Joan Fontcuberta - Pandoras Camera
Fugitive Identities
Fontcuberta focuses on identity within photography in this chapter, and whether you can really portray an individuals identity within photography, or whether it is manipulated. He uses different visual examples in the creative world to indicate that photography does not always show a real image of something, but in fact, an either idealised image, a fantasised image or a cloned image. Photography is formally know as a way of documenting and categorising the world. Photography is formally used within portraying identities, in examples such as passport photos, formal portraits and family albums. However, once you begin composing the image to suit someones wants from the photograph, you start to manipulate the identity you are portraying, using creative lighting, photoshop, composition and others to create these identities. Fontcuberta uses an example that illustrates this, of Annie Sprinkle's series The Transformation Salon. These diptychs that she creates juxtaposes two images of the same women, one of her in her everyday clothes, and the other "in their sexiest clothes" in "provocative poses", during their striptease jobs. She tries to present "two realities" within her work, one of the identity that is shown to the everyday people, and another which is a "world of desire" and a secret job. One image is a simple snapshot polaroid image, formally speaking documenting the individual as they are, and the other uses creative lighting and other ways to mould this persons identity into something else, into a slightly fantastical identity of sexual power and dominance.
Another example he uses of a diptych to show juxtaposing parts of peoples identity is Sinje Dillenkofer's series Reservate, who creates diptych portraits of female executives in their working attire, alongside images of the same women reenacting their own fantasies, what they wish to do behind closed doors. These two contrasting images show two different sides to different womens identities, indicating that photography can only ever capture part of someones identity, the side that people pose with for the camera. This then also links back to the idea that we all tailor ourselves, our identity, our speech, our mannerisms, our subject matter, depending on who we are around. So are we the same person just acting different ways to different people, or are we creating different identities for ourselves when surrounded by different individuals? To me, its a case of identity through morals and habits. Things we do throughout our encounters with everyone, the small habits that we are unconscious of doing make us who we are, and our morals are morals because they're kept no matter who we are surrounded by.
Fontcuberta tries to comment that photography is not just a document of identity, but also manipulates it, however he suggests that this is not a bad thing, but moreover a thing that we need to start understanding rather than shunning. Photography is an amazing medium in which we can portray different emotions, identities and people and we should allow ourselves to do this, rather than use as a means of truthfulness.
Another example he uses of a diptych to show juxtaposing parts of peoples identity is Sinje Dillenkofer's series Reservate, who creates diptych portraits of female executives in their working attire, alongside images of the same women reenacting their own fantasies, what they wish to do behind closed doors. These two contrasting images show two different sides to different womens identities, indicating that photography can only ever capture part of someones identity, the side that people pose with for the camera. This then also links back to the idea that we all tailor ourselves, our identity, our speech, our mannerisms, our subject matter, depending on who we are around. So are we the same person just acting different ways to different people, or are we creating different identities for ourselves when surrounded by different individuals? To me, its a case of identity through morals and habits. Things we do throughout our encounters with everyone, the small habits that we are unconscious of doing make us who we are, and our morals are morals because they're kept no matter who we are surrounded by.
Fontcuberta tries to comment that photography is not just a document of identity, but also manipulates it, however he suggests that this is not a bad thing, but moreover a thing that we need to start understanding rather than shunning. Photography is an amazing medium in which we can portray different emotions, identities and people and we should allow ourselves to do this, rather than use as a means of truthfulness.
Documentary Fictions
His chapter named Documentary Fictions also focuses on the idea that photography cannot always document something correctly, there may be the right intent to document, but theres always photographers interpretations and what Fontcuberta calls "historical veracity versus perceptual veracity": the idea that you want to create historical accuracy and create images that are contextually accurate and factual, versus creating images from a personal perspective, whether or not its factually accurate or not. Fontcuberta uses Louis Daguerre's Views of the Boulevard du Temple as an example in which this happens. The first image he create of the boulevard was perceptually accurate because it was Daguerre creating an image of his choice, composed through a window, of the street in front of him. However, due to the lengthly exposure time of the image, it does not show the boulevard as it should be, bustling and full of people and horse and cart, but rather an empty bare strip. Due to this, he created another image, where he got his assistance to re-enact what would be going on on the street in the image, where they pretend to polish shoes. Due to how steady they were, they show up in the image, and nothing else does because its all moving too fast to be exposed into the photo. This image was historically accurate, as he wanted to document what would usually happen on the street. However, it was also constructed which then questions whether or not it is a document or an interpretation. My opinion on documentary fiction, which begins to relate back to my project due to the fact that I am trying to document hair as a subject, photographing different things revolving around hair, but in a composed manner, is that documentary practice is always going to create interpreted imagery because no matter how hard one tries to create a realistic image, the photographer is always choosing the framing, lighting, exposure settings, and what to keep in and out of the frame. So constructed documentary is still documentary because an image cannot just simply document, it can interpret a scene from a personal view.