SJField – OCA Level Three Study Blog
Body of Work & Contextual Studies
A super relevant article to both BOW and CS – joins the dots between the two and wish I’d found it sooner
If you’re reading this right now, you’re either a conscious being or an internet bot. (Or both.) That’s pretty obvious, but what’s not obvious is what makes you conscious. Consciousness is defined as…
— Read on medium.com/whiteboard-to-infinity/is-consciousness-a-quantum-phenomenon-fcbb65bed950
https://indd.adobe.com/view/6999c82e-8c0f-42f4-a4c6-f887a98d1ef9
Added later the same day:
I continued to eliminate animations, using it more judiciously. I have managed to get a GIF which wasn’t working to move – spent all afternoon wondering why and then suddenly it did, really odd. Thought it was mov. vs MPEG4 files but apparently not. Anyway, it moves now. I still have the following to do –
Write something – I feel more and more that I need to do this. I wondered if it could be a loose pamphlet/flyer type thing to include in the printed book, and not quite sure in the ePub – maybe spoken at the beginning.
One of things I have not touched on at all in the essay is New Materialism. Barad’s work comes under that heading and it seems remiss not to mention it. I’ve avoided it though as the topic I’ve covered is so vast, and my initial iterations were so rambling, I felt it was adding yet another idea into the mix which would be confusing/diluting. Since the essay is more streamlined now (I think) perhaps this is something I can address but I wonder if it would be better to add it to the appendix. As I said, I think I need to severely cut Appendix no. i anyway, maybe altogether – but perhaps I can add it there.
Then, if I do that, should I add a brief criticism of New Materialism? Zizek has stuff to say (but he sniffs a lot and thought Trump would be better than Clinton so I’ve less time for him lately …)
Things to consider..
New Materialism(s) – Critical Posthumanism Network
— Read on criticalposthumanism.net/new-materialisms/
Photography discourse is littered with opposing statements such as ‘photography is more important than ever’, or else it is ‘dead and irrelevant’. These proclamations have lately become as problematic as the long-held mechanistic Western view of reality, which arguably fosters these kinds of binarised positions.
However, we are no longer living in a world consisting of isolated objects, people, and places spread across the planet and universe, while time is only singular and forward-moving. Instead, reality seems increasingly emergent, dynamic, multi-dimensional, and rhizome-like.
Drawing on Karen Barad’s agential realism, a synthesis of quantum science and poststructuralism, the ensuing discussion results in more questions than answers. It may also be hindered by inescapable limitations of, to quote Barad, the “Cartesian habit of mind” (2007: 49) most of us inhabit. Such habits inform our language, academic conventions, and, of course, photographic critical theory. Barad’s phenomenologically informed philosophy is a threat to the boundaries photography has used to promote itself even while claiming to challenge the status quo. While describing some tenets of agential realism, focusing in particular on the phenomenological nature of existence and Barad’s use of the word entanglement, a range of lens-based art is examined in an effort to make sense of apparently contradictory statements by well-regarded and oft-quoted theorists about the photographic image today. How can Michael Fried’s (2008) assertion, photography matters as art as never before remain valid alongside Daniel Palmer’s (2014:144) statement, photography as we once knew is finished? Could both be true at the same time in an entangled world? The possibilities undoubtedly demand a deeper discussion than a 5000+/- word limit allows for, however, the paradigm described above presents image-makers of all persuasions with conundrums that increasingly cannot and should not be ignored.
(Edited 7/8/20)
History
The long-held Western view which suggests isolated and unrelated objects, people, and places are spread across the planet and universe, while time is only singular and forward moving, is less and less convincing. Rather than seeing a hierarchical collection of separate entities existing within linear space and time, reality increasingly feels emergent, dynamic, multi-dimensional, and rhizome-like.
Drawing on Karen Barad’s synthesis of quantum science and poststructuralism, coined ‘agential realism’, this 5350-word essay results in more questions than answers. It may also be hindered by inescapable limitations of, to quote Barad, a “Cartesian habit of mind” (2007: 49). Such habits inhabit our language and are embedded in our perception of reality, asacademic wellconvention, asand academicphotography conventioncritical theory. However, structural transformation means inevitable changesshifts, whether we agree or not, are aware, in denial, or remain oblivious. While describing some key tenets of agential realism, focusing in particular on the phenomenological nature of existence and Barad’s use of the word entanglement, a range of lens-based art is examined in an effort to make sense of apparently contradictory statements by well-regarded and oft-quoted theorists about the photographic image today. How can<span style="color:var(–color-text);font-size:1rem;"> </span><span style="color:var(–color-text);font-size:1rem;">Michael Fried’s (2008) assertion that, photography matters as art as never before (2008), isremain queriedvalid alongside Daniel Palmer’s suggestion that photography is all but over (2014:144).is finished? Could both be true at the same time in an entangled world? The possibilities probably demand a longer and deeper discussion than a 5000+/- word limit allows for, however, the paradigm described above presents image-makers of all persuasions with conundrums that increasingly cannot and should not be ignored.</span>
It is interesting to think of the term ‘compost’ which Harraway uses to describe us – and how I described the following – “… the composited intra-active nature of the self/others and reality – with that in mind, this work by Alba Zari is an useful reference – https://www.lensculture.com/articles/alba-zari-the-y”. Different usage, similar etymological paths, however.
