I am finding that through researching ‘otherness’ via the prism of culture, I am able to obtain a significant level depth and detail to the subject. Having previously read ‘Image of Whiteness’ Daniel Blight (2019) there is a rich spectrum of consideration for the way those marginalised by society are represented through conscious or unconscious viewpoints.
Research into the influences of Photographer Anthony Luvera led me to read Stuart Hall’s ‘ The spectacle of the other’, chapter within representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (1997)
Elements that drew my attention come from Hall’s focus upon the binary differences that are used within representations to provide meaning. Hall refers to binary opposites and points us towards the very human instinct of contrasting heroes v villains and good v evil.
I like the way Hall refers the subjects being photographed for their differences and ‘the represented’ as opposed to those doing the representing. This is a vital cog within the power dynamic of social documentary photography and reading the work of someone who delves so deeply into the phenomenon of otherness provides considerable thought.
Much of the differences within representations are being observed through the prism of race. However, Hall veers towards all differences and does not hold back with a powerful argument to really look hard at representations that signify differences.
The concern also falls towards media as the chapter opens up a further debate towards responsibility and accountability. By viewing the connotation of meaning, it is entirely possible to make assumptions towards marginalized communities and it is these assumptions that on there own may be relatively inadequate to signify a defined representation of otherness. When viewed as an accumulation of blatant cliched stereotyping, accompanied by text, the effect can easily guide a audience to accepting the negativity as standard.
Peter Hamilton refers to a representational paradigm. “He uses the term to describe a shared photographic approach that creates a vision of the people that becomes an accepted view. Halls reference to Hamilton opens up a significant area within my research. Having formed many opinions towards the damage that representations of marginalised communities can create, it is good to locate further supporting evidence around the theory.
Hall views differences’ as both negative and positive attributes to representations, but believes both opposites as necessary to forge meaning. This opinion appears to align itself to aspects of Bathes system of codes and that meaning is constructed from the observers decoding of what is not being signified as much as what is.
This concept is used by Hall to define the differences of the ‘other’ relies upon the understanding that meaning cannot be fixed and that therefore groups or cultures can never own the arbitrary concept. This is an area that I have often read within my research into semiotics and the manner in which we construct meaning. The reliance upon the audience understanding the meaning is often given greater significance than the intended artistic meaning. The use of manipulation is often seen by advertisers, the media and more recently political social media to tap into the semiotic codes in an attempt to apply a rhetoric that suits an agenda.
As far as Hall suggests, these practices (conscious and unconscious) feed into the public psyche and form binary differences stemmed from the visual language. These binary differences, when weighed, (as they usually are) stamp a level of authority and superiority upon the powerless.
Although I found myself agreeing with the main thrust of the theory I also started searching for a counter argument, as the polar opposites in every case fail to allow for the grey nuances that inhabits most areas of life captured by social documentary photography. The degrees of scale can often be sucked out in favour of extremes when observing contextual theory. It is therefore pleasing that Hall allows for some reflection and witnesses that binary differences can also be seen as reductionist and over simplified “swallowing up all distinctions in a rather rigid two part structure”. Binary oppositions are themselves rarely neutral, which means that the other is usually dominant, and it is this dominant factor that Hall and Derrida believes the power rests. The importance given to ‘difference’ when observing otherness is highly significant and although I have written sections within the extended project that touch upon the implications of binary differences, the complexity and depth that is found in Hall’s research has provided much further consideration. Much like the text with ‘The Image of Whiteness’ there is a vibrancy to the argument that falls outside some of the more dry academic theory. The differences in race and culture have provided me with a much wider argument that dovetails into the inequality of poverty
Gerard Hilderly Level 3 OCA 