Reflection: Rationale for approach to Exercise 1

… and the use of a survey to identify others (the results of which I may use throughout the first section)

“Photographs are fragments of stories, never stories in themselves” (Hirsch, 1997; 83)

The question of otherness

Hal Foster ends his book Return of the Real, a critique of modernism and post modernism in art specifically but also in broader terms with the following: “…to criticise is to judge or to decide, and I doubt if any artist, critic, or historian can ever escape value judgments. We can, however, make value judgements that in Nietzschean terms, are not only reactive but active – and, in non- Nietzschean terms, not only distinctive but useful.” (1996, 236)

In section 1 of Self & Other we are asked to explore otherness; the course could conceivably be accused of being deliberately designed to entice students into pitfalls that inevitably surround making portraits of people from social groups that are ‘other’ to the student’s own. There is a definite focus on class, race and a western superiority complex. And if the student happens to be a white British person who grew up in an ex-colony these pitfalls are perhaps all the more dangerous. In fact, while western post-colonialism still carries so much repressed colonial baggage, it may be that photographing anyone from any group with a history of having been colonised will always be fraught. Perhaps even nigh on impossible to do ethically, and without some level of unconscious bias implicit in every action. Of course, it may be that simply acknowledging this invites accusations of being a colonial-racist. Or perhaps the admission echoes Foster’s remark that western post-structuralism has “continued to project the other as an outsider, as a space of ideological escape from western rationality” (1996, 217)

It may be useful to define other before going further. Prior to having access to language, in infancy, we are not aware of ourselves as whole separate beings but imagine that our primary carer and we are one and the same. As we develop language, we begin to see ourselves as ‘I’ and anyone else in the world as other. In order to see others we need to move into and beyond a process of separation from the primary carer. Lacan, as explored in UVC, describes the start of this process as the mirror stage. The model is a useful one to rely on here despite criticisms of it. Very crudely put; an underdeveloped ego may never learn to truly see others and only ever view others as an extension of self. Image of self inform how other is viewed and visa versa, like a mirror. In a stunted ego various unlinked objects (visualised concepts) can never be reconciled as being part of the same object, or indeed the same object. The bad mother who withholds the breast is not the same as the good mother who says yes[1]. Jung talks about an individuated self, which in his view, takes years to achieve[2]. (Stevens, 2001) For Jung, internalised objects or if you prefer different aspects of the self are seen as part of a whole when a mature ego accepts and embraces all the different sides of her/him. Once this has occurred the person is more likely to view self and others in a similar way, seeing and perhaps accepting whole complex individuals. Simply put, the other is not seen in crude black and white terms but as an ever-growing, dynamic human being who possesses a range of qualities. When the term other is used in this way, everyone who is not you is an other.

Western philosophers, artists and critics have shifted the meaning of this word perhaps by appropriating it from therapy – but implicit in the way it is used are the issues Foster identifies regarding post-structuralism, colonialism and a deeply embedded cultural picture of ‘the west and rest’ (1996; 216) Additionally, other is used by the same institutional groups, or as the media have recently been keen to suggest, the ‘educated cosmopolitan elite’, to anyone who isn’t imagined as the alpha group in western capitalist terms, and therefore reinforced by a cultural sense of Hegelian ‘power over’ other (Evans, 2003). As long as language contains all of this signification, and we continue to speak in these terms, we cannot help but perpetuate the structure, which in turn continues to inform the signifier; hence a feedback loop.

Projection

 In Exercise 1 we are asked to “produce a series of five portraits from a variety of backgrounds. These people must differ from you in some significant respect; age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, social class etc. Remember you looking for the ‘other’.” (Monaghan, 2016; 18)

Recall, everyone regardless of the signifiers they may present to the world about who they are, is separate to the “I” which lives inside our consciousness. To focus in, as we have been asked to, on “age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, social class” is to reinforce difference. And for the time being, I am going to agree with Giacometti’s sentiment (if reported correctly in The Guardian review of the Tate exhibition, 2017). He says, “There is only one thing worth making art about, Alberto Giacometti has decided, and that is our common humanity.” (Jones) That is not to say that I haven’t focused on difference in some of my images. In fact, I have many times, and it never sits well.

Will Self in the column I looked at for UVC A5 claimed “…in an important sense, there are no others” (2016) He was referring to the way we interact online, especially the younger generation. There may be lots of truth to his statement, but in fact, it could be argued that self and other has always been nebulous. Returning to infant development, we learn to view others within the environment we are born into. For a time, the social structure of that environment has the greatest impact on the lens through which we view the world, and others in it. The lens will contain a whole series of pre-conceptions, fantasies, as well as reactions informed by genetic and epigenetic processes. It is from Jung that therapists working with couples derive their model of relationship. Again, crudely put, we grow up with a fantasy about who would be our ideal partner. Our parents or primary carers, first and foremost, for better or worse, inform this fantasy. We meet someone whose metaphysical shape fits well into the fantasy. We live together and one day the fantasy shatters in pieces at our feet. Each within the couple must find a way to forgive the other for failing to live up to the imaginary. They must each allow themselves to become comfortable with the reality. Relationships end or carry on in abject misery when that is not possible. This model suggests that in unhealthy relationships, people will be overly enmeshed and cannot see when one ends and the other begins, projecting fantasies (phantasies) onto each other perpetually. In healthier relationships there is a clearer sense of definition and respect for boundaries and difference. If we extend this model to the way in which we view every other, not just those in close relationships, but all others, we might begin to imagine how our cultural lens informs what we see in and how we relate to the world outside. If we use the model to look at society rather than individuals we can imagine how groups fantasise about other groups and project in the same way. And we can see extreme splitting; the good object/ bad object dynamic that pervuades society currently.

Lastly, just because someone differs from me in “age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, social class etc” it doesn’t make them other to me in the way philosophers, critics and artists have inferred. They certainly are other in the way psychiatry has inferred because absolutely everyone is an other. I am not being deliberately obtuse. For example, I met a young student in the Dunkirk Refugee camp, now destroyed by fire. He was from Iraq and probably 20 or so years younger than me. He had lived in the Jungle for several months. He eventually secured a visa to remain and is studying journalism. In some ways I may have more in common with him than I do with the 40-something mother of three, British, ex civil servant that lives two doors down. In other ways I have more in common with her than I do with him. So, whilst I could wander round SW18 asking people who look different to me if I can take pictures of them to satisfy the request, it would be a nonsense and one that reinforces difference, otherness, post-colonial fantasies etc. And perhaps herein lies a second fundamental problem; I have been to a place that is considered a veritable hive of otherness by many and found ways to capture the people who existed there often, sometimes without revealing individual identity in order to reduce the sense of difference and focus on commonalty; perhaps in order to instigate sympathy but certainly without sadism (Foster, 1996; 222) Whether or not the images are successful is debatable, but there are strong reasons for approaching them this way, discussed at length elsewhere, including an APEL application to the OCA.

Methodology

All of this leads me to the question of how to approach making images of others that try to go beyond the limits of my own cultural lens, that refrain from reinforcing a sense of difference if that is even possible, and if it were possible, find out if it leads only to images that are so benign they simply weren’t worth making in the first place? There are risks but in order to find out more I must take them.

To summarise:

• We have been asked to make images, specifically portraits of others who lead lives very different to our own.
• This is an impossible task because a) it is more useful to focus on commonality, b) even if I did focus on difference I would inevitably try to find the commonality anyway c) it’s not morally acceptable to me to harness difference for the sake of it and “in an important sense” as Will Self tells us, there no others. (2016)
• We project the imaginary on to all others and the process of breaking through that is extremely complex, therefore any image I take will be an embodiment of my own fantasies anyway, in which case…well, there seems to be an obvious answer, although it means veering off in a different direction.

My solution to this conundrum has been to create a survey, which asks for fragments of information, just as any image provides. At this point I am not sure how I will use the information but it will inform portraits of some description. Our internalised perception of others is always informed by fantasies, and therefore a construction based on fragments from inside and out. Today online this is exacerbated when we collect curated fragments from people and construct images in our heads of them which are based on fantasy and the deliberate signifieds placed strategically about the digital place by people. We may never meet others we come across online in the flesh and therefore never have an opportunity to create a more rounded image. Perhaps this process will lead to a set of constructed images that reflects that paradigm. Perhaps the portraits will look quite different to what we expect of portraits. It is something I need to think about once I have the information in hand.

The survey can be found here:

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/8P7QTZN

(At the time of posting this blog I have not yet posted the survey anywhere else but plan to following a conversation with an OCA representative, probably my tutor. I will not use any responses that are made before posting it officially on Facebook and Twitter. I am not looking for responses from friends or people I know.)

Foreseeable problems:

• It could be argued this was not what I was asked to do, however, see all of the above;
• In the process of making images derived from fragments of information I risk appropriating otherness which fails to instigate ‘a correct distance’ (Foster, 1996; 225) and helps to further suppress the awkward question of class, colonialism, inherent racism etc.
• I risk making work that is so extremely esoteric and removed from usefulness it ‘deserves the bad name’ that Foster claims criticism has (1996; 226) and many would argue can also be applied to post-modern art.
• The survey deliberately ask questions that are either banal, or intrusive – perhaps breaking social taboos about not prying (although what else is photography but prying. I do think this work so far has already made one of my respected peers raise an eyebrow, and who I imagine thought the rationale behind the survey was highly suspect)
• People may make things up. But people make things up about themselves all the time. Especially online. In many different ways for various reasons. There may well be some respondents who lie but I suspect in the main people will enjoy talking about themselves openly but anonymously – let’s see what comes back (if anything!)
• I open myself to online abuse, and am not sure I have put enough in place to protect myself. However, since one of the aims of the project is to explore the way we interact online and construct others using fragments of information (provided by words & images) this is something that may be useful.
• If someone wants to know how the information is used they should be able to identify themselves or contact me and request access to final work. I’m not sure yet how to get round this.
• No one may respond at all.
• I am aware that by approaching the exercises this way I am focusing on the self when being asked to focus on other – again, see all I have said above. I may well find myself focusing on others when asked to do look at myself. This is because I am really interested in exploring where the two end and meet, at the idea of enmeshment, and of individual definition.

