Sir Henry Morton Stanley was a journalist and explorer of Africa, and during one of the previous lectures, Christine mentioned that photographs during these times of imperialism were made into postcards of sorts. Typically, photographic postcards would be sold or sent back to the home countries; and I found three to focus on featuring Stanley and a boy. In each of these photographs, it is pretty obvious that the focal point is the white colonizer. It should also be noted that each shot is very posed, and the boy (who remains nameless) acts a prop. The backdrop is also made to look like these two are outdoors, or perhaps in a garden. Violence is at work here through the form of photography, and the seemingly idyllic scene set before our eyes. Is what is being posed before us a truthful image? Since the whole scene is set up, I think the only clear truth that can be taken is that the boy is being taught violence and servitude. It can even be said that violence is being inflicted upon the boy through the simple act of taking his picture. If you look closely, he is never looking at the camera's gaze in any of the shots. Whether it is because he has been directed to, or is doing so on his own is unclear.
I think what can be said about these photographs, and the whole idea of a photograph, is that it is a medium that shows both truths and lies. It can either stimulate or hinder the way a people or something is represented. But how about considering how the photograph can supposedly anchor people to the past? If we compare these postcard images to the age of modern digital photography, one question to be posed is: which age presents the more truthful images? Or has photography always held some created illusion to mislead others? I think these photographic documents show, as in Benito Cereno and Heart of Darkness, that just as a narrative can be subversive, so can photography---the silences of what may or may not be said will insert a sense of ambiguity for the viewer. And intentional or not, these moments will always be viewed through a voyeuristic lens.
Photos:
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp04254/sir-henry-morton-stanley?search=sas&sText=morton+stanley
http://toglobalist.org/2013/05/a-history-of-imperial-genocide-from-conrad-to-lebensraum/
I think what can be said about these photographs, and the whole idea of a photograph, is that it is a medium that shows both truths and lies. It can either stimulate or hinder the way a people or something is represented. But how about considering how the photograph can supposedly anchor people to the past? If we compare these postcard images to the age of modern digital photography, one question to be posed is: which age presents the more truthful images? Or has photography always held some created illusion to mislead others? I think these photographic documents show, as in Benito Cereno and Heart of Darkness, that just as a narrative can be subversive, so can photography---the silences of what may or may not be said will insert a sense of ambiguity for the viewer. And intentional or not, these moments will always be viewed through a voyeuristic lens.
Photos:
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp04254/sir-henry-morton-stanley?search=sas&sText=morton+stanley
http://toglobalist.org/2013/05/a-history-of-imperial-genocide-from-conrad-to-lebensraum/
I was really fascinated by your observation on how the boy was used as a prop. I agree when you state that violence is bring committed within these pictures and how it's sad when the real truth is not being depicted. In a way can this "staging" be considered as some sort of sublime? I really appreciate your very thoughtful and critical look on these pictures and thank you for sharing them. :)
ReplyDelete