The In-Sight Photography Project: 14th Annual Exhibit and Silent Auction

Place a bid! There are hundreds of prints. Including one of my photographs from the Chimera Series. For more information about my work go to diana-sanchez.com . My favorite print is from Duane Michals. Any one want to buy it for me? ;)

Link to place bid on my work: http://auction.insight-photography.org/diana-sanchez/

Madam Mim & Merlin

A sorceress duel between Madam Mim and Merlin is about to take place. Madam Mim says, "First rule is no vegetables... no minerals. Second rule is no animals that don't exist... like dragons. Third rule, it is prohibited to become invisible." Merlin responds with "Third rule it is not to cheat." Of course Madam Mim cheats right away by becoming invisible and then turning into a crocodile. Merlin strikes back by turning into a turtle, which saves his life because the crocodile misses catching the tiny body of a turtle with its mouth. However, once the turtle is on the ground, it is too slow to run away from a two legged walking crocodile.

The following scenes are "cliches" of the ways we think of animals, as well as it talks about animals eating other animals. My favorite is when Madam Mim as an elephant is scared of the Merlin as a mouse. I wonder how we came about thinking elephants are scared of mice? The best part is that the sorceress dual ends with Merlin becoming chickenpox (the tiniest of animals) and makes Madam Mim's body sick.

Hidden River Art Festival - Wilson Center for the Arts - Emerging Artists Gallery - Sep. 14 - 16

Noche de Arte - Milwaukee Public Library

The Nonhuman Turn Conference

Last week a conferences about nonhumans took place  at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I listen to a couple of talks that were difficult to understand as they were very philosophical.  In the plenary with Jane Bennett, "Systems and Things: a materialist and an object-oriented philosopher walk into a bar..," my mind wondered a lot, but I appreciated when she said that the categories of "good" and "evil" need to be reconsidered. I too believe that people, objects, nature, etc., cannot be categorize that easily. In the Q&A, Bennett also grabbed my attention when she mentioned that we need to understand ourselves as being more than just human. To think of ourselves as worms, metals... because this will help to a more sustainable society that affects less bodies (both animate & inanimate).

The panel on "Animal" was lovely. Marilyn Cooper presented Talking with Animals. Cooper told a story of a wildlife photographer encounter with a leopard seal. For some reason, the leopard brought different degrees of "dying" penguin bodies to the photographer... maybe as gifts? But I wonder if they were a sign to what could happen to the photographer if he got too close. Either way, the leopard seal was communicating with the photographers through gesture. Cooper contrasted this story, with one about two humans trying to communicate through their broken English. The two people used English words in an order that did not make any sense. Both cases of communication were left unclear. But Cooper made a point that animals communicate between each other and with others. 

The next person up was Donovan Schaefer, who presented, Compulsory Affectivity: Affect, Animality, and the Nonhuman Turn. Schaefer talked about isolation is a form of torture to argue that we need affect in our lives... or was he saying that about animals? His talk, to me, was interesting in that most of the time I was not sure if he talked about an animal or a human. Shaefer mentioned that we need to touch to feel affect, and that isolation is torture because there isn't anything to touch or feel or make connections. His talk is still lingering in my mind.  Mostly because it made me think if of animal habitats in zoos... and how all the artifice stuff and the outdoor (soil, bushes, grass, trees) in the space is helpful to the animals because of the texture. I would love to read his paper again to break it down more.

The plenary ended with James K. Stanescu, Animals, Assemblage, and Abstraction: Towards a Dark Ethics before opening to Q&A. Stanescu talk was just as informative and great as the first two. I like his idea abstraction will bring us back to the animal. Stanescu talk reminded me of Mullan and Marvin, Animal Skins because it reminds me that "animal" is a cultural construct, and we have to be careful on how we respond to animal. This is another paper that I would love to read to break down more. 

A Musical Zoo Elephant

Green Porno: Thinking like an animal?

Isabella Rossellini interprets animals' sexuality in her Green Porn videos.

For bed bugs, Rossellini is dressed in a red custom that resembles a bed bug. The story tells us how bed bugs view beds as a living space, how it reproduces, and how it interacts with human bodies for food. The video begins with a knife being caressed on Rossellini’s face. She asks, “What am I? A bed bug?” Rossellini turns from her human custom to her bed bug custom to tell us a story about bed bugs. The setting of the video is imaginative and real. On one hand, Rossellini’s human presence is inevitable because she is obviously dressed as an animal (no one could be fooled). Paper bed bugs and a scale-model of a house are used to create the setting in this story. On the other hand, the story becomes “real” because of the embedded information about animal behavior.

