Unreal Nature

August 22, 2008

Eye and I

Filed under: Uncategorized — unrealnature @ 7:26 am

Below are bits from three apparently unrelated articles. Try to think of them together.

On the ward’s veranda, there were many small, hungry, and very young children, most so malnourished they had the look of old men and women, loose skin piling up on their sides, features exaggerated by the paucity of flesh padding them.

… Out came the cameras and kit. Reuters, AFP, BBC, NTV and Ugandan broadcaster WBS, all focusing exclusively on one starving boy, a little older than the other children, too frail to stand. Realizing too many lenses were pointed his way for me to even attempt a photo, I left the scene and headed into the ward.

Some of the beds inside the ward were empty, but a few held small bodies that probably weighed less than my bulky camera. I started shooting. I was the lone journalist in the ward—the others were content to all film the same boy outside on the veranda, where his need was immediate and the light was better.
These pictures were doubtlessly moving in the way images of starving children shots always, so I sent a text to a photo editor in Nairobi. “Am at hospital 50 km from main town in Karamoja. Many children starving, malnutrition rampant. Have pix.” He replied back a little bit later, “Not interested for now thank you.” Apparently, they had just done a piece of starving children in Ethiopia, and there’s only so much room in the press for these small bodies.

I thought of the media spectacle outside the feeding ward, and the mothers beckoning me to their children, to take a photo, to take a minute, to care. But I already knew my photos wouldn’t be published on a major news wire. I knew that even if I cared, I wouldn’t be able to tell the story to an audience who could rally outrage into change.

But it isn’t the job of news wires to care—it’s their job to spread news. And this wasn’t as bad as the famine in Ethiopia. It was just a few dozen starving children, somewhere, in some bush, that few people had ever heard of and even fewer people could find on a map and fewer still had visited. Some Africans dying in some bush is not news. It’s sad, but it’s not news.

– above is from If Some Africans Die in Some Bush, Does Anyone Care?; on The Walrus blog of Glenna Gordon, August 18, 2008 (her blog is This is Not a Safari!  and she is based in Kampala, Uganda)

“They’re comfortable in front of the camera,” says Wanda Daniels. In short order, the administrator of the embryonic Indian Residential School Museum of Canada has arranged an interview with two survivors for my documentary about the schools: her seventy-nine-year-old mother, Grace Daniels, and eighty-three-year-old uncle, Max Merrick. “When the last crew was here, they were the ones to speak.” Uh-oh — competition. “Who has been here already?” I ask. “Al Jazeera.”

Little more than a decade after the last one closed its doors, Canada’s Indian residential schools are widely regarded as one of colonialism’s worst excesses — great material for a channel that delights in tarring the West’s moral authority.

… Had you heard of Al Jazeera before they came here, I ask, turning to Grace. “No,” she says, “but they came a long way to see us.” What did they want to know? “The same things you’re asking about. What it was like in this school.”
I try to imagine how this must have looked to the Al Jazeera crew, and to the network’s audience. “We showed them what we’re showing you,” says Grace.

– above is from A Proper Schooling  by Larry Krotz in the May 2008 issue of The Walrus

In late afternoon in a dim chamber beneath the eastern flank of the volcano, a circle of light the size of a dessert plate slowly traces a path across the wall. The beam is too diffuse to warm a hand. In a few minutes, the disk’s top and bottom melt away and it narrows to a pencil-like shape. Finally, with a strange, brief shudder, the sliver of light disappears.

From the chamber an 874-foot tunnel angles up through the volcano toward an opening to the sky. As it is approached, the portal grows, changes shape and gains color. From one point in the tunnel it resembles a giant, translucent robin’s egg, lit from within.

A bronze stairway rises steeply to the elliptical opening high above. The stairs taper narrowly near the top, with no railings. At the crest there is an explosion of light from the westering sun. To stumble, blinking in the white light, out into the crater’s bowl, pulse and respiration elevated, is to experience a vivid sensation, like rebirth.

“At times the only difference between hallucination and reality is consensus,” says Turrell. “How we respond to light and space, the feeling and sense of space, and how reality is put into question—these sorts of things, and the emotions attached to them, are not much talked about, but I think are worth exploring.”

– above is from an article, The Cosmic Art of James Turrell  by Michael Balchunas in PCM Online. It’s describing his Roden Crater Project.

What’s my point? Aside from the separate interest of each of the three pieces quoted, I see them as a nutshell outline of what one may wish or try to communicate with visual presentations.