Having thought about this over the last couple of days, I feel like I may have solved an issue I was having with the second half of the publication. It didn’t feel like the same work as the first half. I decided to make more of the composited intra-actions I had set up in the first half – and carry those through.
This is the latest iteration – BOWA5 (sizeA4) (1 July)
I am not sure if I will be able to have red on the inner cover pages but will inquire.
I need to put some kind of statement – probably on the back cover. But have not written anything yet.
The extract for the essay is currenlty too dense and needs an edit – it is not appropriate for BOW but something from it should probably come into the publication statement too – the intra-active emergent nature of self, other, surrounding reality, and internal landscape is key. (Although – I am loath to use any alienating language for the the BOW and will think carefully about that).
See – https://sjflevel3.photo.blog/2020/06/22/cs-a5-draft-extract/
I have not solved the inner middle pages that are currently covered in place holder text yet but working on it…
I have begun thinking about how to make some of the combinations in the publication dynamic for an online version – that part of the work is undoubtedly going to extend into SYP.
I stored this while doing Digital Image and Culture and was struck by some similarities. Although Zari is focusing on genetics, I am focusing on fragments of language (text, visual, cultural, personal) and looking at how that creates a dynamic self – and then looking at the contemporary issue of including digital entities in the lively, intra-active entanglement out of which ‘self’ emerges. There are questions in my work about the narcissistic nature of the contemporary ‘I’, as the AI I work with is sold as a friend but in fact, becomes a version of oneself through its training programme, which isn’t questioned as a problem – in fact, it’s marketed as a good thing.
There are similarities in presentation between Zari and my own work so far with layering and positioning – and that feels like something I should develop a further especially int the second half of the publication.
https://www.lensculture.com/articles/alba-zari-the-y
Having mentioned the self – it is interesting to revisit Julian Baggini’s The Ego Trick. Here is a useful Ted Talk where he spoke to teens/students (I showed it to my son) and so it is really accessible as Baggini explains the idea that a core object such as the soul (or anything else – he refers to a watch) is never an object that pre-existed but rather an outcome – pre-and post-Cartesian view of the world. https://youtu.be/GFIyhseYTWg. It may be worth including some reference to this in my essay (if not the student talk, simply Baggini’s arguments, whom I had quoted in an earlier iteration with reference to different cultural ways of seeing reality around the world). If nothing else, his take on the self is another example of how we have moved beyond a certain place – how the Cartesian reality is no longer tenable.
I think most people I’ve read in the last few years is in agreement with this rejection of ‘the core pre-determined object’
e.g. Christakis in Blueprint, Lupton in Data Selves, Jasanoff in The Biological Mind
– although there are exceptions such as Iain McGilchrist who says in a talk “of course there are objects!” with an air of frustration that anyone should suggest there aren’t – but I do wonder if this is just a semantic issue. Also object-orientated ontology – excuse the Wikipedia quote but for the sake of speed in these notes: “Object-oriented ontology maintains that objects exist independently (as Kantian noumena) of human perception and are not ontologically exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects.[4]
Or
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1115381/entangled-life/9781847925190
Overall – The essay feels a bit slim in parts right now. I have been through it, removed bits where I was a bit apologetic or seemed to be excusing things I’d included. I will wait until I have spoken with Matt before making any of the above adjustments and then upload another draft for assessment.
This work could/should be referenced in the essay and when I do any last minute changes, it is worth including (I’d have to get rid of something quite significant to make room though). Subotzky’s words are so familiar to me – the need to confront his own privilege and complicity, the recognition that his inquiry is so relevant and current – and to keep going with his work, as well as the deescalated position of the camera in his process.
“The photographer discusses his creative process and the importance of breaking historical cycles of racism, violence, and oppression”
— Read on www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/bit-by-bit-mikhael-subotzkys-destructive-collage-process-dismantles-depictions-of-white-founding-fathers/
A first attempt – it’s a bit of a dense, to say the least. But a first stab and will see what Matt says about it – pretty sure I might want to rewrite it to be more friendly but I’ve never written an extract before and am not entirely sure about acceptable tones:
A 5000-word essay exploring the structural significance of digital imagery within a global reality that is largely networked, interconnected and interactive, when formerly, it was more likely to be viewed as a series of isolated albeit hierarchical entities.
