Positioning photography within the posthumanities
The following text is a transcript of the above video.
Let me lead with a disclaimer dressed as a paradox; I will use this essay to both scratch the surface and dive into the deep end of the pool. I’ll make a novice attempt at using the concept of non-human agencies (Callon, 2012) to critically analyze and provide insight to my own photographic practice as well as photographic and artistic affinities of mine.
Scratching the surface because I know that the theoretical field of posthumanities is vast and complex. Diving in at the deep end because I’m challenging myself, despite my rookie status, to work with these terms and theories as a way of contextualizing my own artistry.
What compels me with this heterogeneous research field is the step away from an anthropocentric and androcentric view of the world. It’s a fascinating philosophy to not regard the human being, the man operating the camera-machine, to be the primary force making photos materialize.
I imagine the idea of material-semiotics (Harraway in Åsberg et al. 2012) as a way of reading photography to form a different perspective than the linguistic semiotics as proposed by Lévi-Strauss or Barthes.
But. Before I embark on that uncertain swim, let me talk about a few things I feel more certain about.
I have affinities to several different artists and photographers. Some of these affinities are conscious - one might speak of them as sources of inspiration.
There might be traits of visual style, themes or even methodologies that make up our kinship.
As my body of work has grown, I have also discovered un-conscious affinities. Artists who have been exploring similar themes as I have. Photographers whose aesthetic expression I seemingly mimicked. Albeit I didn’t know about their work as I produced mine.
At first, I was struck with thoughts of imposter’s syndrome. Seeing my work as derivative and lacking originality.
But thinking of photography as the psychoanalyst Bruno Bettelheim (1991) did concerning fairytales. Maybe there’s a possibility that photographic themes surface in different cultures and geographies, not as a result of travel or derivative narratives, but since photographs (like fairytales) are a result of people making up stories to comprehend or narrate the essence of being human.
Considering originality Keith Johnstone (1981:87) writes about improv theatre:
Many students block their imaginations because they’re afraid of being unoriginal.
An artist who is inspired is being obvious. He’s not making any decisions; he’s not weighing one idea against another. He’s accepting his first thoughts.
A curator or book editor might look for originality or avant-garde as well as make sure no plagiarisms are published or exhibited. The individual artist is probably better off having other motives than originality as the driving force behind their creative process.
The concept of non-human agencies as well as actor-network theory (Callon, Latour in Åsberg et al. 2012), provide an interesting framework for thinking around collaboration and authorship, even though I work solo both behind and in front of the camera.
An anthropocentric view would award the human photographer with sole, or at least primary, agency. Using the principle of generalized symmetry (Callon, 2012) - human and non-human actors are considered to bear equal agency.
In this photo, there are several actors visible. The bus shed, the snow-covered road as well as the actual weather, all contribute not only to the finished piece, but also to the act of photography. Objects and space are attributed agency and could be considered collaborators.
Some actors are not visible in the photo. The car that just drove by, leaving tire tracks in the snow. The graffiti artist tagging the bus shed ten years ago. The industrial designer coming up with the construction and placement of the shed.
The farmer steering a tractor across the rapeseed field, making that glorious leading curve. The bronze age royalties resting beneath the burial mound.
The jellyfish populating the murky waters. The shutter speed chosen to smooth out water movement. The rolling waves, compromising ability to both pose and breath.
Should these actors be considered collaborators? Should they even be attributed with authorship?
Minkkinen’s dog Ismo is mentioned in this photo’s title. Is Ismo collaborator, co-author, or both? Or is Ismo even inseparable from the rhizome (Deleuze and Guittari in Åsberg, 2012) making up the actor-network?
Donna Haraway (2007) uses the term “becoming with” as a way of describing how human and non-human subjects are made in relation to each other.
I wonder if one could argue that a large body of Minkkinen’s work is a result of becoming with his residency close to Foster’s Pond. That the individual photos in some sense emerge as objects being results of intra-action (Barad, 2003).
Elina Brotherus uses Fluxus scores and Baldessari assignments, sometimes in conjunction with paraphrasing other artists.
This makes her work a result of collaboration over time, where authorship is in some sense shared between several artists.
Actors having agency in this intricate network are scores, texts and images as well as the interpretation and transmediation of said instructions and art works.
In the Dudes series I’m playing with archetypical male characters; The Fisherman, the Chimney sweep, the Oligark, the Office clerk.