Rossellini takes anthropomorphism to another level. There is a mix of anthropomorphism with animality that makes the videos insightful and provocative. The story is told from both a human and animal perspective. There is something ridiculous about the act, but also very profound. The anthropomorphism is not just to give human qualities to an animal or in this case a bug. It is about an attempt to try to understand bed bug’s perspective of its world.

In A foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans, Jakob Von Uexkull, explored this act of animal perspective. Uexkull work is important because he explored how animals experiences life through space. Uexkull argues that certain animals see more than others… How we interact with space is how a world to each creature comes to be. So my world is more rich because I am a mammal that visually sees a lot of objects, while a fly may not be as important because it only sees a few things in its world. While this may be true, I do not agree that because some animals see more, it can be used as a measurement tool to think about intelligence or superiority or even feelings.

Rossellini, to me, makes it a lot more interesting because her stories about animal sexuality are told from a human perspective, but also takes into account animal behavior. She becomes-animal, but she does not ignore her being human. Because of this, the Green Porn videos make us questions how humans have imposed their morals to nature, and our relation to it.

Eating Animals

Photo: Bull from Nebraska | © Diana M. Sanchez

It is difficult to think of a live animal while you eat a meat meal. A couple of summers ago, I took a trip to a remote ranch in the plains of Colombia. Everything we ate was killed for us. The people in this region eat beef for all their meals. The first morning, I was excited to have a typical breakfast that includes meat. By breakfast number three my stomach was having culture shock. It was also the first time in my adult life that I saw a cow being slaughter. I was in this ranch because my family has a historical connection to it and I was also interested to learn more about how food gets to our plates.

Before my trip to South America, I had photographed in farms and ranches in Nebraska to look and learn about farm animals. The farms I photographed were individually owned, as those were my connections. The people, I found out, were very nice and welcoming, and their only concern was that they didn’t want to be seen as the “bad” guys. I was simply curious and eager to see how some animals live in farms. Michael Pollan in An Animal’s Place writes, “ Half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us will pause to consider the miserable life of the pig – an animal easily as intelligent as a dog – that becomes the Christmas ham.” Even though I had lived in Lincoln, Nebraska, a place most people think is only farmland, I knew nothing about farms or where the food I ate came from.

I enjoyed traveling in a car listening to music, meeting people, and feeling like a complete stranger. In a way, it was not that different than my daily life. After moving countries several times, I have come to terms with always being seen as an outsider. In the essay On the other side of the Mexican mirror, Gomez-Pena writes, “I found that once you cross the border you could never really go back. Whenever I tried, I always ended up “on the other side,” as if walking on a moebious strip.” I couldn't say it any better.

I went to these farms and photographed animals without any expectations. I mostly saw where animals were kept and groomed. Most of all, I learned how the people who took care of the animals had affection for them. They cared for the well being of their animals. The ranch in the plains of Colombia was no different. Everyone working with the cattle did with much care. The ranching practices were somewhat different. Cows had enormous amounts of space and only ate grass.

This trip was physically and mentally difficult. The day a cow was killed for food I thought it was a great opportunity to photograph. I was not use to seeing live animals before they became food. Eating only vegetables and grains was out of the question because there were barely any. Meat was the biggest portion on your plate. The day I saw a cow being slaughter for the first time I was not able to click the shutter. It felt wrong. I wanted to be respectful for this cow that died to feed us.

What is Nature? What does Nature mean to me?

My photographic work has one way or another dealt with animals in human spaces. In the past two years, more specifically, I photographed at zoos and museums. Although an interest for animals brought me to these two institutions, I have found through the course of researching about animals that it is impossible not to talk about Nature too. You cannot separate one from another.

Defining “animal” is a lot easier. I think of an animal as anything that has life, but it is not a plant. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.” A plant is define as “a living organism of the kind exemplified by trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, ferns, and mosses, typically growing in a permanent site, absorbing water and inorganic substances through its roots, and synthesizing nutrients in its leaves by photosynthesis using the green pigment chlorophyll.” Animals and plants are in different categories. We do not stop to think of the pain of plants when picking a flower, but we do think animal pain. Relating to animals is also easier because we react to their emotions. Any one who has ever had a dog or a cat could never say that animals do not feel pain, happiness, joy, and sadness or those they are curious beings too.

