Andrea Stultiens - Symposium Discussion Remarks

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