Clothes as an 'Identifier'

In an earlier blog ("A wider range of costume wearers - 10th October 2013) I posited the idea that apart from re-enactors there were many others that wore 'costume'. I had agreed with my Tutor that I would widen the field of my photographic study to include some of these others. At that time I had such obvious others as the more outlandish, from my point of view which may be dated, costumes as exhibited by Goths and similar groups. Two days ago I was in the City of Nottingham in the search of such members of the public. I did not have much success, possibly because I was looking in the wrong place, and came away with just 6 images that were in some way connected with the major project. As I sat in the Autumn sunshine thinking why the day had not been as fruitful as I hoped I came to the conclusion that I had not done sufficient planning but also I had made little effort to understand, from an academic point of view, the phenomenon I was attempting to photograph.

The thought that I needed greater understanding came from my responses as I viewed the passing parade of people on their way to who knows where. I found myself constructing a brief life history about anyone who particularly caught my attention. For example I saw this girl walking towards me:

In height she was close to 6 feet tall so would have been noticeable in most situations. However the clothing she was wearing demanded attention and the way that she walked strongly suggested a  'stuff you' attitude. What conclusions did I reach. It was evident from the lanyard badge she wore round her neck that she was a student so I surmised she was a student in the creative arts faculty. Another clue is the portfolio case she is carrying in her left hand. Her choice of dress suggested that she wished to be seen as different and, if belonging to a group at all, she was a member of a very small group that saw themselves at odds with the norms of the society in which they lived. The choice of hat gave pause for thought. Had we been in Moscow in the middle of winter it may not have been cause for comment but the day was pleasantly mild. The hat as a piece of protective wear made no sense so I reached the conclusion that it was part of her statement to the world about her. Here, I thought, is someone you do not mess with. Of course I could be totally wrong and that she really is a pussy cat who loves the world and all its inhabitants.

Although this young woman is dressed in a way that provokes interest and speculation there were many others who were more conservatively dressed and yet I continued to make up small life histories that were suggested by their mode of dress. Where there was time for both speculation and photography I took a photograph of those I found most interesting.

How reasonable are the conclusions we draw from how a person dresses? Experience suggests that we are often close to the truth otherwise much social interaction between relative strangers would be near impossible.  We learn to recognise and respond to the clues we are offered by the way that a person dresses. Although more difficult now than in the past how people dress themselves tells us a great deal about how they see themselves and the likely groups to which they belong. We have many facets to our 'identity' such as our gender (not always easy to decide); ethnic group and age. Less obvious indicators are profession, religion and, if known, wealth. How a person dresses can provide strong clues to the answer to all these questions at the same time.What we wear tells the world how we wish to be seen and, equally importantly, how we see ourselves.

Viewing the passing world in diverse forms of dress it would be easy to assume that we dress as we wish, and that, in part, is true but there are a number of pressures upon us to conform. There is a strong desire amongst most animals, including humans, to belong to and be accepted by a particular group. The group may be very large such as a religious group where there is a dress code that is followed by all faithful adherents - the sikh turban being a clearly visible example - or it may be of significant size such as the 'teddy boys' of the 1950's who declared their allegiance by wearing Edwardian style clothes or a small, close knit group whose numbers and whose dress code may not be obvious to the casual observer. What is common amongst virtually all groups, whatever their size, is that clothing, or lack of it, will be the way in which a member states their allegiance.

Dr Karen Pine, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, says that "People feel safer when they dress alike...They are signalling their need to belong to the group. A team that chooses the same style of dress for work is indicating their cohesiveness, which may reflect a wider collaborative culture." Psychologist Oliver James Says"......attire is the way you get a cohesive team spirit: people feeling as though we are all in this together. A modern example, which appears on our TV screens regularly, is football teams and their supporters. Despite the relative high costs of wearing the 1st team colours of the team you support, which for marketing purposes are changed regularly, supporters denote their allegiance by wearing the latest strip.
 (see http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/features/dressed-the-same-as-a-colleagueits-a-twin-twin-situation-for-your-career-trajectory-8798938.html)

From the foregoing we can draw the conclusion that, for all practical purposes everyone is, in some way, wearing a 'costume' that offer clues to the make up of their identity. The people who are members of a Morris Dancing Group or Re-enactment group are exhibiting their allegiance to the group norms of the Society or Club to which they belong. They are more noticeable because their style of dress lies outside that which we usually see in everyday life plus the fact that they invite people to see them. The rest of us (and them as well when they are not Morris Dancing) offer a different set of clues that conform to the norms of the groups we belong to at any point in time. Our susceptibility to group pressures will vary as we move from one role to another in our everyday life. For all we know the sedately dressed banker we see in the City may go home and change into an unusual costume prior to joining other group members in a series of rituals that would seem strange to others.