Defining nature is difficult. It is mostly because we think of nature as anything that has nothing to do with humans. But could we really separate ourselves from nature? Or aren’t we part of it? And why is location important in the definition of it? I am writing in my studio that is surrounded by drywalls without a window. There are no living organisms in my space or at least none that the naked eye could see. I believe by definition this is not nature. Although, the materials that make up the books, table, tape, paper and so on around me are made of natural resources. The nature that is around me is just not raw; it is processed nature. Does anyone in the world would be able to walk from point A to point B without ever seeing a glimpse of nature? That is a plant, an ant or a mosquito? I have my doubts.

So we think of Nature with a capital N as this other place far from industrial or urban spaces. People travel to Alaska, Costa Rica, the American West to experience “nature.” The wanting to travel or to be with nature is one that I am curious about. Americans have done a great job at organizing campsites for people to be in nature while vacationing. Basic necessities such as running water and electricity are provided for fees at the sites. I honestly understand the electric plugs. I have been without electricity before, and it is not fun. We often take for granted being able to have ice for a cold drink during a hot day.

My photographing at zoos and natural history museums has been a way for me to understand nature and the way Americans relate to it. I am part of the American culture and I am also an outsider. I did not grow up with the modern zoo, but I did grow up in countries people visit for nature tourism. And, I too thought of Costa Rica as being more of a natural landscape more so than any other place I lived. If I define nature as place that humans have little to do with… then I am not sure if I have ever visited that place. If I ever go to this place, then my human body is present, and the place could no longer be nature. I rather say that I am always in nature. However, I also cannot say that nature is everything. My studio is not nature… but a backyard could be?

If there is anything that I have come to understand, is that the human/animal or human/nature relation is bigger than me, and I am not sure if I can truly understand it, as it is not a rational relation. Everything about it is irrational.


Digital drawing by Diana M Sanchez.

Documentation From My MA Exhibition 2012

Copyright © 2012 Diana M. Sanchez. All Rights Reserved.

Pornographic Gaze Question & The Chimera Series

In Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices, Ralph Acampora argues that zoos are pornographic because they provide similar settings as pornography. Acampora writes “We find in both cases fetishes of the exotic, underlying fear of nature, fantasies of illicit or impossible encounter, and a powerful presumption of mastery and control (Griffin, 1982).” For Acampora the zoo visitor is not motivated by sexual attraction as is pornography, but rather he analysis the similarity in the structure of power in both zoos and pornography.

Acampora writes that looking at captive animals in zoos is about a desire to see animals in the frame of “wildness.” To want to see an animal as being wild, in a captive situation, is to look at it as a version of what “wild” means. Wild animals decide if they want to be seen or not by people. While zoos provide an encounter with “wild” animals any day of the week. The overexposure of animal bodies in zoos against their will is what Acampora refers to a pornographic gaze. A camera can extend a pornographic gaze as it records the human encounters with animals. The photographic image may frame animals as “wild,” and a feeling of power over animals may result in a photograph becoming trophy-like.

The ghost-like body of a lion and exhibit space behind him becomes one another in Untitled #17, (from the Chimera Series). The pornographic gaze is rupture by not positioning the lion as an object of desire, but rather as just being there and as almost not even being present. The viewer of the photograph may desire to see the lion’s body, but the camera’s optical illusion of the ghost-like body does not allow for such reading. The Chimera photographs speak of the pornographic gaze. However, each Chimera photograph has a detail left in the frame such as reflections, painted backgrounds, fire sprinklers, blur or ghost-like bodies and so on, to break the “wild” reading.

Copyright © 2012 Diana M. Sanchez. All Rights Reserved. [Untitled #17, (from the Chimera Series)]

First Zoo Visit

My memory of going to a modern zoo in the United States for the first time is one that I clearly remember. My eyes looked in disbelief at a polar bear. It was swimming back and forth during a hot summer day at the Lincoln Park Zoo. A few months back, we had moved from Bogota, Colombia to the United States. I do not have the connection to the zoo as a place we went with my family as a kid. After this first visit, we made it to the Omaha Zoo, but only when other people were in town. Observing animals from around the world, to me, was fascinating. Elephants, giraffes, tigers, penguins, lions, zebras, sharks, turtles, and so on are a few of the animals on view. The animals were not living in concrete cages with metal bars. The animals were in created habitats that mimic their natural habitat.

