, it is a blunt snapshot in time
of something that existed – A fossil, which is indexical to the thing that
existed.
What
this week has prompted me to look at more is how the environment of community
which has now become my focus might be comprised of indexical elements that I
could photograph as part of the work. What are the traces of the community that
I am photographing over the wandering and photographing anything of interest.
Having a clear intention for why I have photographed and included them within a
final edit was always one of my aims
Bibliography
Barthes, R., 1977. Death of the Author. In: Image,
Music, Text. New York: Fontana, pp. 142-149.
Berger, J.,
2013. Understanding a Photograph. London: Penguin Classics.
Kander, N.,
2019. Prix Pictet: A Lens on Sustainability. Photography as Witness [Interview]
(5 November 2019).
Keatley, J., 2018. Keatley Family 2018. [Online] Available at: https://www.keatleyphoto.com/portraits/keatley-family/ [Accessed 6 February 2020].
Luvera, A., 2020. Countercurrent Podcast: Anthony Luvera in conversation with Roger Kneebone [Interview] (13 January 2020).
Snyder, J.
& Allen, N. W., 1975. Photography, Vision, and Representation. Critical
Enquiry, 2(1), pp. 143-169.
Sontag, S.,
1979. On Photography. London: Penguin.
Waterhouse,
P., 2019. Restricted Images by Patrick Waterhouse and the Walpiri. 1st
ed. London: SPBH Editions.
