Model 2, Post #3

Photography theory is certainly going to play a large part of my research. One theorist, John Tagg, who doesn’t see the medium as cohesive (and for good reasons) has this to say about the cameras: “The representations it produces are highly coded, and the power it wields is never its own…but the power of the apparatuses of the local state which deploy it and guarantee the authority of the images it constructs to stand as evidence or register a truth.” This is one reason oral history is not considered “truth” or objective in any way by the dominant society. It’s a representation of history that’s not approved by the “apparatuses of the local state”.

The sad thing is the western institutions of power function under the assumption that photographs contain objective truth; the truth is we bring our prejudices and bias to a photograph. Add to this the all too easy manupulation of digital images and that assumption can get thrown out the window. What is needed is cuation and careful analysis–doctored images, even the best of the best can be found out through careful analysis.

How does this tie into first-nations identity? It does because any photographs taken by a first nations person for a first nations audience that ends up on in the internet can be re-interpreted, manipulated, and changed to have a meaning never intended. This is where a copyright notice is important, and so to is legislation that protects the photographer and her work.

I found this project online:

http://www.inmyowneyes.ca/

It’s a photography project funded by the government of Ontario with the purpose of giving “Aboriginal youth a voice”. What fascinated me was who was guiding and training these youth in photographic techniques. According to their website the youth involved in this project are taught by an Aboriginal photographer called a mentor. These “mentors are assisted on-reserve by a member of theOntario First Nations Young Peoples Council (Chiefs of Ontario), and in urban settings by a member of theOntario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres’ Youth Council.” I find this fascinating because this is a great approach to self-representation and the videos on youtube allow these kids to speak and explain their photography and their work, without the biases and prejudices of the dominant society. What I wonder is how/who will edit the book of these photographs for this project? I hope they allow captions written by the youth who took these photographs; words and photographs are a very powerful combination.

-Velasquez

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.

Module 2, Post 1

Call me crazy, but I’m going to switch gears.

After watching videos, browsing journals, and wondering what langauge/group I wanted to focus on, I decided to head back to what’s close to my heart: photography. I’m going to research photography (and photographs) in relation to aboriginal identity.

One theorist/critic whose work will help guide my research and my work is Theresa Harlan. She has this to say about photography:

“Creating a visual history – and its representation – from Native memories or from Western myths: this is the question before Native image-makers and photographers today. The contest remains over who will image – and own – this history. Before too many assumptions are made, we must define history, define whose history it is, and define its purpose, as well as the tools used for the telling of it. The intent of history is to help us keep our bearings. That is, to know what is significant and, most importantly, to teach us how to recognize the significant. What happens when history is skewed, or when we no longer have the same skills of recognition? We as human beings become disabled by the inability to distinguish what is real from what is not…” (1995).

Self-representation is, of course, at the heart of my work. The camera (and photographs) can be an empowering tool, but the camera (and photographs) can also be used to misrepresent. Add to this the current digital environment and the problems of misrepresenting others, of stealing cultural property and of cheapening and devaluing a cultural identity become much larger and more global in nature (no one can really control or police the internet). This is where I believe creative commons may play a role, but that’s something I’ll have to do a little more research on.

You can count this as my weblog #2, post 1 or maybe even my statement…though in all fairness I have gone in a whole other direction than what I was originally considering. So weblog 2, post 1 it is!

Languages are fun, but photography is something I hold in just as high esteem. The visual representation of a culture, to my way of thinking, is as important as its language. A photograph is like a small statement made by a person about something they saw and lived; or it can be as fictitious as the story of Jack killing the giant.