I don’t remember questioning the captivity of the animals or relating the zoo to a prison as suggested by Bob Mullan in Zoo Cultures. I was struck the most by animals that required specific environment. How do humans keep a polar bear alive during the hot summer days? How much does that cost? Even as a twelve year old I could not help wonder, and I am still in utter admiration for it. Mullan on Chapter 1 writes:

“much of the thrill of the zoo experience turns on being close to what is usually hidden or distant, a thrill which is compounded if the creature is one to which the visitor would not normally dare to set close to.” (page 4)

Looking back, the polar bear is a creature that I never in my life imagined seeing. The North Pole is a distant place that I only know through movies, TV and photo-books. But I have now seen Polar bears! Not only in Chicago, but also Omaha, New York, San Francisco and Milwaukee. Am I lucky?  Would my views on polar bears be any different? Not sure.

I do know that I often forget where an animal is originally from at zoos. As a joke I say: The brownish monkey is from Omaha. However, I find this more of my fault as a visitor who sometimes doesn’t take the initiative to learn while I observe.

Photo: Diana M. Sanchez, 2009

The Lion King

[29 Feb. Link: http://tiny.cc/ijudf]
Click here to watch film.

The empathy mood in this 1920’s film is set in the first scene by showing a mother and her cute cubs in the African savannah. The film then cuts to a majestic powerful lion. Suddenly the explorer man meets the lion in battle! They fight each other for a few seconds, until the man stabs the lion to death with his pocketknife. As much as the fight seemed acted, I felt bad for the lion… but I also didn’t want the man to die.

The final scene of the film shows the artifice of film. A different camera films the camera that was filming the wrestling incident. The point of view changes from voyeuristic to the presence of the film crew, and the acting of both man and animal. What I found the most intriguing was my feelings of despair and empathy for the lion. Hiroshi Sugimoto, on his artist statement for Dioramas, writes, “However fake the subject, once photographed, it's as good as real.” Film and photography, as much as we are aware of the artifice, has a powerful way for affect and to change realities.

Marey and the moving animal

Photography allows for the eye to see what it cannot normally see. Marey’s nineteenth century photographs depict animal locomotion in a slower rate than that of the human eyes. The wings of the birds expand from side to side, revealing fractions of seconds. The ghost-like images were done for scientific experiment to further understand
animal movement.

I believe Marey’s photographs are poetic and beautiful more so than scientific documents of natural history.

What is it about the moving animals? I believe moving animal suggest life. We understand something is alive if it moves. A rock is not as interesting to observe for long periods of time because it cannot move. Also, if it doesn’t move, it doesn’t do anything. It just sits there. On the other hand, ones sight is easily lost on an aquarium with constantly moving fish and soothing sounds. This may be why film, with the moving image, easily gets my eyes to look. The static photograph, however, freezes time to invite the eyes to scrutinize and contemplate specific moments.

Marey’s photographs of animals are suspended in another time, a time that in real life we cannot detect, and ask us to contemplate in spatiality and movement of animals.

The Look of Tanner

Tanner refused to look at me after I came back for a short visit. His tail wagged for everyone else, except for me. I looked at him and said, “Tanner! Hi! I missed you!” No respond. It had been three months since my departure from my mom’s house. It was difficult to get the cold shoulder from the dog I loved, but I could not blame him.

Do animals look back?

The assumptions are that animals make us happy or give unconditional love no matter what. Tanner was not this “type” of dog. He responded with affection only if you took care of his basic needs of food, water and exercise. Otherwise, he simply chose not to see you. The look of the animal is hunting because is how we make up for the verbal communication barrier. The look also tells us the animal is aware of our presence. Tanner’s refusal to see me was a way to communicate discontent. I immediately became aware of my actions and my relation to him, and vice versa. Tanner looked back at me when I looked at him too.

This took years for me to figure out! Once I realized my dog was not there to only make me happy, but I needed to make him happy as well, our relation was much healthier. I believe the animal look cannot be ignored because a mutual gaze needs to be acknowledged for the relation to work.

About Grizzly Man (documentary by Herzog)

In the Grizzly Man documentary, Treadwell travels to Alaska every summer because he believes that protecting the grizzly bears from humans is his calling in life. He makes videos of himself to tell stories of his “adventure” of coming into close contact with the bears. Treadwell also gave presentations to kids about the importance of taking care of nature when not in Alaska, but besides that I struggled through the movie to understand how was he “protecting” the bears while he was in Alaska.

From the video footage, we mostly get to know Treadwell and his view of the bears as a majestically animal, while getting few bits and pieces of the daily life of bears. Treadwell is always present in all of the shots and he also talks about his take on women and other life concerns.

