Telling our tales through ambiguous photography: decolonizing the visual
library of the African continent.
 |
| Photo: Kayleigh Ward |
A few remarks
initially formulated to aid the general discussion at the end of a productive
and interesting day, and reformulated once informed by it.
The title of
this symposium both poses a challenge and offers a solution. We need to
decolonize ‘the visual library’ (which is a metaphorical rather than an actual
collection) of the African continent. This can be done by embracing the
ambiguous nature of photographs in telling tales in an inclusive manner. They
are ours, these tales.
This premise
led to presentations about, with and through photographs, each addressing and
questioning aspects of ‘ambiguous photography’ as well as the gestures that
could contribute to the needed decolonization.
Decolonisation
was, on Errol Francis’ initiative, questioned throughout the day. What do we
actually mean when we use this buzzword? What are the consequences of bringing
it up? The most widely supported reading of it was ‘a redistribution of power’,
which was further translated into the slightly more tangible gestures of
re-interpreting, deconstructing, reconstructing gazes, voices, traditions and
conventions through scholarship and (artistic) intervention. To make these
gestures ‘true’ they have to include relinquishing the outcomes of the powers
enforced through colonization. In addition, we need to acknowledge that power
has to be exacted and claimed, it cannot be handed over.
This should
lead to the development of a variety of forms in which these gazes and voices
manifest. When are these forms confirming or even reinforcing problematic
conventions and traditions while trying to bring them to the discourse, and
when are they indeed productive as ‘decolonial gestures.’
Msingi Sasis brought in the notion of censorship in its various
manifestations -e.g. state censorship, social censorship, self-censorship. It
is important to consider the mechanisms leading to and resulting from
censorship in several ways. Firstly, in relation to certain traditions and
conventions that inform particular and situated production and uses of
photographs. Secondly in terms of factors which frustrate the ability to
produce photographs, as argued by Danny Chiyesu when
speaking about the historic restriction of camera ownership in Zambia.
When we claim certain knowledge, and understanding, who is this ‘we’?
Are there understandings of photographs that do not aid the diversifying of a
visual library? Which gazes are appreciated or ignored or negated in
contemporary discourses concerning photography, art, journalism etc.? In other
words, and in relation to the examples presented by Louise
Fedotov-Clements, how do the qualities of subjective
renderings relate to the limitations of universal languages? What do we
need to know about colonial power structures to be able to shift them? When and
how do photographs allow us to see beyond what the human eye can see and what
the brain, connected to the eye thinks it knows?
A paradox of photography that is relevant in this respect is found in
the generation of visibility that can also be a factor in limiting rather
than expanding imaginations. Today’s symposium led to new connections. It offers
the possibility to expand imaginations within and beyond the discourses the
people present are part of.
Andrea Stultiens
