Copyright © 2012 Diana M. Sanchez. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
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)]
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)]
Monday, March 5, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)