Saturday, August 29, 2015

2015.08.30 Photography: The Bias of the Camera's Eye

I think of technology as neutral, existing to help us live life in simpler, more efficient ways—and beautiful, too. Well, that’s naive, but at least a camera must record what it sees as it sees it, even if the photographer slants the content in certain directions— racist, sexist, or whatever. The camera never lies, does it?



An early professional daguerreotype photographer remarked on people's reaction to their portraits: "People were afraid at first to look for any length of time at the pictures Mr. Daguerre in 1829 produced with all his 'miraculous' technology. They were embarrassed by the clarity of these figures and believed that the little, tiny faces of the people in the pictures could see out at them, so amazing did the unaccustomed detail and the unaccustomed truth to nature of the first daguerreotypes appear to everyone."

Teja Cole, writer in residence at Bard College and the photography critic for the New York Times Magazine, offered a perspective that startled me in his February 18, 2015 article, "A True Picture of Black Skin". Cole called photography poetic, even though its art is dependent on the best technology in the hands of the artist. But, there's a but............

It’s difficult to photograph black faces. This difficulty became pronounced during the time of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s—ironically, when the very presence of black people was under question.

Cole wrote: “All technology arises out of specific social circumstances. In our time, as in previous generations, cameras and the mechanical tools of photography have rarely made it easy to photograph black skin. The dynamic range of film emulsions for example, were generally calibrated for white skin and had limited sensitivity to brown, red or yellow skin tones. Light meters have similar limitations, with a tendency to underexpose dark skin. And for many years, beginning in the mid-1940s, the smaller film-developing units manufactured by Kodak came with Shirley cards, so-named after the white model who was featured on them and whose whiteness was marked on the cards as 'normal.'

"Some of these instruments improved with time. In the age of digital photography, for instance, Shirley cards are hardly used anymore. But even now, there are reminders that photographic technology is neither value-free nor ethnically neutral. (Italics mine.) In 2009, the face-recognition technology on HP webcams had difficulty recognizing black faces, suggesting, again, that the process of calibration had favored lighter skin..  ....An artist tries to elicit from unfriendly tools the best they can manage”

(HP is a brand name. Our printer is HP. A webcam is a video camera that inputs to a computer connected to the Internet, so that its images can be viewed by Internet users. No techie here, I had to look this one up.)

The camera can, in fact, lie. Prejudice can be compensated for by adjustments of light meters and the like, but bias is there right in the technology. Of course we know that technology is the product of human endeavor, but still........

Thank god, there are sensitive artists who work hard to free their art from racist images, images people have no idea are biased. Artists, of all kinds, want to give their work soul, to rise above any technological handicaps.
 
One such artist was the late Roy DeCarava, an American photographer, who grew up in Harlem, N.Y.C. DeCarava, the son of a single mother, photographed ordinary people. He died at 89.

Cole noted that the power of  DeCarava’s  pictures is in the loveliness of the dark areas. Rather than compensate and lighten, DeCarava insisted on finding a way into the inner life of his scenes. He made technical choices accordingly. Instead of trying to brighten blackness he went against expectation and darkened it further. “What is dark is neither blank nor empty. It is in fact full of wise light which, with patient seeing, can open out into glories.” Now that's soul!

Black skin has nuance unknown to whites, it seems. Toni Morrison wrote a story called “Sweetness” (2/9/15 New Yorker) in which a young mother gives birth to a baby who is blue-black. She spends time trying to teach the child how to cover up for the shame of not being brown. Morrison’s book, God Help The Child, tells more of the story from many perspectives. A beautiful book I recommend.

But when I really look around I don’t think white skin is uniformly white. There’s albino white, ruddy, freckle-speckled white, olive-toned white, and of course ivory. We tan and darken our skin, though, and blacks die laughing over this mimetic irony!

Cole concluded his piece in praise of the work of great stories, which, in photography are literal . . . visual stories of the “hard-won, worth-keeping reticence of black life itself. These pictures make a case for how indirect images guarantee our sense of the human. It is as if the world, in its careless way, had been saying, ‘You people are simply too dark,’ and these artists, intent on obliterating this absurd way of thinking, had quietly responded, ‘But you have no idea how dark we yet may be, nor what that darkness may contain.’”  

