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
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Lion King
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.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
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.
animal movement.
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.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
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]
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]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)