I’m presenting these Dudes with make-up, precise studio lighting and retouching the photos as were they made for a glossy magazine. (PS Magazine cover)
I imagine the reading of the photos include several agencies: archetypical characters or professions, stereotypical masculinity and the viewer’s idea of gender and identity. The interpretation is a result of these actors and more.
At the time of photography and being in front of the camera, my performance or enactment is an unmistakable result of intra-action with the false eyelashes, make-up and costume.
The String and Gravity project might be indicative of how I’d like to move forward using photography to research the field of theories surrounding the idea of non-human agencies.
By actively adding an object to a scene (in this case a ten-meter rope), I’m using that object to explore space, my own physicality and create imagery.
There are aspects of socio materiality, intra-action, performance, and enactment (Åsberg et al. 2012). I imagine Donna Haraway’s term “material semiotics” (Haraway in Åsberg, 2012) might provide a tool for both reading other artists work and describing my own.
The cluster of posthumanities, form a transdisciplinary framework encompassing feminist studies, philosophy, science, social- and cultural studies. These theories could provide a critical, analytical tool for the process of making photography and the reading and interpretation of photographic work.
I’m reading Johnstone’s text on originality, not as a call for being mundane, but prompting me to focus my work on solving a problem or seeking answer to a question. Becoming with a scene - as an actor (an actual theatrical actor from his point of view). As a creator. As a photographer. Rather than chasing originality as a be-all and end-all.
I think that originality surfacing in a body of work would be the result of consistency and curiosity. Building ingenuity and inventiveness comes as a bi-product of a playful creative process. But I’ll leave that to my future publishers and curators to discover.
BARAD, Karen. 2003. ‘Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter’. Signs, 28(3), 801-831
BETTELHEIM, Bruno. 1991. The uses of enchantment: the meaning and importance of fairy tales. London: Penguin
CALLON, Michel. 2012. ‘Några element av en översättnings-sociologi: domesticeringen av pilgrimsmusslor och fiskare vid St. Brieucbukten’. In Cecilia ÅSBERG, Martin HULTMAN & Francis LEE (ed.). Posthumanistiska nyckeltexter. 1st edn. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 153-174
HARAWAY, Donna Jeanne. 2008. When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
JOHNSTONE, Keith. 1981. Impro: improvisation and the theatre. [Corr. ed.] London: Methuen
ÅSBERG, Cecilia, Martin HULTMAN and Francis LEE (ed.) 2012. Posthumanistiska nyckeltexter. 1st edn. Lund: Studentlitteratur
Figures (photos/illustrations)
SHERMAN, Cindy. 1979. Untitled Film Still #30.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2021. Car Crash.
SHERMAN, Cindy. 1994. For Comme des Garcons A/W 94.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Otis.
JOHANSSON, Erik. 2020. Våren som aldrig kom.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2021. Frozen Pond.
STÅLENHAG, Simon. 2014. Ur varselklotet.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Loading Dock.
STÅLENHAG, Simon. 2016. Flodskörden.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. No title.
MAPPLETHORPE, Robert. 1984. Ken Moody and Robert Sherman.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Black and White Portraits.
REIMER, Annett. 2010. Self-Portrait in Seascape.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Forest Pond.
MINKKINEN, Arno Rafael. 1999-2000. Frequent flyer panels.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2021. In Camera Diptych.
BROTHERUS, Elina. 2019. Artist as lamp.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Serial Solitude.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2021. Bus Stop.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Rapeseed Field.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2019. Cala Beltran.
MINKKINEN, Arno Rafael. 1993. Ismo’s stick, Foster’s Pond.
MINKKINEN, Arno Rafael. 1989. Fosters Pond II.
MINKKINEN, Arno Rafael. 2010. 10.10.10, Fosters Pond.
MINKKINEN, Arno Rafael. 2013. King of Fosters Pond.
BROTHERUS, Elina. 2017. Carry a Person to Another Place.
BROTHERUS, Elina. 2017. Becoming a tree.
BROTHERUS, Elina. 2017. About being my model.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Dude no 001, Theodorus.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Dude no 003, Englebert.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2021. Dude no 007, Gamfield.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2021. Dude no 006, Burt.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Road Block.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Fallen Tree, Törringe.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Birch Grove.
BJÖRK, Carl-Mikael. 2020. Exposed Jetty, Böste.
