Collaboration and Professional Locations: Report
This is an online adaptation of the report written within the Collaboration and Professional Locations module as part of my master’s degree in photography, originally published December 2021.
Diffracting photographic collaboration through the lens of feminist new materialism
How to speak about photographic collaboration
“…collaboration is a sine qua non of the photographic encounter.” (Azoulay, 2016:193)
Palmer (2017) refers to Azoulay when he makes the conclusion that collaboration is an inherent aspect of photography and that even photographs that where not conceived as collaborative, become just that through publication or viewing and reception by others.
“A photograph showing persons who were photographed cannot be regarded merely as an object produced by a single individual. Those photographed, who continuously see and are seen, bear constant and permanent witness to the fact that, regardless of its concrete circumstances, a photograph is never merely a product of material in the hands of an individual creator.” (Azoulay, 2010:252)
Making collaboration an ubiquitous aspect of photography risks also making it a superfluous aspect. If both product and process of photography is inherently collaborative, there’s no point of speaking explicitly of photographic collaboration as a phenomena at all.
Tracing the etymology of the word collaborate it literally means to work with (from Latin com- "with" + laborare "to labor", "to work”). The Cambridge dictionary even adds the dimension of two or more people with a common goal.
“…the situation of two or more people working together to create or achieve the same thing” (Dictionary.cambridge.org, 2021)
Through this text I’ll argue that if collaboration is inherently present and a vertebrae of all photographic process and product, we need nuanced and specific terms and tools where we usually use the obtuse term collaboration. I’ll use Karen Barad’s theory of agential realism (2007) and specifically her ideas of intra-action and agential cuts to discuss perspectives of intention, agency, subjectivity and objectivity in relation to an understanding of collaboration. Inspired by diffractive methodology I’ll read different photo-philosophers through Barad’s feminist philosophy-physics. And apply those readings to analyse photographic work of mine where collaboration has indeed been explicit, intentional and between two parts, but also hold aspects of implicit and non-human collaborators.
Karen Barad and agential realism
Existence is not an individual affair. Individuals do not preexist their interactions; rather, individuals emerge through and as part of their entangled intra-relating. (Barad 2007:ix)
Physicist, and Professor of Feminist Studies, Philosophy, and History of Consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Karen Barad, presents her theory of agential realism (2007) as building on the works of Niels Bohr, Judith Butler and Michel Foucault amongst others. It’s a complex and all-encompassing text that touches on philosophy, quantum physics, epistemology, ontology and ethics. I’m not making claims to understand the full width of agential realism as a theory, but will use a couple of key concepts and use them as a prism for reading prominent photography scholars.
Through the concept intra-action, Barad contrasts the usual interaction. The different etymologies of inter (between) and intra (within) shines a light on her theory that single entities don’t hold agency, rather that agency is emerging within a phenomenon.
Although they look similar, the prefix intra- means "within" (as in happening within a single thing), while the prefix inter- means "between" (as in happening between two things). (Merriam-Webster, 2021)
“The neologism ‘intra-action’ signifies the mutual constitution of entangled agencies. […] the notion of intra-action recognises that distinct agencies do not preced, but rather emerge through, their intra-action. (Barad 2007:33)
Even though Barad uses the terms apparatus and phenomenon to describe an assemblage of several actors - both human and non-human - I’ll rather use the metaphor of a rhizome as described by Deleuze and Guattari (Åsberg, 2012) to imagine the complex web of actors pertaining to the process and product of photography. To be able to make sense of such a complex and possibly infinite web, Barad writes of agential cuts.
‘Rhizome’ is a metaphor referring to the non-hierarchical root system of for example fungi mycelium. Within a rhizome every node connects to another using tracks that are not necessarily linked to those of the same nature. Rhizomes are not reducible to neither single entities nor multiplicities and it’s not constructed from units but from dimensions. (My translation to English from Åsberg, 2012)
Imagine the illustration below (fig. 1) depicting the rhizome of possible actors involved in the making of one specific photograph. By making an agential cut, involving select actors, different phenomena are produced. Intra-action takes place and agencies emerge.
