Introduction
The research part of this exercise can be found here:-https://oca.padlet.org/richard5198861/project-2-exercise-3-exploring-approaches-epuck7e6y0kmy983
The final part of the brief for this exercise calls for an analysis of works by two of the photographers from the lecture[1]. I chose Handsworth Self-Portraits (1979) by Bishton, Homer and Reardon, and Imperial Courts (1993 – 2015) by Dana Lixenberg for this part.
Comparative Analysis (450 words)
The first, observation about these works is that they are both traditional ‘documentary’, namely they are recording the lives of two communities. These communities share common themes too, with Lixenberg’s subjects being marginalised African-Americans living in a prosperous US city, and the Handsworth project being a multicultural district in Birmingham with similar challenges and tensions. Their approaches differ, with Lixenberg seeking to be both insider and outsider simultaneously (DANA LIXENBERG – Interview 2017 – YouTube, s.d.) in a semi-directional style, as demonstrated in the photograph below.
Fresh, Real, Flave and 4Doe (Real Fresh Crew), from the series “Imperial Courts”, 2008 (Dana Lixenberg, s.d.)
Here a group of young men clearly posing for her portrait. In 2017 interview, Lixenberg tells of the boys wanting to flash their gang signs. After discussion and the showing of Polaroid test images, she got them to understand that the work wasn’t explicitly about their gang, but their place in the wider community. The result is a collaboration between photographer and subject, established over time.
By contrast, the second image from Handsworth, shows the subjects taking complete control over their representation. The photographers have set up the camera given them the camera trigger, allowing them to engage with the camera as much or as little as they want. Rosler dicusses the camera’s ‘power’ as seen by the subject and the effect it has on their reaction. We see a different reaction to the instrument when the photographer is directly involved. Bishton et al democratise this power by conceding the ‘moment’, while Lixenberg dilutes it through continual dialogue. Neither image is more ‘truthful’ than the other, as all the subjects play ‘characters’ of themselves. However, where Handsworth removes environmental distractions, the decaying infrastructure, evidence of intolerance etc, by using a plain background, Lixenberg supplements her work with carefully selected backgrounds, landscape, and still-life images. With the former, we gain a knowledge of the people and their cultural and personal differences, and the latter, a narrative about the place as well as the community. Other similarties include both artists engaging with their subjects in a transactional way to build trust, either through the giving of Polaroids (Lixenberg) or the offer of prints (Bishton et al). They built a reputation with their subjects that encouraged even the most reluctant take part in the work and avoid the pure spectator approach described by Bey (Bey D, 2019) or the ‘super tourism’ postulate by Sontag (Solomon-Godeau A, 1994) by living or working within the community. In doing so, their approaches challenging the concept of ‘binarism’.
The viewer recognises in both, the humanity of people and a hint of what their lives are like, even without any real knowledge beyond judgmental media portrayal. Both series achieve this via different routes, but the effect remains very similar.
Bibliography
Martha Rosler, Post Documentary, Post Photography? — Are.na (2018) At: https://www.are.na/block/1791938 (Accessed 02/06/2023).
Figures
Smyth, D. (2019) Handsworth Self Portrait: 40 Years On. At: https://www.1854.photography/2019/03/handsworth-self-portrait/ (Accessed 01/06/2023).
Dana Lixenberg (s.d.) At: https://www.deutscheboersephotographyfoundation.org/en/collect/artists/dana-lixenberg.php(Accessed 02/06/2023).
Richard Fletcher OCA Photography Blog 