I was particular interested in the guy’s wanting to be a bear. Treadwell tells us in his video that he finds comfort and happiness with being with the bears, which it is something that I can understand, as I too find comfort in animals. I think this is something a lot of other people would say about animals, especially pets. I believe part of the reason has to do with our inability to believe that the animal can “respond.” We look at the animal as one that can’t look back… It is not going to tell us that we are not smart or overweight. It is going to give us its unconditional love.

On page 269 in Why Look at Animals? Berger says, “The zoo to which people go to meet animals, to observe them, to see them, is, in fact, a monument to the impossibility of such encounters.” Although Treadwell was not going to a zoo, he was going to Alaska with the same expectation to want to meet the bears and be their protective friend. I believe this reasoning that the animal can’t respond makes it easier to be idealized as one that does not kill or causes harm or does anything evil.

Treadwell seemed very conflicted every time he found signs of death. For example, the only time I remember learning something new about bears from this video footage was when Treadwell speaks about bears eating their young when food is scarce. He seemed angry by the thought of a “father” killing his “children” for food. I don’t think there is anything wrong with mystifying animals, but it is problematic if you can’t make the distinction from reality. Treadwell was not able to look at the bears outside of the world he had made up for them.


[Photo: 18 Feb., 2012. http://www.impulsegamer.com/dvdgrizzlyman.html]

Angles and Insects

The movie Angels and Insects has a dark storyline about the relationships that take place in a mansion between the aristocrat family members, and also their relation to workers and servants. Animals are used as metaphor to unfold the narrative.

For example, William is a scientist and a guest in the mansion, who is helping Sir Halard, the owner of the house, with the organization of his private collection. William is attracted to his daughter Eugenia, who is depressed after her fiancé passed away. In a scene, William brings out rare butterflies to show Eugenia. The butterflies fly over them, but also stick to her body. He then takes out moths to show and tell, but when the moths stick to Eugenia’s body, she screams for help. This particular scene, to me, indicated the good/bad about Eugenia’s character. The butterfly was used to convey emotions of happiness and delight, while the moth was used to let the viewer know Eugenia dark side. As the story progresses we find out about Eugenia’s secret and the controversy happening in the mansion.

This movie brings up some questions about the use of animals as metaphor to understand stories and people. How were these metaphors created? Why do we think of a bird as a free animal? Or moths and roaches as sings of darkness? Could these metaphors be reversed?

Dogs are on my mind

After many attempts to ask my parents for a dog as a kid, I remember resorting to pretending to be one. My oldest sister also liked my idea because she was the trainer that commanded me. However, my role as a dog started to be problematic when I chose to be a biting dog. My sisters and friends decided to give me the nickname of perro Chihuahueño*, which I translated to mutt. I find it strange that at the age of six, I was offended by not being seen as an imaginary purebred dog. I wanted to be Lassie!

Dogs are on my mind lately because they are the one animal that is considered part of a family, lives with us in the house, and humans breed them for certain traits. For example, the movie Best in Show is a parody to the culture of dog shows. However, the movie doesn’t go too deep into what is that makes a dog win best of show or the breeding opportunities from winning. The terrier that wins isn’t necessarily the most spectacular dog in terms of physical, but it is the dog that seemed the most obedient and loyal. On Chapter V of the novel Beautiful Joe, there is a line where they describe a dog as a good dog because “he is patient, quite, and obedient.”

Recently on CNN they made a segment on a guy who photographs his dog with food on his head. This animal stories and others seen on the segment are told because we are surprised by the well-behaved animal. To watch the video click here.


*Until writing this post I believed a perro Chihuahueño translated to a mutt. My sister thought it was a made up name. However, according to wikipedia, a Chihuahueño dog is the Spanish name for Chihuahua... I was a purebred after all ;)

Refelctions on Cute and Anti-Cute

This past summer the lions at the Milwaukee county zoo had three cubs. Every time I visit the exhibit, I can’t help simile and say “aaaww, how cute!” The cub lions are adorable with their big eyes, big paws and small furry bodies. Harris on “Cute, Quaint, Hungry and Romantic” says that the big eyes and furry bodies are needed for the cute factor. For example, all animals reproduced as “stuffed animals,” have the furry material for the structure of the bodies, even if they are animals with fur or not.(See turtle below)

[Jan. 28th, 2012, http://www.bbtoystore.com/store/FPL_CS5_bigeyeturtleG.html]

Another ingredient needed for an animal to be cute is that it needs to be clean (it doesn’t poop or have any bodily fluids). I believe part of the reason we respond to the big eyes and small bodies is because we want to nurture and help others. However, I do truly think that if an actual animal or toy with big eyes and small body was covered with unknown fluids, my respond would be that of anti-cute – “yuck!”