Photograph source: http://the-two-germanys.tumblr.com/post/102138263479
The photo, originally taken by the German photographer Herbert Lang, depicts a congolese man holding a carved ivory horn for ceremony and dance. While some say that he preferred to "shoot animals with his camera," Herbert Lang was both a taxidermist and a photographer of animals who had a strong sense for the scientific collection of specimens (Slack 2003). In addition to his photography of animals, Slack writes that Lang spent many years doing ethnographic photography of the Africans he met in Africa. Slack writes, "And although he considered his photographs scientific documents in themselves, many of them were humane and expressive as well. He clearly had a great deal of respect for the dignity and individuality of his human subjects." While Lang's intentions may have been seen as genuine, scientific, or objective, this romanticized interpretation of Lang's scientific and artistic work masks the reality that white photographers and collectors venturing into Africa are complicit in the exploitation and appropriation of African property.
A closer examination of the photo provides us with a better understanding how the exploitation of the Congo is connected to his photography. The text reads that "this particular specimen is in the collection which Messrs. Lang and Chapin bought back to the American Museum from their six years work in the Congo." Without stating how this ivory horn was acquired, the text naturalizes the ownership of the horn to Lang and the American Museum. (Isn't the horn meant for Ceremony and Dance––not for display in a museum?) The photo symbolically represents the forced surrender of Congolese property, as the man in the photo appears to be presenting the horn like a gift with both hands pointed upwards. His eyes appear to be looking up at the camera, which puts him in a subordinated position to the viewer of the photograph as well as the photographer. While the camera was hailed as the portrayer of an incorruptible truth of Congo, the photo actually presents itself in an manner that actually provides the viewer with little context or understanding of reality. Whether or not the ivory horn was taken by force is of no importance because of the asymmetrical relationship between the whites and the Africans during the period this photo was taken.The man and the horn are captured, or rather I should write arrested, in the photograph in a way that says "this is mine, not yours."
-Steven Hernandez
Sources:
http://diglib1.amnh.org/articles/lang_bio/lang_bio1.html
This idea of photography as a form of both documentation and ownership, is interesting considering the emphasis on the influence of the Kodak in both the Mark Twain and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle readings. In Twain’s “King Leopold’s Soliloquy” the camera is talked about as a “powerful enemy” of the colonizing countries in Africa for its use to document/expose the atrocities being commited against the natives. And several times in the excerpt from Doyle’s The Crime of the Congo the Kodak makes an appearance as a form of evidentiary material in the “cutting off of living hands.” It provides for a contextually interesting comparison to consider cameras as instruments of documentation of both human atrocities and ethnographic studies and then to still understand them to be, as you put it, a symbolic representation of “the forced surrender of Congolese property” and a depiction of the hierarchical relationship between the colonizers and the African people.
ReplyDeleteThe man and the horn are captured, or rather I should write arrested, in the photograph in a way that says "this is mine, not yours."
ReplyDeleteExcellent post Steven, the dual-action of the word "captured" resonates. The elephant's ivory is one exploitation of raw materials on top of capturing the picture of the man, and even capturing of the Congo works in so many ways. Imperialism functions in a way of possession and even though the man is holding the ivory, it will never be his.