Recently, I co-edited a book that explores the role of the camera in times of crisis in Africa. Within this broad coverage, my contribution focuses on how cameras are used as tools for visual narratives, representation and agency during crises. Interestingly, some weeks ago, I saw the theme for this year’s black history month ‘reclaiming narratives’, and I wondered whether the narratives around black history would have been different (or at least easier to reclaim) if cameras were in the hands of the colonised some centuries ago. In this blog, I use the word “camera” loosely to depict three things: the device (camera), the act (photography) and the product (photograph/video).
The paradox of the camera is its ability to serve as a tool to push either true or distorted narrative. For example, photographs and videos have been used at various times in history, and even in current days, to project wrong narratives, agendas or propaganda. Conversely, photographs and videos have also been used to challenge dominant narratives and tell obscured stories. Hence, just as a weapon in the hands of military personnel means protection and the same weapon in a thief’s hands means danger, similarly, the role and function of a camera and the resulting product (photograph/video) depends on whose hands it is in, and the intention or forces driving the individual. Contrary to the common saying that “the camera doesn’t lie,” it is important to note that in every photograph, there is a context, perspective, and possibly intentions, and if all these are not unpacked and understood, there will be metaphorical or literal distortion in its interpretation and meaning.
Terry Barret explains three characteristics that guide how we look at or respond to photographs: selectivity, instantaneity, and credibility. The selectivity nature refers to the different kinds of selection involved in the process of taking photographs, where photographers use their camera’s viewfinder to create a visual cluster. The choice of visual cluster and viewpoint is often based on the photographer’s intention because a varying field, frame, or viewpoint potentially varies the visual information or meaning. A good example is the illustration in Figure 1, showing how framing in photography can be used to twist a narrative, where an oppressor is presented as the oppressed. Hence, the selectivity characteristic of photography allows for the representation, presentation, and interpretation of a situation by choice, exclusion, emphasis and elaboration.
Figure 1: Framing of visual information in photography (Source: https://globalter.com/en)
The second characteristic of photography is instantaneity, which indicates that what photography shows is an instant that existed in time. Hence, different instants of the same visual cluster could have different visual information. For example, different instants of the visual cluster or frame in Figure 1 could show the true situation. This is why video provides a more accurate storyline or narrative than photographs because it is time-based and combines multiple instants. Lastly, photography has a significant level of credibility, and people tend to believe a photograph is a reality recorded by a machine, even when there is no justification. Due to this characteristic, photographs have been used as resources to evidence narratives and push either positive or negative agendas. Hence, if the camera has such credibility of evidencing narratives through its product (photograph), then it can also be used as a tool for either reclaiming past narratives or creating new ones.
Reclaiming narratives through visual documentation
You may wonder why I early talked about the camera and how that links to black history month, especially the theme of reclaiming narratives. Well, I believe it is difficult to reclaim a narrative without evidence. In fact, after spending over a decade researching within the domain of cultural heritage and Indigenous knowledge systems, I realised that one of the contributing factors causing distorted narratives is the over-reliance on oral history created ex-situ. Several historical documentations were acquired by ex-situ processes or by an out-group, and this raises concerns and questions about “who speaks for/about the past?” and “How do we ensure what is documented/disseminated is not a distorted view of the past?
In a recent project that I was part of, which aimed to document the culinary heritage of an Indigenous group in Ghana, we attempted to address these questions by employing in-situ processes where the camera is placed in the hands of the Indigenous knowledge holders, and they were empowered and capacitated to capture and tell their stories through visual documentation. We used a co-design approach, with six phases (Conceptualisation, capacitation, collection, correction, curation, and circulation), called the 6Cs Indigenous Knowledge Preservation framework.
The conceptualisation phase of the framework employed the Indigenous Standpoint theoretical lens to engage the knowledge holders in setting out the guidelines for the co-design process. This includes developing a collective understanding of what constitutes an authentic culinary heritage and how visual technology could be used to document this heritage in a way that is culturally respectful and an accurate representation of their cultural values. The second phase (Capacitation) is a capacity-building phase where adequate time and resources are allocated to boost the effective participation of IK holders. This includes identifying the appropriate technologies that benefit all parties and organising hands-on training on the use of those technologies for visual documentation (such as camera handling, composition and image framing, file transfer, storage and retrieval of images, basics of graphic design and software manipulations, and print and digital media outputs.).
Subsequently, the third phase (collection) integrates the actual technology into the daily life of the indigenous knowledge holders to document their knowledge through the functionalities provided by the technology. This includes the operation of a digital camera, lighting and props to shoot photos of indigenous culinary heritage. At the correction phase (4th phase), the people esteemed to be experts in the indigenous knowledge (such as the elders and queen-mothers) validate what has been documented, followed by curation (5th phase) where the collected data is composed into a representation that could be relevant and meaningful to the audience. Lastly, the final phase (circulation) involves finding the appropriate means to make the recorded information accessible to the community and other audiences. One of the purposes of the last phase is to ensure that indigenous knowledge is disseminated and preserved for many generations to come; because narratives, history, and knowledge can be easily distorted when they are not well disseminated and preserved.
In conclusion, to reclaim narratives, we need to start by, i) questioning knowledge and information created ex-situ, and promoting an in-situ approach to knowledge creation and preservation; ii) repositioning knowledge holders and capacitating them to become the creator and custodian of their knowledge, information, and history; iii) amplifying marginalised voices and unheard perspectives, so that we can tell as full a story as possible.
Leave a Reply