Different agential cuts produce different phenomena. (Barad 2007:175)
For example by including the camera, tripod, intervallometer, and photographer the phenomenon of self-portraiture surfaces. By including the print, gallery, viewer and interpretation the phenomenon of a photo exhibition occurs.
fig. 1 Rhizome illustrating the complex network making up a typical photo session/production/publication.
Using agential realism in relation to photographic collaboration raises questions on intention and agency as well as thoughts on subjectivity and objectivity.
“In an agential realist account, agency is cut loose from its traditional humanist orbit. Agency is not aligned with human intentionality or subjectivity. […] Crucially, agency is a matter of intra-acting; it’s an enactment, not something that someone or something has.” (Barad 2007:177-178)
“The line between subject and object is not fixed, but once a cut is made (i.e., a particular practice is being enacted), the identification is not arbitrary but in fact materially specified and determined for a given practice.” (Barad 2007:155)
In a similar way that Barad has done a diffractive reading - she calls diffraction “an apt metaphor for describing the methodological approach that I use for reading insights through one another” (Barad, 2007:71) - of Bohr, Butler and Foucault, I’ll read Azoulay, Laermans, Palmer and Rutherford through Barad and the prism of agential realism.
The inherently collaborative nature of photography
“Collaboration is the photographic event’s degree zero, as photography always involves an encounter between several protagonists in which the photographer cannot a priori claim a monopoly over knowledge, authorship, ownership, and rights.” (Azoulay 2016:189)
There are re-occurring tendencies to perceive and describe the process and product of photography, as an act of collaboration. Rutherford (2019) includes the photographic medium as part in the collaborative relationship. Palmer describes photography and photographs “…that were not originally conceived of as collaborative when […] taken but that have become so through their dissemination, reception, and even rejection by others.” (2017:42). Azoulay goes as far as saying that without collaboration there could be no photography when she coins the phrase “collaboration is a sine qua non of the photographic encounter” (2016:16).
Cecilia Åsberg (2012) summarises the Actor-Network theory, stemming from Michel Callon and Bruno Latour as an ontology which defines every actor as a network consisting of both human and non-human actors. This theory emphasises that every actor consists of several contributing phenomena, but these are seen as one functional unit.
There are points of contact between agential realism, actor-network theory and the metaphor of rhizomes. They all use a non-anthropocentric (posthuman, even?) view of the world. The human subject is not necessarily the center of everything.
“For decades, the common figure of the photographer was identified as a male figure roaming around the world and pointing his camera at objects, places, people, and events, as if the world was made for him.” (Azoulay, 2016:187)
Both Azoulay, Rutherford and Palmer attribute non-human (as well as human) actors as collaborators and authors. Other scholars describe authorship, collaborators or actors even more specifically. Flusser (2000) uses apparatus (an organisation or system that enables something to function) and program (a combination game with clear and distinct elements) when arguing for a philosophy of photography, but almost takes an antihumanist stance when arguing that photographers must work against these non-human actors to (re)gain their freedom. In a posthumanist sense the apparatus and program could be seen as symmetrical actors/collaborators.
Palmer (2017) reasons around software (driving contemporary cameras and an essential part of digital post production) as author, using William J Mitchell, Daniel Rubinstein and Charlotte Cotton as well as Vilém Flusser. Palmer goes on to label also both nature and the viewer as authors. Nature in both the sense that light (the sun) is a necessity to produce a photographic image, and the scientific (natural) chemical process of producing physical images such as daguerreotypes and prints. The viewer as author by means of reception, interpretation and filling and image with semiotic connotations, as suggested by Barthes (1977).
Two strong voices in my reasoning are Karen Barad and Ariella Azoulay. Diffracting Azoulay’s photo theory through Barad’s philosophy-physics reveals a characterisation of photography involving humans, non-humans, and a non-deterministic view of collaboration as phenomena.