First, we have immediate needs (hungry children).

Second we have consideration of who we are — what we look like to each other, evaluation of ourselves relative to one another.

Third we have exploration of our place in the universe.

========================================

Here’s more on Turrell’s Roden Crater Project:

Roden Crater will order basic human interactions with light and space and also with time. It will affect not only the intensity, but also the protensity the extension through time of perceptual experience. The modifications to the cinder cone will be informed by the works Turrell has been producing since the beginning of his career: the light inside the spaces will be like the Skyspaces, but they will be hewn from the natural materials of the volcano and surfaced with the sand stone of the surrounding desert.

Turrell’s Roden Crater Project is an interactive sculptural environment; its subject matter is light and space. At its most profound levels, the completed project will allow us to stand in the present and look into both the past and the future. Light, in one of its aspects, is time. The crater will focus our attention on infinite reaches that are both geologic and astronomical, both personal and psychological. The entire project with its myriad interior and exterior spaces functions in terms of the light in the sky. In these terms, the crater is designed to work closely with what is already available in the sky, but it goes beyond worldly givens into areas of autonomous, unbounded seeing.

-Julie

http://www.unrealnature.com/

11 Comments

  1. JH> What’s my point? … I see them as…

    Your point, well put and powerfully received here, is a reinterpretation and revivification of Maslow’s pyramid … for all who would communicator, not just those medium is photographic.

    In making it, you re-illuminate the eternal moral conundrum for anyone who has reached any level above the base of the pyramid: how to assign proportions of effort between current level concerns, upward striving, and assisting fellows on lower levels?

    (Or, rather, those are the point and collateral which I take away from the three pieces … it is arrogant of me to tell you that they are your intent, but they are the effect at this point of receipt.)

    Moving away from your point, a couple of meanders around the specifics …

    The first section is all too familiar and convincing. The media not only have a “quota” on suffering and a preference for its most numerically spectacular manifestations, they also have upper and lower limits on its specificity. I was once told, very explicitly, that “within the general criteria: photographs of war casualties are welcome, but only if no wounds are visible; also photographs of torture survivors, but visible signs of that torture should be limited to mental anguish and minor physical scars – no mutilation.”

    The second section reflects a pervasive subconscious assumption: that my eye is impartial in seeking the truth while an external eye which sees differently from mine must, by definition, have an agenda. There is almost certainly no instance or possibility of a completely objective and agendaless journalist, never mind news organisation, but in any ranked league table of those aspiring to approach the ideal Al Jazeera would be close to the top – in the company of the best in Western eequivalents.

    Comment by Felix Grant — August 23, 2008 @ 3:46 am

  2. I have a bunch of things I want to say in response to your comment (in agreement with some extension), but I am out of time. I’ll be back…

    Comment by unrealnature — August 23, 2008 @ 8:46 am

  3. “Proportion”. Source of all discord.

    I have to confess that I paid attention to the African story, not because it was about starving children, but because it was a first person narrative by a woman photographer. And because she cleverly (or naturally) stepped back to show the bizarre juxtaposition of all those well-fed technologically advanced news people swarming over that one starving child.

    I will also admit that reading her personal blog, I was mildly annoyed that what she wrote of was not what I expected Uganda to be like. I get National Geographic. I read the news. I watch movies (Last King of Scotland). And I have no clue. Even she, (Glenna Gordon), says in her blog, that after two years, what she is constantly realizing is that she does not know Uganda.

    On your comment about what the editors want, it’s shameful, but… I don’t know. It’s complicated. The public can get nasty if you rub their nose in what they don’t want to see/know. I think that editors/publishers err on the side of caution; they’re lazy about taking chances — but that admits that there is some risk (to what? is another question … ).

    On the Al Jazeera piece, I loved that one. Made me laugh out loud. The author is a supposedly objective documentary photographer and what’s his first reaction? Anxiety and fear about looking bad. As you said, we assume an agenda from an “outside” eye.

    At the end of the article, this: “… former chief Ernie Daniels, Al Jazeera’s contact and Wanda’s older brother, changed his mind and decided not to talk [to Al Jazeera about a second documentary]. “He was worried about their reputation,” Wanda said, “you know, that Al Jazeera just wants to criticize the Canadian government. And he doesn’t want to get into any trouble.”

