Observation:
There is an African woman with a shaved head wearing a Superman T-shirt. She
has her arm behind her back, and lightly grips the bicep of her other arm with
it. She is looking at the camera, but her body is angled slightly towards the
right (from the camera’s perspective). Because of her shaved head and the
position of her body, it is difficult to determine her gender unless closer observations
are made.
Inference:
What stands out to me the most about this image is how an African woman is
invoking the symbol of an “invincible” white icon (Superman) that was created
by white men. A part of me also thinks about how modern audiences are more
inclined to accept heroes of different backgrounds nowadays, which has provoked
Marvel to begin a storyline for an African American Spider-Man. As for the
image in relation to the class’ topics, this appears to be a woman that is
taking a bold move for self-expression. Despite this, her posture is conflicted—she
almost appears to be proud, but there’s still hints of doubt in her stance. This
even shows in the interpretations from others, as shown in the article Passing and the Politics of Queer Loss
Post-Apartheidm where it says: “ ‘Contrary to media reports,’ she went on
to claim, ‘I was not even aware as to whether the “bodies” in the images were
of men or women or both for that matter.’ …Muholi’s photographs do trouble the
distinctions between men, women, ‘or both for that matter,’ and there is a
powerful sense in which lesbians can only enter recognizable representations as
‘crude misrepresentations of women masquerading as artworks’ ” (39) The
inability to have a distinct role in society may be part of the conflict that
is reflected in her works.
Observation:
This image appears to be set in a library that has many bookshelves lining the
walls. On top of those bookshelves are statues of various men and women. The
foreground objects are a fancy desk and chairs, and a number of men are
standing/sitting in different spots around the room. Only one of them in
African (American?) and he is facing off-screen, as if he is trying to ignore
them. In a doorway on the rightmost side of the image, a few women (maids?) are
standing and watching the scene.
Inference:
The African (American?) man in the center-rightmost part of
the picture is the focal point because everyone is facing in his direction. Some
of them appear to be mocking him with their apparent applause, because the look
on his face does not look like a positive expression. Yet, at the same time, a
part of me feels that this could be genuine applause, but the reception to it
is negative and unwanted. In an interview that was published in Yinka Shonibare: on hedonism, masquerade,
carnivalesque and power, Yinka discusses her vantage on this paradox of perspective:
“…there’s a kind of complicity on my own part that I need to explain: what I’m
doing is not so clear-cut. People might assume that I have a total critical
distance from my practice, but I don’t think that’s the case; it’s more complex
because, on one level, I challenge the denial of my African background. In
other words, a part of my work has to do with visibility—with my own attempt to
make my origin visible” (Enwezor 2). This “challeng[ing of] the denial” certainly
is complex, and even when the creator intends an image to convey something,
that message may be misconstrued or misinterpreted and turn out to be something
else altogether.
Observation:
There are three frames, each of which divide up a single image of a woman lying
down on what appears to be a bed. Various kinds of patterns on the bed itself,
and the main design of her dress is yellow and white stripes, while the lower
part of the dress is pink with various colored patterns along it. The pillows
and curtains are elegant and blend into the background. The woman is staring at
the camera in the first frame, and her skin appears to be tattooed throughout.
Inference: What
stands out to me is how this image is fragmented. Fragmented images indicate a
movement along the whole, larger image—the eyes travel in between the gutter (a
comic term for the gap in between panels) and sense a shift in perspective each
time they see a new border. What this also does is draw more attention to each
individual piece or part of the image. Essaydi even brings up this idea of
confined spaces in her artist’s statement: “Traditionally, the presence of men
has defined public spaces: the streets, meeting places, places of work. Women,
on the other hand, have been confined to private spaces, the architecture of
the home. Physical boundaries define cultural ones, hidden hierarchies dictate
patterns of habitation. Thus crossing a cultural threshold into prohibited
‘space’ in a metaphorical sense can result in literal confinement in an actual
space” (Essaydi, 1). In this sense, the artwork within the frame is also
defined by the frame. The space that the frame is contained in can either
accent certain qualities, or restrict them to the point that they begin to lose
their function. In the case of this particular image, I believe that the frames
accents each part of the photograph, because if the frame was centered and only
the one ‘whole’ image existed, then we would lose the focus that each frame
brings because our eyes would be trying to scan the whole image at once.