Where does this leave my project? On the one hand I could, in theory, photograph anyone arguing that what we see is a person that is conforming to the pressures of the group he/she belongs at that moment in time. However I am not sure that would be much of a photo story. Happily their remain a significant part of the population whose dress is sufficiently different to be interesting because it lies outside the broad range that we usually call 'normal'. These will be my targets.

Other Sources:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/dress-and-society
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/06/why-group-norms-kill-creativity.php
www.spring.org.uk/2009/07/10-rules-that-govern-groups.php

Is that really me?

In reading through Camera Lucida I was left with an uneasy feeling about the Winter Garden story in which Barthes ‘sees’ all that is his mother. Leaving aside the question as to whether the photograph existed the question that remained for me was - How did he know that it was his mother?  Obviously he could not know through his own experience so it is safe to assume that either someone told him or that he saw in the image someone he wanted to be his mother. Barthes is suspected of imagining the Winter Garden photograph because of his desire to find a photograph that captured the essence of his mother so it can be argued that this overwhelming obsession could have led him to identify a photograph of two children one of whom he decided was his  mother. 

In considering this possibility I considered how I knew that photographs of myself as a young child were actually of me. The earliest photograph of me that I have in my possession is me as an 8 year old child at a wedding reception. As far as I know this is the only image there is of me until I am 20 years old. I look at the photograph and despite having been told that the young child is me I have no recollection whatsoever of the actual event. I do not deny that the event took place, indeed I recognise the bride and groom as being my Aunt and Uncle (my Mother’s brother) and also recognise about 50% of the others who are/were relatives of mine. What I do not do is recognise myself.  I cannot see the essence of myself in this image. 

The photograph of me at 20 years of age is of me holding my baby daughter and I can remember such a time and identify where it was taken. Although the photograph was taken over 50 years ago I know with certainty that the adult with the baby is me. I have many photographs that cover the time that photograph was taken to the present day sufficiently close together in time for it to be possible to see the gradual changes as I grew older. I have a sense of continuity across the 50+ years that allows me to say with some certainty that that set of photographs is of me. Yet I cannot, with any certainty, place the first photograph into the sequence. Why should this be so? For me it raises the question of the difference between how we see ourselves and how we are recorded in a photograph.

There has been a discussion recently in ‘We Are OCA’  [http://www.weareoca.com/photography/damn-it-man-im-a-photographer-not-a-model] about the reluctance of photographers to be photographed. Although the comments now seem to be concentrating on the relationship between the photographer and the sitter the key comment for me was the one posted by Peter Haveland (14 Oct  ’13   4.19p.m.) in which he suggests that ‘’.....they don’t approve of the way they look in photographs”. Being very much a reluctant sitter I can identify with this suggestion. What I see in a photograph, no matter how well it is composed and lit, is not how I imagine myself to be. The mental image I have of myself, and which I nurture, is at odds with the ‘reality’ portrayed. Is this an explanation of why I can consider the possibility of the child in the photograph not being me? Do I see in that child elements that I do not wish to acknowledge? 

In Barthes case he had a mental image of his mother that all, bar one, of the photographs he found were not a true representation of the person he remembered. In my case I seem to have a mental image of myself as a child, which I cannot put into words, that allows me to challenge the validity of a photograph. I doubt it for reasons I cannot express. I trust that I am not alone in this respect that others have a similar experience when looking at images of themselves. My contention is that without a memory of the event we cannot know with certainty that what we are told is a photograph of us is a fact. We can only rely upon our trust in those providing us with the information.

A wider range of costume wearers

As I have worked through the major project part of the Course taking many images of re-enactors wearing costumes from bygone ages I came to the realisation that there was a whole range of people who would not consider that they were wearing a 'costume' and certainly would not consider themselves re-enactors who yet wear clothing and accoutrements that identify them with a particular group. It is not all that obvious but once you start looking for it the evidence is there. As an example I took this photograph in Annecy, France of a group of students crossing a park during  their lunch break.

At first glance the evidence for a 'costume' is not immediately obvious but a closer examination provides a number of clues. The length of hair, tightness of jeans and the shoulder bag that each of them is carrying identifies them as a group. Later behaviour as they continued their walk confirmed initial impressions and a sequence of phtographs will show them lighting cigarettes and displaying other group behaviour. The other group in the image at the rear are probably from the same school but the difference here is that one of them has a boy friend thus requiring different behaviour from the members of that group although the girls are similarly attired to the group in the foreground.