Some of the peer feedback from an earlier draft of the survey:

I have decided not to identify names but am extremely grateful to all peers who responded.

Q1 – Do you think it would be useful to ask time of day – clothing may vary throughout the day
Q4 – What about those who read an online newspaper?
Q6 – the word ‘lost’ is rather vague. I’m assuming you mean through death, divorce, ending of a relationship but you might not, plus other respondents might have a different understanding according to their native language and translation etc.

I have made adjustments base on all of these suggestions.

Your intro is clear and concise, but you have a definite writing style that is missing-sorry it’s not something I can tangibly describe. Maybe you feel this would have led people to answer in a certain way?

I have been extremely concerned about doing this survey because of the intrusive nature of some of the questions. This has undoubtedly affected how I communicate. I also do want to avoid my usual writing chit-chat style though, leaving enough open space for people to project as much of themselves onto the survey as they can, un-muddied as far as possible by transference from me. (So hard to do!)

What are your reasons for ordering the questions the way you have? They seem a random order which I guess was your intention and I don’t necessarily see as a problem. Do you need to have as much information in the questions? I love the question about naming which objects would describe you…

The randomness is deliberate and aims to destabalise the respondent, in the same way I might aim to destabalise a subject I may be photographing to capture the slipped mask. However, whether this is necessary or not in this process is a valid question.

Do you have an idea for the output of the assignment? How does the hour in a life of fit into this? If course if you shared this it might affect how people respond….

I have several possible ideas and will make a decision once I’ve received replies and started playing around with options, if indeed I receive any at all. (I may not!) I may use the survey to inform the entire section, all the exercises and the assignment, we will see. The selfies are a requirement for one of the exercises. I wanted to say more about how to remain anonymous in the images but the question is very long as it is. As my son said, “Shorten it, I got bored and stopped reading”. I state clearly at the beginning I will be using the material supplied and that by responding people are in agreement. The ethics, requesting subjects to come forward, offering information, some of which may be emotionally sensitve, and granting me permission is an important aspect.

I would start with separating the text into several paragraphs in the introductory text. That is a bit too dense as it is.

It looks long enough to me.

The newspaper question might benefit to come more toward the end. It arrives early in your survey and it might give a  ‘judgemental’ aspect to your survey + precise in frequency the difference between regularly and occasionally (daily, once a week, etc). I would start with the most neutral questions at the beginning. The one in which you don’t have to think about how to answer, such as 3, 5, 7.

I have taken these suggestions on board apart from the ordering which has remained random, although the judgmental comment was noted and in fact my son told me to I needed to keep opinion out of it as much as possible which I have tried to do in the latest version (although I’m sure there is room for improvement.)

Respondents are in the position to desist if they feel it is too close to the bone. Make a clear statement at the beginning and leave it at that.

I was so utterly apologetic in the first draft about asking intrusive questions that every question reiterated people didn’t need to respond if they didn’t want to. I noticed this myself and removed it. My son also mentioned it.

References:

Stevens, A. (2001). Jung: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) Kindle Edition. 1st ed. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

Foster, H. (1996). The return of the real. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Hirsch, M. (1997). Family frames. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, p.103.

Melanie-klein-trust.org.uk. (n.d.). Internal objects – melanie klein trust. [online] Available at: http://www.melanie-klein-trust.org.uk/internal-objects [Accessed 8 Jan. 2017].

Evans, P. (2003). The verbally abusive relationship. 3rd ed. Avon, Mass.: Adams Media.

Monaghan, L (2016). OCA The Self & Other Module, OCA, Barsnley: OCA

Quotes from several emails received from peers on 11 May 2017 in response to a request for feedback.

[1] See Melanie Klein Melanie-klein-trust.org.uk. (n.d.). Internal objects – melanie klein trust. [online] Available at: http://www.melanie-klein-trust.org.uk/internal-objects [Accessed 8 Jan. 2017].

[2] Despite Jung’s individuation and Lacan’s whole child, who has moved beyond the mirror stage, the idea that we ever exist beyond a fragmented internal image of self is contested and Marianne Hirsh describes, “The illusion of self’s wholeness and plenitude is perpetuated by the photographic medium…” (1996, 84)