    Comment by unrealnature — August 23, 2008 @ 11:12 am

  4. JH> On your comment about what the
    JH> editors want, it’s shameful, but…

    I wasn’t so much thinking that the editors are culpable … or, at least, no more culpable than anyone else – which is to say, the rest of us. If it’s shameful, the shame is ours collectively. The effete and decadent psychopathology of an society which revels in graphic violence as entertainment, but feels queasy at the idea of seeing any hint of it on the news. Editors, journalists, owners, can only sell what the punter is prepared to buy.

    Comment by Felix Grant — August 23, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

  5. But, none of that is central at the moment. Your “Maslow for photographers” very definitely is :-)

    Comment by Felix Grant — August 23, 2008 @ 4:39 pm

  6. “…decadent psychopathology of an society which revels in graphic violence as entertainment, but feels queasy at the idea of seeing any hint of it on the news.”

    I agree with that completely.

    Trivializing violence or turning it into a packaged, sanitized, commodity — where it is presented as titillating but not really real — perverts our subsequent responses to it.

    I hope you can see how that statement is different from my previous topic about violence.

    Comment by unrealnature — August 23, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

  7. Apologies: entirely my own failing, but I’m unsure to what “my previous topic about violence” refers. I don’t, however feel any flagging up of inconsistency between your statement and what I have come to see as your … oh, I just clicked; you mean the question of whether or not we can imagine an interesting world without violence? Yes, I see very clearly the difference here.

    Comment by Felix Grant — August 24, 2008 @ 3:51 am

  8. Harking back to comment 3, para 3.

    Reading National Geographic and watching the news both give us partial and very small (albeit different and usefully complementary) facets of something that might (National Geographic more so than the news) bear some relation to “truth” or historicity.

    Watching movies only very rarely, and then accidentally, does this.

    I would not expect a film like The last king of Scotland to give me any insight whatsoever into what it is like in Uganda. I would expect the news to reflect some small fragment, National Geographic a somewhat larger fragment.

    To give some balance … even being there still gives only a partial view. I’ve spent years in some places, and still find when talking to another person with equal experience that they know an entirely different country … a Londoner (or New Yorker) knows an entirely different Britain (or USA) from an inhabitant of Bodmin Moor (or a Louisiana Bayou).

    Comment by Felix Grant — August 24, 2008 @ 3:57 am

  9. Continuing from comment 8 …

    Will Self (your later post Infiltrator) is, in part, making this point about the unknowability of a place with any completeness even by those who live in a place.I share Self’s dislike of tourism, in two ways … it is socially corrosive (but that’s not my point here) and it also insulates the tourist from any real knowledge of the place toured (which is).

    I have a person scale of transportational preference, based on what they can give me in terms of "Learning the world"[1] from walking (best if feasible, though obviously it often isn’t) through to driving and passenger jet flying (worst of all possible worlds, though obviously sometimes necessary).

    Please note that I have given you a mitzvah in the above para: a superscripted bibliographic footnote index for your amusement [grin].

    [1] MacLeod, K., Learning the world : a novel of first contact. 2006, London: Orbit. 1841493449 pbk. (Originally 2005, 1841493430, cased)

    Comment by Felix Grant — August 24, 2008 @ 4:25 am

  10. Uh oh. You’ve triggered a Calvino regurgitation:

    “To fly is the opposite of traveling: you cross a gap in space, you vanish into the void, you accept not being in any place for a duration that is itself a kind of void in time; then you reappear, in a place and in a moment with no relation to the where and the when in which you vanished. Meanwhile, what do you do? How do you occupy this absence of yourself from the world and of the world from you? You read; you do not raise your eyes from the book between one airport and the other, because beyond the page there is the void, the anonymity of stopovers, of the metallic uterus that contains you and nourishes you, of the passing crowd always different and always the same. You might as well stick with the other abstraction of travel, accomplished by the anonymous uniformity of typographical characters: here, too, it is the evocative power of the names that persuades you that you are flying over something and not nothingness. You realize that it takes considerable heedlessness to entrust yourself to unsure instruments, handled with approxomation; or perhaps this demonstrates an invincible tendency to passivity, to regression, to infantile dependence. (But are you reflecting on the air journey or on reading?)

    – from If on a winter’s night a traveler

    Comment by unrealnature — August 24, 2008 @ 9:23 am

  11. He says it well :-)

    I’d forgotten that passage – thank you!

    Comment by Felix Grant — August 25, 2008 @ 2:37 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.