Module 2, Post 2

Although her main focus was in the fine arts, she considers herself first and foremost a photographer. Her work is controversial, at times uncomfortable, and her essays sometimes feel like a stream of consciousness…at times very poignant and coherent and at other times covering too much ground. However you look at her there’s no denying her work is for “Indians”. She doesn’t claim that her artwork is for any specific nation, and I got the feeling that hers was more of a “pan-Indian” approach. Her book Our People, Our Land, Our Images: International Indigenous Photographers, is testimony to this approach.

Having said that she does share some fascinating insights into photography and indigenous identity. In one of her essays she has this to say: “When oral history coincides with photographic evidence the impact can be disturbing.” This is so true.

Not having a written record (which is paramount to the Western mindset and modus operandi) is a disadvantage to so many Indigenous people. When their stories coincide with photos, things like massacres finally begin to be acknowledged (2003). I find this fascinating on several levels. First an oral account can be just as reliable as a written one. I say this because an event recorded on paper is someone’s story; in the same vein a photograph that records an event is someone’s story. Why do we not consider an oral story at the same level of acceptance, especially if that story is a shared experience by more than two people? That is something that I’m not sure there’s a clear answer to…my guess is there’s an assumption built into Western societies that documents (whether written or visual) are more reliable and truthful than an oral testimony (or a story).

Having studied photography since high school, I know that’s a load of bullocks…this gets into other issues, but my point is oral stories and photographs have a way of revising and rewriting the past when they coincide. Second I find her comment lends credence to what one of my literature professors said when I asked…”Is there a difference between personal, individual history and a culture’s history…”. Her answer was simply: “No.” I think if a group of people share an oral history, there’s bound to be something to it. I’m sure they don’t just sit around a fire and tell each other to repeat the same story…an experience that’s shared will be one that everyone will attest to, each in their own way, but that doesn’t diminish its truthfulness or its reliability.

Tsinhnahjinnie, H. J. (2003). When is a Photograph worth a Thousand Words? Photography’s Other Histories. C. Pinney and N. Peterson. Durham and London, Duke University Press: 40-52.