Desire to belong to a group is very strong in human beings and other animals but humans show their 'solidarity' through dress and common behaviour patterns. Having been around for quite some time I have memories of teddy boys, mods, rockers and motor bike gangs each group having its own identifying style of dress and behaviour. The most obvious grouping in modern times is football supporters who display the colours of their chosen Club and many of whom wear replicas of the 1st team.

Britain, being a multi-cultural society also offers many examples of ethnic dress and this too identifies members of a specific group.

It has been agreed with my tutor that I can extend my remit to include such groups thus providing greater opportunities to capture the diversity of 'costume' where the latter term relates to the indication of group belonging.

Don McCullin - Visa Pour L'Image 2013 Perpignan

I have commented generally elsewhere on my visit to the Visa Pour L'Image 2013 (cedricsherwoodap.blogspot.co.uk) and in this blog I want to comment on the exhibition of Don McCullin's work.

Probably the most famous of war photographer's Don McCullin's work places him in virtually every conflict across the globe. In the exhibition catalogue (McCullin C (2013). Visa Pour L'Image Perpignan) we read that he chose to experience war through a spirit of adventure but that this later turned to anger and an abhorrence of war. He wished to expose the horror and thereby to bring a halt to the terror and death. The irony is, of course, that the history of his career demonstrates, more clearly than possibly in any other way, that photographs, no matter how horrific or poignant, will not stop war or indeed conflict.

The status of McCullin was underlined by the whole of the space in the Eglise Des Dominicains  being devoted to his work so we were able to see examples of the wide range of his work. Wandering around was like a journey through much of my adult life both from stories near home to remembered conflicts across the globe. To choose a couple of images from this selection was difficult but amongst many two images struck strong emotions within me. The first is an image of three American soldiers in Vietnam. Two colleagues are holding a third who has been seriously injured. They are surrounded by the detritus of war and for me the shot sums up the whole futility of war and the price paid by ordinary individuals for decisions taken by politicians of their Country. One could question the technical elements of the photograph but there is a sense of immediacy, of a shot grabbed in a difficult situation. The Vietnam War seemed constantly in our newspapers and televisions so that paradoxically it became unreal. It was as though one was watching a docudrama and that the actors in some way got up after the shot was taken and removed their make-up. For our mental health we have to compartmentalise the horror, to lessen the impact. The sheer volume of reportage helps us to do this by numbing our sensitivities to the reality.

The second photograph is of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The use of the term 'Troubles' lessens the reality of what essentially was armed conflict fought on both sides with a bloody disregard for human life. In the image we see a squad of armed soldiers about to charge a group of youths. The youths are not in the picture and we only know of their existence through the information we are provided with in the caption. We do not know if the youths are armed, throwing stones or simply jeering the soldiers and yet the soldiers are fully kitted out and some are carrying lethal weapons. The photograph is a perfect example of the 'decisive moment' as the soldiers have just broken into a run and it is clear that they are now totally committed to their task - there is no going back and retreat is not an option.

As with the Vietnam War the constant flow of reportage numbed our senses to the reality of what was happening. No matter what the horror perpetrated it was noted and then we passed on. In part this was because of censorship either through selection by the photographer in what he chose to shoot or by picture editors deciding upon what to include or exclude. I was 'fortunate' enough to be at a conference discussing the need for measures to reduce the risks associated with car and parcel bombs and the presenters felt that we should be faced with the reality of what actually occurred when a car bomb exploded. I will never be able to remove the images from my mind and they are brought back every time I hear the words 'Northern Ireland".

I am a great admirer of McCullin's work recognising the courage that it took to get the photographs but also the skill and awareness that gave us so many striking images. However it was his choice. To imagine that his work would in some way make a difference may have been a motivation but one wonders how long it took him to come to the conclusion that it was all a waste of time.

Abir Abdullah - Visa Pour L'Image 2013 Perpignan

I comment elsewhere cedricsherwoodap.blogspot.co.uk on my general thoughts about the Visa Pour L'Image but in this blog I wish to comment on a specific exhibition, that of Abir Abdullah.

The media has carried many reports about the tragic deaths in Bangladesh either through uncontrolled fires or building collapse. Many occur in work places where the owners are under contract to produce clothing and other items for some of the World's best known brands. Abdullah's purpose in showing the photographs is to change World opinion and more specifically such well known brands as Walmart, Disney and Nike to pay fair prices so that minimum standards relating to health and safety and workers rights can bring an end to such tragedies.