Drawing on Karen Barad’s synthesis of quantum science and critical analysis, coined ‘agential realism’, the essay results in more questions than answers. It is also hindered by limitations of, to quote Barad, a “Cartesian habit of mind” (2007: 49). Such habits inform the language we use to describe contemporary reality and are embedded in acceptable academic conventions. However, structural transformation means inevitable changes to our language, perception and physical reality, whether we agree or not, are aware or oblivious. While describing some key tenets of an agential realist’s view, focusing in particular on entanglement, a range of visual art is examined in an effort to make sense of apparently contradictory statements by well-regarded and oft-quoted theorists about the photographic image today. Michael Fried’s assertion that photography matters as art as never before (2008) is queried alongside Daniel Palmer’s suggestion that photography is all but over (2014:144). Can these seemingly opposite views both be true at the same time in an entangled world? Despite the difficulty of tackling a subject too far-reaching to be adequately broached within a 5000-word limit, the effects of the changes described above have led to ethical difficulties, which present image-makers of all persuasions with conundrums which increasingly cannot and should not be ignored.
I’ll be handing in my essay to Matt early next week. Here are my reflection answers in the meantime.
Demonstration of subject-based knowledge and understanding
I have taken a major risk by focusing on Barad’s writing to underpin my argument. It is not the theory that is taught usually within photography although that is changing and Daniel Rubinstein who I quote is heavily influenced by a quantum view of reality and Fred Ritchin has a chapter on it – quoted in CS A5 and in A1 and 2. Barad’s view does draw on many of the people I have looked at during my time with the OCA, synthesising that with science. I know that my understanding and knowledge is hampered by having to tackle quantum science – and a relatively esoteric reading of it at that. The ideas are not brand new – I have been reading articles and essays trying to figure things out for some time now but understanding this stuff properly will take a great deal more than just reading some articles. However, I have learnt so much while writing this, that it was worth it. I did not know what was meant by performative at the beginning of this (a word frequently misused I have noticed) nor could I see why Barad suggested matter had been overlooked in favour of discourse, mistakenly thinking that it meant language was being undervalued by a Baradian view. (It’s not, it’s being equalised).
Demonstration of research skills
Every time I rewrite the essay my understanding is deepened. I’ve asked for feedback and my peers have helped by pointing out bits that made no sense to them whatsoever. That prompted me to revisit and unpick my own understanding, to go back to the source, rewrite and see if I’d done any better in explaining. Finally, when I really needed some help, I approached someone I knew would have some answers. I have sought out expert opinion (not always receiving answers) but the process is ongoing.
I have got better at keeping a track of my reading and used Zotero to help which was useful, along with the Notes app on my phone. I also post links constantly on my blogs so I don’t lose things, even if I don’t say very much when doing so. I’ve labelled those posts more clearly so they are easier to find. The bibliography is extensive (probably too long) and demonstrates a wide source of references.
I still lose things so there is room for improvement.
Demonstration of critical and evaluation skills
There is evidence of analysis and critical thought – I talk about Barad and her detractors’ concerns about analogy and ‘brazenly’ make an analogy which I think is warranted because ultimately, the lines separating analogy from fact can be just as nebulous (given Barad’s theory) as any other lines. Ten days ago I asked for feedback and peers suggested the third section of my essay read like some interesting information rather than educated opinion and synthesis. Another peer read the following draft and suggested the ‘real me’ came out in the third section. So I am synthesising for sure when prompted to – sometimes it takes an extra nudge. In terms of criticising and evaluating my own work, I am able to take on board feedback but also reject it when unhelpful, or else take something from it and make it useful – sometimes feedback might simply help me see where I have failed to make something obvious and it requires more underlining. I have also applied the thinking I have learnt to my own BOW in the essay, in particular, my comments about an image of a cow’s eyes are very analytical. (An image I have not been comfortable with for lots of reasons, least of which is, I am not sure it’s a good photograph – and yes, I know the word ‘good’ is unhelpful).
Communication
There is room for more clarity always – but that is a lifelong project for me (see my hair analogy in a peer feedback post). For this level, the positive aspects of my writing such as enthusiastic engagement hopefully counters any lack of clarity. It is probably also worth restating the following: Roberta M (my original OCA tutor) was very encouraging about writing experimentally – I wasn’t quite sure what she meant and now see that simply including “I” is viewed as experimental by some – oh, to go as far as Chris Kraus. I believe this is behind the curve but accept that is seen as a risk. However, the crux of the essay is the rejection of separation between subject and object and the sheer importance of that (in my opinion) cannot be underestimated. Every article and essay that I come across right now is crying out for society to acknowledge the connections between race, climate change, the pandemic and the economy, for instance. Intra-activeness has to be taken on board. Removal of self and “That’s nothing to do with me” has got to be challenged at every opportunity. To quote my late friend Mandy (see Appendix 4) again, …
Our “…way of viewing and understanding the world via logical, rational empiricist study – which encourages detachment and abstraction – is connected to our failure to finding new ways of understanding our world in a deepening social and ecological crisis” (Thatcher, 2016)
SJField - OCA Level Three Study Blog 