Advanced Part 5 of 5
So the complexity of the process belies the simplicity of the result, and the intensity of its meaning. Here people are representing themselves, in an environment of their choice, by virtue of wanting to be there, in a way they can see develop, by witnessing the production line as part of the exhibition process. All they have to do is press the button, an action which they understand in context to their situation.
The gaze is now engaged, direct. The variety of looks show every range of emotion. For some, the time involved has been short, they were passers by and saw the line in the street, giving no thought to their appearance they chanced upon the shoot totally unprepared and with out warning. Others planned their appearance beforehand having heard of the project in the press. Are those unprepared glimpsing themselves in a sophisticated way? Has coincidence given them an elongated glance in a mirror, one that will last forever as a record, their record? Where does this project fit with Bryson’s division?
Even more complex is a circumstance which happens in cinematic language known as "look back."
This is best described as a reciprocal gaze of the screen to mesmerize or entrance the intended audience. In “It looks at you, the returned gaze of the cinema.”, Wheeler Winston Dixon explains “there is a look that is returned by the frame, by a force deep within the field it embraces, a force focused by the rectangular dimensions of the screen, a window, a portal, an emitter of light to an audience.” 4
In photography, one can easily swap terminology to analogize the parallel relevance. The difference is in the time the viewer has to witness the look back. In the film, the medium is moving, in the photograph, the medium is still, but does this negate the look back or intensify it?
The power of the returned gaze, I suggest, is not in the time one is exposed to it. In films by Andy Warhol, his "Screen tests" made in 1960, the camera is static and gazes intensely into the eyes of the subject, and vis a vis. These are elongated stills, as much as they are a departure from cinematic procedure. They borrow from each medium but stand alone as a departure from both.
Watching the different subjects, they behave in different ways, Lou Reed, for example, glances at the camera, never really spending too much time in contemplation of it. Others, like Dennis Hopper, both gaze and glance at the screen. Either way one is compelled to look - and the compulsion needs to be explored.
In defining the device in use with the look back, one has options in theoretical language. The hyper real approach would define the camera a machine capable of moving through time and space, the freedom of hyper reality allowing the transgression of boundaries of subject / object, active / passive and gender gaze. In this environment it is impossible to isolate the process of the real, or prove the real. It is elusive, independent of time. It tends to lead the viewers inevitably to look within themselves.
Conversely, there is the idea that the screen shifts the conception of the real by using codes of visual culture, by inserting a screen of signs, layers of recognized meaning to which one defers. This reduces the look to the symbolic, the real being understood as an effect of representation, which the viewer has access to decode as a privilege of being at the top of the evolutionary tree. This suggests an imposition of order over too variable a set of circumstances - and divides the glance and gaze on the moral and temporal grounds disputed earlier.
There remains to be done a major study on the dynamic between viewer and object in photography. Dividing the glance and the gaze on moral grounds based on outmoded colonial precepts forms a starting point, but fails to go beyond the empirical and simplistic.
© John Frederick Anderson
4 It Looks
at You, the returned gaze of the cinema
Wheeler Winston Dixon, 1995, State of University of New York Press.