“Humans are neither pure cause nor pure effect but part of the world and it’s open-ended becoming.” (Barad, 2007:150)
“A photograph is the space of appearance in which an encounter has been recorded between human beings, an encounter neither concluded nor determined at the moment it was being photographed. This encounter might continue to exist or be renewed through additional human beings who were not necessarily present at the time it was photographed.” (Azoulay, 2010:252)
Rudi Laermans (2012) is a sociologist reasoning around artistic collaboration using choreography and a dance company as example. Laermans means that collective labour needs a collection of diverse competences and ideas foregoing the collaborative act. This collides with the the way Barad (2007) describes agency as emerging through intra-action, where the single entities don’t hold agency in themselves. But Laerman continues the proposition and states that “…when ‘being in collaboration’ the social common operates as the principal subject of joint action and regularly ‘de-subjectivizes’ the involved individuals.” (2012). Thereby moving closer to Barad’s description of subjectivity and causality:
“There are no singular causes. And there are no individual agents of change.” (Barad, 2007:394).
Barad returns to her roots in theoretical physics and refers to Erwin Schrödinger:
“…when two systems interact, their phi-functions […] do not come into interaction but rather they immediately cease to exist and a single one, for the combined system takes their place…” (Barad, 2007:283)
The different actors or authors, whether human or non-human, “collaborating” through photography cease to exist as individual entities as soon as they become part of the joint phenomenon of photographic collaboration. Agency and subjectivity emerge as materialisation of the phenomenon. Paraphrasing Barad: Photographers are neither pure cause nor pure effect but part of the world and it’s open-ended becoming.
Collaboration methodology
“Neither the temporal arrival nor the actual form of an instance of successful collaboration can be predicted or premeditated.” (Laermans, 2012)
Having worked with music production and composition myself, I turned to musicians with an open call for collaboration (see appendix A) to research such a photographic practice from within. A brief background of my post graduate studies together with my research interest was followed by instructions on the technical solution supporting the collaborative process. I suggested musical compositions be made first and photographs made in relation to those pieces, with an option for the musicians to edit or revisit the music in relation to the visuals emerging. If the artist wanted to complement their composition with “visual clues”, pushing my lens based work in a certain direction, they were invited to do so. The open call was published through my website and complemented by posts at music forums and a few select personal invites. There were submissions both from artists that I don’t know since before and from those who received a personal invite.
I prioritised the compositions rather pragmatically - I started working with those that attracted me aesthetically. I listened for dynamics over time, repetition of themes and harmonical progressions. Even though I brought the music with me while shooting, I can see in retrospect that the final form of the resulting pieces has not in any instance been predictable. The meaning and agency of the pieces materialise in their intra-action. And continues to emerge as the pieces meet new viewers.
Focus for my analysis will be both explicitly collaborative aspects and also implicitly collaborative. I’ll adress intentions, causality, agency and subjectivity as they emerge through different agential cuts.
Analysis example; Arkeikum - with Loljud (Lotta Fahlén)
Arkeikum, video screen shot, Loljud & Carl-Mikael Björk, 2021
Fahlén’s composition has a steady, moderately paced beat going throughout the full piece. Halfway through, the arpeggiated synths and piano, are complemented by a haunting, high pitched vocal. Fahlén provided me with visual clues referring to the geological Archean eon and the piece Ynglingaåldern by Swedish painter Hilma af Klint.
Hilma af Klint, De tio största, nr 3. Ynglingaåldern. From Grupp 4, 1907. Courtesy Stiftelsen Hilma af Klints Verk. Photo: Albin Dahlström/ Moderna Museet.
Even though I initiated the collaboration, subjectivity and causality depend on what agential cuts are made. With an agential cut including intra-action between a) Fahlén’s intentions/clues, b) the post production (software as collaborator) and c) the steady beat of the composition - the phenomenon of a visual aesthetic emerges. The reference to Ynglingaåldern makes me grade the footage using orange and blue tones. The steady beat inspires me to edit the stills marking time as repetitive. Fahlén is most definitely an author of the finished piece, but in the example above, collaboration (agency) is sprung out of intra-action primarily between non-human agents.
Making an agential cut involving the a) publication online, b) several viewers and c) my inquiry of perceived narratives, emotions or memories creates the phenomenon of reception with the viewer as an author. One viewer writes (my translation from Swedish):
“[The piece] arouses a sense of panic inside me. A nightmare I cannot get out of.
I can feel something beating hard. What could it be that beats like that?
It is my own heart's rapid, rock-hard beat, an elevated pulse, a rising headache and an exhausted brain that beats, beats, beats and it is impossible to stop. My head will explode. I know it.”
Another viewer writes:
“The rocks show the dangers that can be found while hiking through life. They are scary but must be passed to reach the light.”
And another:
“[It makes] me think of animals' wandering in nature. Especially bears. Peaceful, simple, immaterial.”
The quotes are from friends of mine and I have a sense of the reasons for their associations, but not enough empirical material to draw any such conclusions in this text. The width of their narratives do show that the viewer is an author and collaborator. There are certain common denotations but very different connotations. Dependent, in turn, on an expanding rhizome - or actor network - of understanding, experiences and relations.
A few final thoughts
“The course of action is unpredictable, and thus too its consequences; action has an agent, not an author; […] the subject is revealed in action, […] the action is not totally enslaved for the good of a cause because it is entangled in a web of relations between humans who have contradicting wills and intentions; […] the action exists in plurality; […] this between-two is not tangible or stable since it does not leave traces like practical objects/utilities; the action generates a new beginning.” (Azoulay, 2010:254)
Collaboration is traditionally thought of as an act between at least two humans. Intention and subjectivity are attributed to the involved parts. The resulting work is an effect of their joint efforts.
Applying a theoretical layer of feminist materialism, surfaces another set of terms useful for reasoning around photographic collaboration. Attributing a multitude of human and non-human actors as part of the rhizome making up photographic process and product, and then applying an agential cut, makes phenomena emerge as result of intra-action. Subjectivity and objectivity are not inherent attributes but constituted contextually.
It does seem collaboration is an inherent aspect of photography. To be able to reason around collaboration as a phenomenon, we need a nuanced and precise vocabulary to do so.
References
AZOULAY, Ariella. (2016). Photography Consists of Collaboration: Susan Meiselas, Wendy Ewald, and Ariella Azoulay. Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies. 31. 187-201. 10.1215/02705346-3454496.
AZOULAY, Ariella. 2010. ‘Getting Rid of the Distinction Between the Aesthetic and the Political’. Theory, culture & society 27(7-8), 239–62.
BARAD, Karen Michelle (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press
BARTHES, Roland (1977). Image, music, text. London: Fontana
Dictionary.cambridge.org. 2021. ‘Collaboration’. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/collaboration. [accessed November 17th 2021]
LAERMANS, Rudi (2012) ‘Being in common’: Theorizing artistic collaboration, Performance Research, 17:6, 94-102, DOI: 10.1080/13528165.2013.775771
Merriam-webster.org. 2021. ‘Collaborate’. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collaborate. [accessed November 19th 2021]
Merriam-webster.org. 2021. ‘Intra- and Inter-: Getting Into It’. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/intra-and-inter-usage. [accessed November 19th 2021]
Merriam-webster.org. 2021. ‘Sine qua non’. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sine%20qua%20non. [accessed November 19th 2021]
PALMER, Daniel (2017). Photography and collaboration: from conceptual art to crowdsourcing. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic
Rutherford (2019) Is this photograph taken? The active (act of) collaboration with photography, Journal of Visual Art Practice, 18:1, 37-63, DOI: 10.1080/14702029.2018.1488927
ÅSBERG, Cecilia, Hultman, Martin & Lee, Francis (red.) (2012). Posthumanistiska nyckeltexter. 1. uppl. Lund: Studentlitteratur