The most powerful image, for me, was of four men holding at shoulder height a fire hose that is spurting water all over them. The image captures the essence of Abdullah's crusade in that we are shown four non-professional firefighters attempting to assist the professionals. There is a determination and commitment in their expressions and the straining of their bodies that cannot be faulted. Yet the whole thing suggest futility because of the inadequate connection between two parts of the hose. One wonders how much water is actually getting to the seat of the fire. In this photograph we face all those things that are wrong and lead to the deaths of so many.

Although most of the images exhibited have impact one other made me stop and dwell longer because it offers so much information in one single image. The main element is the injured (possibly dead) worker being passed, by hand, down a ladder by firefighters. At the bottom of the ladder we see two 'civilians' looking upwards one reaching out to help. We also glimpse a fireman who has descended the ladder and another civilian who is looking away from what is happening above him. We can speculate why he appears not to be concerned about what is happening or that he is overcome by the tragedy happening before his eyes. We will never know. There is another group of three people almost in the centre of the image who are walking towards something that we cannot see although we catch a glimpse of two people partially hidden by the fireman at the top of the ladder. There are other figures in the background  that add to the overall impact of the image.

We also have to consider the position of the photographer. How did he manage to place himself in a position where this image became possible? I would also ask was the composition of the images we see a matter of chance or did the photographer see the composition in his viewfinder and press the button at the right time.

Here we have a very brave and committed photographer who offers a photographic essay in the hope of changing the behaviour of international Corporations. Sadly it would seem that their decisions are solely governed by profit and the response of many has been to take their orders elsewhere in the World devastating the economy of Bangladesh that relies heavily on this type of work.

What is it about some photographers who use their skills to try and change the behaviour of others, usually powerful people or businesses. Is it possible? In my next blog I look at the work of Don McCullin a well known war journalist who came to the conclusion that the answer to this question was No!

What is a photograph 2

Referring back to the previous blog we are still left with the question  “What is a photograph?” Does the question have an answer? It is relatively easy to describe the physical properties of a photograph. Yet these are not unique and a physical description would not distinguish it from a number of other things. Barthes in “Camera Lucida” (p76) argues that it is not possible to deny that the subject of the photograph “has been there”. It is this unique property that is the essence (Barthes uses the term ‘noeme’ ) of Photography. He gives the noeme a name: “That has been”. It can be argued that a photograph is a photograph because it shows something ‘that has been’. If this is true then anything that does not have the property of ‘that has been’ is not a photograph. We seem to have answered the question.

It is a reasonable presumption that of those things that we name ‘photographs’ the vast majority would qualify to be a photograph - their subject is something that ‘has been’. Yet there is a significant minority of things that we call photographs that are of things that ‘have not been’. I am not thinking here of such images such as the infamous ‘Fairies at the bottom of the garden’. Although the fairies are not there the children’s toys that were supposed to be the fairies are there and the term ‘that has been’ can be truthfully applied to the image i.e. it is a photograph. What I am thinking of are images that ‘bend’ the truth. 

In the Autumn Review of the British Journal of Photography there is an article discussing a work by Erica McDonald titled T’he Laundry Sherpas of Brooklyn’ which mixes fact with fiction. Prompted by seeing people carrying laundry in Brooklyn McDonald was reminded of people in poorer countries who have to walk miles to find sufficient water to do their laundry. She created a story line where the laundry carriers were journeying through an urban area. What is not too obvious from the images is that those photographed are acting, pretending that they have been wandering for hours. McDonald prefers the term ‘fictive’ to ‘fiction’ arguing that what she has created does not oppose the facts. Of course we are only asking whether the images are photographs. Can it be said of what is in the photographs ‘has been’?  The answer is ‘Yes’ although what they are attempting to portray is a falsehood. Yet Barthes’ criteria does not require us to ask of the image whether what the photograph is showing is true only that what we see was there. Clearly the people were there so using Barthes’ criteria it is a photograph. We can draw the conclusion that even though what the image purports to be is untrue providing the subject matter was in front of the camera then the object is a photograph. A photograph can lie.

We can also consider montages where the image we see before us is made up of a number of images that were not necessarily taken at the same time. They may create a very realistic image such as when we remove a background and replace it with another. They may create something that cannot exist in reality but all parts were photographed and can be legitimately called ‘has been’. Is time something that negates a photograph? Barthes is silent on this aspect of a photograph but there is nothing in his model that precludes differing time elements.

There are elements that are common in all the images above and that is the use of a camera (in the broadest sense of something that records the full spectrum of light storing it on some kind of medium) and the presence of something before the camera at the time of recording. Providing these conditions are met then the resulting product is a photograph.