 
                                      DeCarava's, Mississippi Freedom Marcher, Washington, D.C.

How little we know, and how much is exposed, day after day, if we but look. Revelation never ends.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

2015.08.23 Mystery Shows Up!

“Eat this flesh. Drink this blood.”  These words echo Jesus of Nazareth’s toast at his good bye dinner with his closest friends. They sound weird enough, but to think we Christians do this as a regular practice is positively preposterous! 

We’re spiritual cannibals. Yes! Oh, we know that flesh and blood are symbols. That’s how we keep them at a safe distance from our own flesh and blood. Further, we use paper-thin wafers, pale as albino flesh, as a substitute for bread. Some communities substitute grape juice for wine.

Still, we keep doing it. And when we do it, as Episcopal Presiding Bishop-Elect, the Rt. Rev. Michael Curry, speaking about the Eucharist: Mystery shows up! We just do it. It’s a steady practice, accompanied by a sturdy hope that God abides in us and we in God—a fleshy, bloody phenomenon, more fancily called incarnation. Close encounters of a mysterious kind: this stuff is really your own flesh, your own blood. You are a christ.
When my kids were little they spit out the veggies, ugly green stuff in little jars. (Somehow, yellow squash got a pass. Could be sweet potatoes, hey.) Older, they just kvetched, and one of them skirted the entire veggie controversy by requesting Campbell’s “mmm-good” vegetable soup. Peas, for some reason, were the veggie culprit of choice in our house. I used to command: “Just eat the peas! Later you’ll understand nutrition.” I don’t know if they understand nutrition to the full, but they ate the peas and Mystery showed up as they grew. They ate; Mystery showed up; they grew up.

In church we eat flesh and blood; Mystery shows up; we get spiritual nutrition; we grow. I don’t know exactly how all this happens. Mystery is sluicy, and not mine to govern. But I do know a couple of things for sure:

1. God, aka Mystery, has no way to you but through you.
2. When Mystery shows up it goes into you, and out with you, strengthening you to work for good.
3. Mystery never stops showing up, and whenever it does, something new is revealed. It can be scary, challenging, even painful. You want to run but you don’t, because Mystery gets under your skin and into your flesh and blood.

Ever wonder how Jesus got to be divine? He came eating and drinking and living life to its abundant fullness, every moment of it with gusto. A glutton, they said. Pig! And Mystery showed up. Who would have thought that this obscure, rank and possible randy, Palestinian Jew would initiate a Civil Rights Movement, including a march into Jerusalem to confront the powers with a vision of a kingdom where everyone eats and drinks together. ALL PERSONS TOGETHER. At one table? Indeed! 

We don’t have a big enough table, plus most of us Anglicans don’t like crowds, so we substitute altars. But we do it. We eat the peas. We eat the flesh. We drink the blood.

When I was twelve, I was excited to be having a birthday party at our Beach Club on Long Island (New York Long Island) where we summered. I could invite as many friends as I wanted. We’d have a cookout on the beach and swim in the ocean, maybe even after it got dark. My best friend at that time was Carol Lee, a black girl. We were BFFs, celebrating each day with giggles and wriggles, the way twelve-year-old girls do. We anticipated my party—until........

Until my parents were faced with the uneasy task of informing me that the Beach Club did not allow blacks. I was stunned. I’d never heard of such a thing—ironically, too sheltered among tighty whiteys. My parents didn’t tell me what to do. They gave me a choice. I wished they’d have told me what to do so I could blame them if things didn’t work well. But I had a choice.

I chose the Beach Club party. Then I lobbied for a separate-but-equal party for me and Carol Lee at home. Already a little politician, making a compromise! And Mystery showed up. Yes, in my awakened conscience, but more deeply in Carol Lee. She came to the separate party and never said a word, although I’m sure she knew the situation.

We ate and we drank and Mystery showed up.