1. When I think about what it means to "look through your eyes" as a viewer of African and African American photographs, I think of viewing those photographs in an objective and observational way. We had previously discussed in class the political aspect of African American art and how there is this idea that African American art cannot afford to NOT be political until their is actually racial equality in America. I think that whether that is a conscious notion or not, I find myself searching for some sort of political undertone when I look at a piece of black art, whether it be photography or some other form. I think that trying to remember to "look through your eyes" at African American art instead of looking through the much broader scope of society's "eyes", it would be easier to not commodify black art and actually let it transform us.
2. Assuming that this question relates to any photograph, not just the photos within the essay, I would say that a lot of the photographs taken during the Ferguson protests/riots could be seen as both fostering white supremacy and African American protest. I know there were probably hundreds of pictures similar to the one I am thinking of but I can remember seeing a specific photo from one of the riots that definitely shows both concepts mentioned. There was a young African American woman, probably in her early 20s being subdued by two white, male police officers, They had her down on the pavement, her hands restrained behind her back, and she was crying. In one way I can see how this could show the idea of African American protest and the fight back at an oppressive society. This woman was only one of many who were out in the streets making themselves heard. On the other hand, I know people who would use this kind of photo support white supremacy. They might say the police officers were just "doing their jobs" and that if the rioters wouldn't have stepped out of line, scenes like the one in the photo wouldn't have even occurred. That is why I would say that a picture like this one could be construed in the two very different lights.
3. For me, the difference between a mug shot and a studio portrait is huge. A studio portrait is often something that you pay for. In many cases it is something that you prepare for. You get a studio portrait taken to show yourself in a positive light so that later on in life you can look back on that photograph and be proud of the person you were when it was taken. A mug shot is not a photograph to be proud of. In fact, it often brings on feelings of shame, rather than pride. A mug shot is not something you prepare for or ask to be done, it is something that is forced upon you. You are not displaying your positive qualities in a mug shot. Your negative qualities and your "dirty laundry" is being hung out for others to see when you have a mug shot taken. Rather than looking back at that kind of photograph with happiness or pride, you would look back in disdain and regret.
4. The absolute most horrific photograph I have ever seen happens to be a photograph that depicts white violence. That would be the picture that was taken of Emmett Till's mutilated face in his open casket. There are no white people at all in this photograph. In fact, Emmett Till is the only person in it. But his face, no longer discernible as a face at all, is an a massive indicator of just how horrible white violence can be. This photograph stands as an example of just how incredibly systemic racial oppression has been in the past and continues to be today. That photograph doesn't just represent Emmett Till and what happened to him, but it represents thousands of young African American men whose lives were taken too soon simply because of the color of their skin.
5. Honestly, what moved me the most in the Smith article was the story of Samuel Wilkes' lynching. The mere fact that 6,000 people, 2,000 of which traveled from afar, to view the "event" is enough to make my stomach churn. This is just one of many examples that show that lynching was practically a sport during that time period. It was something entirely socially acceptable and even expected in some places. The way that Samuel Wilkes' lynching is described in the article makes it feel like it was all just some sick form of entertainment for the white people "witnessing" the occurrences. Even the people physically doing it remained unmasked which indicates to me that they felt no shame, rather, they celebrated these horrible acts in their society.
6. I think including the photographs that were of details from postcards that depicted lynchings was definitely an effective choice. It shows how even during a lynching, which is entirely about the life of a black person being taken from them, the white people involved somehow find a way to make it about them. There are close ups of their faces showing all sorts of expressions. The fact that these were photographs that became post cards shows even more how these people believed that they were entirely justified in their actions and wanted as many people to see/hear about it as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment