Kappa

 

Truborndoor2: Bboydragon has no skill, Kappa that’s y he is the King

Kaladias: not for long

Truborndoor: lol

Shatteredsaint: take the crown if hes so bad Kappa

Sithlordgaga: SHOTS FIRED

Shatteredsaint: whoevers winning in this lobby is a retarded spammer who can only play 1 character and they’re soo cheap Kappa

>> no matter who it is

Truborndoor2: Kaladias is just toying with him Kappa

 

This is Josh. His portrait has been used hundreds of times today, and countless times over the last four years, to express an emotion in an online chat. It has a name: others like it are called PJSalt, BionicBunion, SwiftRage and DansGame. But this is Kappa. And Kappa rules the online fighting game scene.

Josh used to work at JustinTV, a video streaming company, started as a way of broadcasting any live content the user wanted to be seen on the internet, free of charge. Computer games players saw this as a convenient way of broadcasting their competitive play, and it has now become the main streaming channel for the fighting game community.

Part of the streaming service is the ability for the viewers and broadcasters to engage in live text chat, which acts as a form of commentary about or around what is being shown on the stream. Early in JustinTV’s life, the company introduced a range of emoticons, images, mostly of faces, which form a shorthand for expressing an emotion. Alongside the more conventional ‘smileys’ that are found in SMS messaging, they included a list of staff pictures as hidden content, ‘Easter-eggs’, only accessible if you knew the correct code phrase.

One of these was Kappa. If you type Kappa (it’s case-sensitive) into stream chat, on the screen you see this image:

kappa

 

 

Early adopters of these emoticons saw a similarity between Josh’s enigmatic smile and the internet meme Trollface. A sarcastic smirk, like he’s trying not to laugh at something. Maybe you. So people started writing ‘Kappa’ whenever they said something they didn’t mean, to mark it out as a sarcastic comment, mocking the players that they were watching on stream – ‘Great combos Kappa’, or the ineptness of the stream broadcasters – ‘Call Spooky Kappa’, or the ‘stupidity’ of their fellow stream-chatters – ‘I’m sure you’re better than Tokido Kappa’. The people watching these streams, rather than featuring in them, came to be called ‘stream-monsters’, partly because of the vitriol that was unleashed in the stream chat. And Kappa became their badge. It showed that you were in on the joke. It showed that you were a regular watcher of these streams, that you had the shibboleth, the key to understanding your role in proceedings, as the braying crowd.

There are many other things broadcast on JustinTV. It was originally just what the name is: a single channel live broadcasting Justin Kan’s life, a real-life self-imposed Truman Show, the ultimate reality TV.  In 2007 Kan started wearing a webcam attached to a cap and streamed online via a laptop-backpack system.  But it was only the competitive gaming community, originally with Street Fighter IV and then with Marvel Vs Capcom 3 and others, that really wore Kappa as a badge of belonging. Maybe it’s because of the sense of superiority felt when beating your opponent, displaying a better knowledge of the quirks of the game engine.

So someone found the original image that the Kappa emoticon was based on, the staff picture of Josh – hi-res Kappa!. And people started incorporating the image into their online forum avatars (small pictures that show up next to text you write), and forum signatures (larger and wider images placed at the foot of every forum text entry).

Internet forums are one place that gamers go to discuss, share ideas, argue and promote events when they are not playing games or watching streams, a relic from the time before Facebook’s ubiquity and live streaming. But they are still used, still a place to become visible in the gaming community. And using Kappa as your image meant you weren’t a Noob (a new player). So hundreds of images now exist incorporating the Kappa face, Josh’s face. Josh has become a meme.

 

Kappa Composite

 

As Susan Blackmore, a prominent memeticist, argues : ‘the effective transmission of memes depends critically on human preferences, attention, emotions and desire. Affinity spaces [such as the gaming community]  play an important role in the fecundity of a successful meme, especially when the meme is distributed online.’ The very nature of memes is that as they are passed from person to person, they keep changing and evolving along the way.

Josh’s face itself reminds me of the Mona Lisa: the soft shadows, face tilted to one side, an unreadable smile. Is he laughing with you, or at you? And it functions in much the same way when used. ‘I’m being sarcastic, do you get the joke?’ I am superior, but I’m one of us. The image is vague enough to be read in many ways, to be related to by many people, but specific enough to be instantly recognisable. Like a brand created by accident. It is no longer an image, it is a signifier, a marker of belonging, of the joke being on you for even caring.

 

David Blandy (*1976) is a British artist, educated at the Slade School of Fine Art and the Chelsea College of Art and Design in London. Blandy’s work deals with his problematic relationship with popular culture, hereby asking the difficult question of just how much the self is formed by the mass-media of records, films and television, and whether he has an identity outside that.

Self & Alfonso– Why is the measure of love loss?

Jeanette Winterson, from Written on the Body.

 

Whitstable, 2004; I think.

Things are already speculative, provisional. The place is / was on a threshold; estuarine of course, but that’s only the start. Between ages of itself, phases of being. In transition, from its multiple previous incarnations, as historic settlement, trawling village, version of a port, a Victorian resort (of sorts) and now – in at least an aspect, a leading one – a metropolitan extension, an urbane mood without the urban for city-fleeing weekenders who, from their weekday working towers of chrome and glass, long for salt in the hair and distressed wood, from towers where even the air is conditioned and the reverie of breeze – tidally inflected, stars of sun on lapping water – remains merely that, a dream.

Open water but not. Defined by capital, the capital. An outreach project. And yet, in all of this fashionable, financial flux, itself; recognisably itself. Peter Cushing, after loss, after his beloved wife; on a bench by the coastal path, staring, day after day, looking so long, willing himself perhaps to become the distance he gazed on, and so to disappearance. We become our loved and so we become our loss. Come once the body of the industry has gone, gutted. Elegies everywhere, like oyster shells, scattered. But still it is, and still, recognisably a place, space with character, and grounded, rooted. It belongs somewhere.

So we went too, out of Hackney heading east; follow the river and stop on the shingle. Go for the light and the shellfish, for the ebb and flow of days, older patterns. Be, and become something else, briefly. Calmer. Never quite at ease, military style or otherwise, but something not so tightly wound that one turn more might break it.

Normally I’d resist all purchases beyond the local pleasures of seafood and certain ales or wines. Maybe a postcard; pin it up later, some kind of talisman, a trace memory, a view, if lucky, from a window one had borrowed for a night or two. ‘Everything becomes a postcard in the end’, says Don DeLillo.

So much rubbish waiting for our money. But maybe something this time, something appropriate with age. Suitably weathered. Books  – things in and of time – it always comes back to books. I am rarely drawn to objects, but paper… this ghost timber, this sense of walking through the forest of words… Actual and unseen burdens, the weight of endless boxes, in the move between temporary properties that seem, when stacked, to be made of the books they house, room space expanding and contracting (and finally always opening out into all the visions of the heads that wrote) with the density of volumes (it can’t be any chance that a Kindle is so called; what’s used to set the bonfire of the books…). Now this will to purchase papered texts seems like the building of a dam against the pixel flood.

Just off the waterfront, one street back and at the fork, tucked into shade, the kind of shop that is so hard to find, and ever more so now, only a decade later, in these all too conscious days; aware of its stock but not so savvy – or even bothered – that it checks online with every sale, making sure it hasn’t missed a gem, a virtual under-pricing; a second-hand shop on the cusp, between its stock and salvage.

Near the door, on a trunk, modest, inconspicuous, as though they’ve just been put down for a minute, while someone sorts the shelves: a clutch of photo albums, a job lot, a memory lot, in the old style, heavy, black, cloth-bound, pages thick, and slightly buckled when the sheaves are full, a little like warped wood, like wood in rain for years and years and years. I sit down next to them and look; maybe half a dozen. Flick the pages, families in Wales and by the sea; the early years of the old century, pre-Millennial; people in neat, small gardens, weddings, promenading, waving, on holiday, at home; people, like strange fish, who can only breathe in the past.

And then, one left to browse through, idling minutes really, before the next indulgence, one left, the slimmest, A4 landscape format, screw-bound fastened, no spine, just these maybe 30 pages secured between the boards, as if the whole collection was not a finished album, even when it only was a virgin product, let alone a gallery, as if it could swell or shrink dependent on the need and the length of available screws.

I open it. On the first page, there are four photographs. Two each of two men, separate, seated. In high-ceilinged bourgeois rooms – paintings, ornaments, a model aeroplane hanging from the ceiling – both are relaxed, sitting back; the older man, pipe smoking, maybe 45, staring into the lens; the younger, 22, looking off. Hand-written titling for the page declares: Alfonso and Robert, F8 Viscaya, Nov 1933.

Remember Alfonso.

And so, the facts: the album is constructed, and not only as all are, with pictures positioned and labelled. It is conscious; and male. It begins in its present of making and runs in reverse (that is, it has been assembled after the event ); or rather, from its now towards an origin, towards the earliest of its evidence, into its own oldest past, 1909, and another age entirely. The images are small, black and white, of course; corner mounted, never more than six to a page, often less; and in remarkably good condition. With only a handful of exceptions, the sequence remains in its established order (occasionally a tango step or two back and forth between years). Most spreads or series are labelled with time, place and forms of naming. In this, the spectrum of chronology apart, it is conventional.

What it shows is, well… at the back, the earliest pictures are literally – and suitably – sepia-tinted. College photographs, young men with surnames on steps and playing fields. An incongruous page of baby-carriage snaps, unscripted. And then the men are seen again, the youthful suits now gone, replaced with uniforms, barracks shot, officers’ quarters, tents, several comedic poses, occasional leave locations, women in group portraits looking anxious, and men also visibly tense before the box photographer.

And then a page of Somme-like dereliction. Bombed out churches, Christ trees bare as bone along the crest, the image surface edging out to white.

Afterwards: the mess at Camiers 1919 ; survivors, greatcoats and women in white headscarves beside a snow-pale road.

This is the world before; the old world; 10 pages or so.

What follows; 13 years clear of the camera.

But in that time, an ocean’s navigation, a journey into heat, and Mexico. Boys again, late teens, physical education students at the Colegio Williams; class portraits, and interiors, and excursions across the country, to the mountains, to the sea, Taxco, Acapulco, San Miguel Regla, Nevada de Toluca, Bellavista; friends informally together, holiday cottages, boot boys and houseboys, the road to El Chico; a melée of shots from 1932 to 1934. A life so far from European straits, from formal clothes and poses, the stresses of the war.

A life lived by a man called Self, by now maybe 40, an Englishman entirely in his class, clean shaven, tall, with hair receding, in shirt and tie outside his house, standing confident, himself. Half a dozen images of him.

And dozens of Alfonso.

Alfonso in cricket whites and rugby shorts, with cats and bicycle and swimming, in bedrooms sitting, waiting, and smooth against a wall; by the car in alpine snow, lying on chaises longues, on all the travels, known to all these places; pages where it’s only him, and one page where there is a single portrait only, his gazing straight into the camera, wary, slightly, vulnerable, open necked, mid-1933.

Self and Alfonso.

And so, the speculation; which is hardly that, of course, when all is weighed. A teacher and a student, the humid freedoms of a zone beyond the empire map, colonial (regardless of the nations), the two-way promises of wealth and flesh and who knows how much love, for surely there’s affection here, these are photographs of continuous looking, a developing bond, mapping the hues of the gazed upon. For how long, who can say? And beyond the opening page, forwards, towards us… the bright, lost lives within the album slipping into times no longer held by any means or form; becoming what they always and anyway are, unknown, and now completely gone.

What else are photographs but images of what they, we didn’t see? The negative space around the image is the first omitted element, but even the presence is tense with all that can’t be carried over. Light artist James Turrell is renowned for his sky view portals, apertures that hold the clouds, a frame around the day, that’s all. But frames allow, enable the human need for stories. Once a frame is there, things are in or out. Choices can and have been made. And so a narrative begins. The album is the personal frame par excellence, and on all the obvious levels, from the choice of subject, mood and moment to sequence, size and overall selection.

But oh, the life outside the album’s cell. There the living’s done. Surely photographs are grief emulsion, shards of raw experience torn from their pitch and flow, spirit thefts (we know) and site thefts, fragments of their place, rich threads of the weave. This is how the world unravels. In Laura Mulvey’s thesis – for cinema – it is death that is caught 24 times / frames per second, not life.

In certain folk tales, the ‘death’ of a character is not found or carried in the body, but in another object, exterior and elsewhere (an egg in a tree, a box in a tower etc.). Destroy that avatar and the life is taken. This remains true in many material ways. Death can grow from within a person and spread; or it can come from outside, in the form of a car, a blast, a bullet, a plummeting plane. An album serves in a way to remind us of this fact. By creating a vessel of our selective, chosen life onto pages, we are securing its inverse, its passing, there too. All albums are books of remembrance in the mortal sense, even while their maker is breathing, dispatches from the kingdom of the (soon to be) dead. A visitors’ book for the earth, signed in half-fixed smiles, unsteady lips already trembling somewhere else, then closed.

Photographs of absence, not of presence, regardless of the people in the shot.

Is this because, at base, at source, an album is, due to its dependence on the (soon to be) dead, finally a forgetting project; with memory a burden, and this burden seeking dispersal, a passing out of the head onto the page, to be held there as if in amber for a period, and then, inevitably, following its subjects to the place beyond all lights.

As Julian Barnes wrote in his recent essay on the death of his wife: ‘grief is love’s negative.’

Despite the proximity of the images in this strange collection of threshold moments, recognisable scenes of universal human business, it is as if they might have come from the perspective of the early aerial shots of pioneering Parisian balloonist photographer Nadar, another subject of Barnes’s book Levels of Life, rising into the air over the city to show something that had never been seen before. All change. From above, everything is different and all the hurt, all the joy is gone to naked eyes, only figures moving like ants across a yard, or rain across a pane. Flying above it all, and at some point, maybe, freefall; flying become falling.

We can never know another human being. The Japanese Zen garden of Ryōan-Ji is designed specifically so that not all of its features can be viewed from a single point.

It’s strange because, when I first acquired the album, beyond the otherness of the people featured -  their actual lives and the evidence of their times, even if the currency of their moment seemed accessible – I felt nothing like the pressure of the terminal that I have done recently, examining it again closely for this piece. I am older, yes, and my son has been born since I bought it, the surest measure of the finite span. But something else seems to invest this encounter with its constellation of elegy.

There is one image, on its own on its black sheet (on the reverse of the very first page), taken from what looks like a fourth floor apartment or hotel room balcony on a residential avenue, a tight diagonal shot down the shadowed street. There is nobody in the picture. It is a bright day. On the next railing along, there is something like a towel or blanket.

Placed centrally, this picture appears always to have been alone. There is no trace of the imprint of lost pictures or mounts. It stopped me in my tracks when I first saw it, and it still does. It feels unquestionably, despite the many surprises of the collection entire, and its broad, dramatic sweep as described above, like the hinge to the entire album. On this balcony, in this room, here, something happened. Something happened; finally, the only sure description of all our fleeting lives. We all have a balcony moment in our own experience, a key, sometimes only turned into awareness after the fact, when a door opens and a threshold appears, and there is a before and an after, and a frame and a choice.

Whitstable, £2; I think.

 

Gareth Evans is a writer, curator, editor of the journal Artesian, publisher of Go Together Press and works as the Film Curator of London’s Whitechapel Gallery. He programmes PLACE, the annual cross-platform festival at Aldeburgh Music in Suffolk and produced the essay film Patience (After Sebald) by Grant Gee.

Carson Sink, Nevada, by Timothy O' Sullivan.

Carson Sink, Nevada, by Timothy O’ Sullivan.

A photographer’s wagon stands stock-still, arrested in the midst of a long drag across the wide-open reaches of America. Four mules – famous for their bloody-mindedness – have swerved from their trajectory, doubling back along their plodding tracks. The wagon’s U-turn is marked in a great double sweep along the ground, a double swathe of sand displaced by the wooden wheels.

All around these features, containing them much as a canvas might contain a few brushstrokes, is a landscape of surpassing blankness. This is Nevada, but it could be Egypt, Syria, or Lebanon: a great empty topology, nearly as empty as the sky above. The shapes upon the earth are legible only thanks to tonal contrast. That is all that black and white photography affords, of course – the same chemistry which yields the silhouettes of animals, wagon, tracks, and scrub grass. The ground is so featureless, however, that it prompts thoughts of way the image is built up. One can almost feel the slow deposit of particles accumulating on the flat substrate of paper, creating an impression of depth, much as windblown sand continually builds the surfaces of rolling, textured hills.

And then we notice a feature in the foreground, cutting right across this slow drama of emergent, horizontal figuration, leading right up to the camera’s position, and hence our own: another set of tracks, those of the photographer himself. (Or are there two sets? Perhaps his assistant struggled up the hill alongside him.) No attempt has been made to erase this passage, to un-disturb the terrain.

Not surprising, really, since the subject of the picture seems to be that of operating on difficult ground. Timothy O’Sullivan, the man who made this image, was among the first photographers to ‘go West,’ and certainly the most ambitious. In the early 1870′s he carried his kit across miles of thinly populated country to capture craggy mountainsides, scrappy mining settlements, traditional Native American communities. In this one photo, however, his objective was different. Like a general turning his attention away from the front in order to assess his supply lines, O’Sullivan shows us the efforts required to make his work.

His pride was justifiable. Photography then was a new medium and an extraordinarily cumbersome one, difficult even to imagine in our own day of convenient pocket-portability. Today we might take three, five, twenty pictures of an only slightly interesting subject, knowing that we can delete them later. For O’Sullivan, every photograph was extracted from the world only with difficulty. That lends this mule-and-wagon picture another layer of meaning: for it prompts the question, ‘why this spot?’ What was it that made O’Sullivan go to the trouble of turning his wagon around, so that he could record this particular place?

At a stretch, we might guess that he saw a promising composition in this patch of earth – the asymmetry of the mounds’ silhouette, with two dark patches of background setting the lighter foreground in relief. But for me, the point of the picture is that the terrain is unremarkable, unspecific. I like to imagine  that he could have obtained a similar image at any point for miles east or west. That vast tract tacitly frames this image as one of arbitrary decision-making. Nothing visible in the shot prompted O’Sullivan to take it. He simply stopped – and took a picture for no good reason at all, except that of literal self-regard.

Of course, as we Americans have belatedly come to admit to ourselves, the space of the Wild West was not so blank after all. It was inhabited ground before the settlers got to it, and the tragedy that befell the Native Americans should not be far from our minds when we look at O’Sullivan’s work. He is no villain in this regard – he may have been proud of his achievements, but as I have mentioned, one of the most striking aspects of his work was the way he captured, even-handedly, the mixing together of peoples out on the frontier.  Even so, we might recall here Susan Sontag’s observation that ‘A photograph is not just the result of an encounter between an event and a photographer; picture-taking is an event in itself, and one with ever more peremptory rights – to interfere with, to invade, or to ignore whatever is going on.’  The American campaign of westward expansion was undertaken not only with wagons and guns, but also with images – both photographic and painterly – which cumulatively framed natural space as prime real estate. Those other pictures typically lacked the self-awareness of the photographic act contained in this picture. And certainly, they depicted nothing like the U-turn seen here – a motif that suggests a doubt quite alien to the ethos of manifest destiny.

O’Sullivan captured at least one moment when the photographer asked himself, for whatever reason, ‘what am I doing here?’ And today, when the patch of earth he shows us here might well be covered over by a roadside K-Mart, it gives us a way to imagine what might have been otherwise.

 

Glenn Adamson is Head of Research at the Victoria and Albert Museum. His new book, The Invention of Craft, is published by the V&A in conjunction with Bloomsbury.

'Only fragments and shadows can be summoned to bear witness to that which has vanished.'

‘Only fragments and shadows can be summoned to bear witness to that which has vanished.’

The house is strangely featureless, as if most detail had been erased with a rubber, and it were all made of one element. It looks like a house built by someone who does not know what a house is or does. And it is already cracking and falling to pieces. Jonathan Jones: ’Something has been here before you – something with sharp claws and a sense of humour.’

A girl stands at the edge of a black doorway. She is wearing a simple striped cotton dress and perhaps a hair slide. Nothing about how she stands tells us she will ever step off the concrete foundations. She watches us, her hands held loosely in front of her. A man leans against the wall beside her. He is dressed formally in suit as black as the house interior, a tie and a hat. His hand is in his pocket. His eyes are on the girl.

I have the poet and performer Brian Catling to thank for introducing me to this house. It is not the first house I have ever known. But it is very close. Although there is no strip of blue sky or green grass, and no radiating sun, it is simple and symmetrical and archetypal. It is the house we build and unbuild forever.

‘It’s my home. Nothing bad has ever happened to me here.’ Sonia Szurma still lives in the detached, pebble-dash house in Bradford she and her husband, Peter Sutcliffe bought for £16,000 in 1977, before he became known as the Yorkshire Ripper. Another tidy, featureless house; the single garage where Peter kept his tools, the kitchen where he washed his soiled clothes, the garden where he burned incriminating evidence. Her home.

In the early 80′s Brian Aldiss granted me an option on his 1977 teratological novel, Brothers Of The Head. It is the tale of conjoined twin brothers, Tom and Barry Howe – from their birth on the windswept, bleak Norfolk marshes, to their grooming into a novelty punk band, to their inevitable demise. We never see or hear from the brothers themselves, only learn about them through others. As with Jekyll and Hyde, we can never enter the private rooms of various players, only listen to the accounts of what they say took place there. The witnesses claim the dead and keep them locked away.

Over the years North Norfolk became an escape from the city. Near Blakeney I spotted a tiny house perched on a spit of shingle, half-submerged in salt marsh and mists. I was convinced that was where the Howe brothers lived. The archetypal battle for supremacy began in a tiny fetid bedroom within those four walls; one infant’s arbitrary twitch is rewarded, another’s is punished. Aldiss knew that nursery room: ‘Although I was not an Unwanted Child, I was a Not Much Wanted Child. That is what brings suspicion and inquiry into existence.’

Years later we were finally making the film. I told Aldiss about the Norfolk house, which in fact is part of Blakeney Nature Reserve. It turned out he knew that part of Norfolk well: ‘My wife and I were taking a short break… In fact Margaret and I were not getting on too well at the time. We were driving back home… when suddenly I remembered the nightmare that had visited me in the small hours. It burst upon me like a sudden shower… ‘Oh, what a ghastly dream!’ They immediately wanted to know what my dream was about. The more I protested that it was too horrible to tell, the more they persisted – as one might expect. What I told them was the basic story of Brothers of the Head… ‘

The window of Aldiss’ study in Blakeney looked out across the water to the same tiny house I had seen. When we shot the film we used the house. We installed mum and dad and the conjoined Howe twins. Tom and Barry will always live there.

Like a childhood friend’s house, the cinema always smelt wrong, felt wrong. Without knowing the rules, we bought the ticket, took the ride. We entered to be confronted with a second threshold. Like the artist Mike Nelson’s emotionally charged false buildings within false buildings, ‘the rooms and corridors are self-contained, with ceilings. And yet they’re not seamless. They have a raw, wooden hokeyness, a rankness, a stench of bitter memories… It induced a nameless anxiety in those who experienced it.’ (Jonathan Jones) We are dollied slowly towards the Bates’ house, into the hallway, up the stairs. The visitor’s book in Matt’s Gallery reception was part of the installation. When you signed it was a contract ‘to accept his invitation into a fictional world. If you do this, what Nelson offers – very different from the irony we have become used to – is total immersion in a work of art.’

1931, the Isle of Man. The Irving house. No radio, no electricity, no gas. The north wind coming in off the Irish Sea was an intense irritation to James Irving. It may even have frightened him. So he slathered the entire exterior of the house in concrete. Still the wind penetrated the wintery home he shared with his wife, Margaret, and 12-year-old daughter, Voirrey. So he built wooden panelling throughout, insulated their home against the exterior. And the house fell silent. Until Gef came.

The spitting, growling sounds coming from behind the wooden panelling turned out to be not that of a rat, but a talkative mongoose. It proclaimed its identity in a number of ways: ‘I am of a strange creature. I have hands and feet and you would faint if he saw me. You would freeze and turn to stone or a pillar of salt!’ Gef, an entity or familiar or presence, attached itself to the family for six years by which time they would leave a portion of their food for him during meals.

Paranormal investigator Harry Price studied the case in the 30′s and on occasion stayed at the house. ‘Neither Mr. Lambert [his companion] nor I slept very well. The mongoose problem obsessed our minds and made sleep difficult… We saw numerous peep-holes; cracks through which Gef threw things at doubting visitors; squint-holes through which the mongoose watches the Irvings and interrupts the conversation with facetious and sometimes rude remarks. We saw the runs behind the panelling by means of which Gef can skip, unseen, from one room to another, upstairs or down. In Voirrey’s room we were shown Gef’s sanctum, really a boxed partition, on top of which Gef dances to the gramophone and bounces his favourite ball.’

Over those six years Gef developed a different relationship with each family member: James Irving taught him things, and Margaret provided a flirtatious relationship. But when it came to 12 year old Voirrey, it was Gef who played the active role. He looked out for her, he protected her. From what she needed to be protected, we can only surmise, but years later she managed to step out of that black doorway and off the crumbling concrete. ‘I had to leave the Isle of Man and have to work where people have never heard the story about it. Gef has made me not get married. How could I tell about it to the family of my husband?’

Some 60 years after Gef first arrived at the Irving house, Catling and I tracked Voirrey down to her new home. There was no doubt Gef still existed, no doubt he was still looking out for Voirrey. ‘Some say that all this is engineering because I was a ventriloquist… The story is not an engineering. But I hope it never happens.’ Voirrey died in 2005. Perhaps now Gef is free to return to the Land of Mists from whence he came.

Referring to Sonia Szurma, the Mail Online dishes out the customary punishment normally reserved for returning vampires: ‘Her once flowing jet-black hair is now greying and unkempt. The smart wardrobe – and trademark designer sunglasses – replaced by scruffy clothes, lines under her eyes and unflattering tracksuit bottoms.’  The Wests’ home at 25 Cromwell Street in Gloucester was erased down to its bloody roots. Now a landscaped path cuts through the terrace. Every brick was crushed and every timber was burned. When Brian Catling and myself went in search of the Irving house on the Isle of Man the only trace we found was a wooden post spiked with hammered iron, and a lump of the concrete foundations which I still possess.

Tom and Barry’s house still stands on Blakeney Point. In that house, a third nascent head slept and listened and learned to ventriloquise. This third brother was later to be born on the back of his weaker sibling’s death, in Aldiss’ book if not in the film. There are things that must not and cannot be seen outside and publicly. The notoriety and investigations of the event are now all but forgotten. Only fragments and shadows can be summoned to bear witness to that which has vanished.

 

‘Talking Mongoose’, by Harry Price. Photograph courtesy of Mary Evans Picture Library.

‘Vanished! A Video Seance’, by Tony Grisoni & Brian Catling can be watched here. 

http://www.tonygrisoni.co.uk

 

Bataille

A black and white photograph, in all likelihood taken in 1898. I found it in a book I bought in 1988, published the previous year. I saw it the first time I opened the book – it is the first image shown – and I have never forgotten it. It is clearly a reproduction of an existing paper print: the corners of the damaged original are rounded; a diagonal tear in the top right corner emerges from a scrap that is half torn out and folded over; and another, almost horizontal tear can be seen right of centre. There are various stains. Tears and stains combine to form a distinct pattern, which seems to have belonged to the image from the start: not just part of the image as I see it now, but as the photographer had intended it.

The photo presents us with part of a facade, very likely that of an ordinary family house. The plaster applied to the natural stone is flaking off where puddles of rainwater have splashed up time after time. We see the lower part of a two-sashed window frame with single-glazed panes; its wooden frame is painted white, but seems soiled. Reflections make it impossible to make out the details of the interior of the house; the gutters throw two horizontal shadow lines across the front of the house; a natural stone window ledge juts out a few inches to the left and right of the window. There is a wooden shutter on the left, but not on the right; it hasn’t been fastened to the hasp, which hangs loose, the weather must have been mild when the photograph was taken. It’s easy to imagine how light would filter into the space through the two oblique slits of that one shutter when closed. If the archetypical facade of the time is anything to go by, it is not hard to guess at the arrangement of the room beyond. Below the window, a rectangular part of the plasterwork has a slightly different colour than around it: does it conceal a sloped former entrance to a cellar? The pavement in front is cobbled, the rounded stones separated by a sandy grout.

In front of the facade a wooden chair sits on the pavement, its ornate structure finished with a glossy varnish. The legs in front are the fruit of intricate woodturning; the back legs are squared, tapering towards the end; the seat of the chair has been fastened by large-headed nails. Only a small bit of the equally ornate and carefully varnished backrest is visible. The chair isn’t supposed to be there: it is not a street bench; it belongs inside, in the best room of the house, and was only brought out to the street for the taking of the photograph.

Placed in front of the window, the chair is occupied by a man supporting two children on his lap. He sports a cap with a peak throwing a strong shadow across his forehead. The top part of the cap is light-coloured, the bottom is dark, black perhaps. In between the cap and one of his large ears a small bit of neatly cut hair is visible, his nose is big and angled, not unlike that of a character in a comic book. He wears a moustache, but the stains on the photograph partially obscure what could be a goatee. The man is dressed in his Sunday-best clothes: a three-piece suit with big buttons, a white shirt and tie. A white piece of cloth juts out from under his thighs. Somebody put it on the chair before the man took his seat.

Of the two children, the youngest – maybe one year old – sits on the man’s right leg; an older child sits on his left, both are looking at the camera, unlike the man, whose body and face are turned at a below-45-degree angle away from the lens – putting his wide-open left eye exactly on the vertical axis in the middle of the photograph, along with the gleaming buttons of his jacket, and the areas where we know his navel and crotch to be. It seems as if the man is listening to the camera. The smaller child on the left – just grown out of the baby stage – has his fingers clenched into near-fists and his toes are tensed up, he seems unhappy and scared. The older child of about eight seems far more at ease and is smiling, unfazed: the boy who can handle anything. The scene could be read as a representation of domestic bliss: a father with his children on his lap, peacefully seated in front of the family home. But then again, on account of the man’s stiff posture and expression, one might just as easily imagine that the photographer had asked the children to pose on a statue.

This particular configuration brings to mind the Pietà genre in painting and sculpture, that of Mary, the Holy Virgin, cradling the dead body of her son Jesus in her lap. The figure of Mary in Pietà scenes differs from another classical depiction of Mary, that of the Sorrowful Mother: the Pietà Mary is more peaceful and accepting. The photograph inverts the idea of the Pietà in many ways. What we see is not a mother, but a father; there are two sons instead of one: one happy, one not very joyful at all. Rather than dead, the sons are at the very beginning of their lives. The small child is Georges Bataille (*1897). Next to him is his brother Martial (*1890). Their father on the chair is Joseph-Aristide Bataille (*1853). At the moment the picture was taken, Joseph-Aristide was already infected with syphilis – he was ill with it before Georges was even conceived – and it had blinded him. At the time of Martial’s birth there were no symptoms yet. So here the Immaculate Virgin is replaced by an unsightly, blind, incontinent – no doubt the reason for the white cloth on the chair – father, riddled with syphilis, the disease of the whoremonger.

His piercing eye, at the centre of this photograph, was the inspiration for his son George Bataille’s famous book, Histoire de l’œil, written in 1928 under the pseudonym Lord Auch: ‘Je suis né d’un père P.G. (paralytique général) qui m’a conçu déjà aveugle et qui après ma naissance fut cloué dans son fauteuil par sa sinistre maladie,’ and also: ‘…Le plus étrange était certainement sa façon de regarder en pissant. Comme il ne voyait rien, sa prunelle se dirigeait en haut dans le vide, sous la paupière et cela arrivait en particulier dans les moments où il pisait.’ 1

The Immaculate Virgin is replaced by a Gilles de Rais-type figure, someone I can imagine luring children to danger. The painters and sculptors of Pietà scenes most likely admired the accepting Virgin with her dead son, but here we can’t really imagine the photographer being guided by a similar sentiment: his camera is positioned higher than the eye of Joseph-Aristide; the photographer seems to look down, cynically and condemnatory, on the syphilis sufferer and his offspring. The vanishing point fixed by the camera is higher than l’Oeil Cave that was later described by Bataille in Le Petit, published in 1943 under another pseudonym, Louis Trente. Not until 1961, a year before his death, in an interview with Madeleine Chapsal, did Bataille indirectly admit that he was in fact the author of Histoire de l’Oeil and Le Petit, and that the descriptions in those two publications are about his father. His brother Martial, the cheerful child, vigorously denied this.

The photographer looked into the ‘dead’ eye of Joseph-Aristide. He was able to do so by looking through his camera, with an indirect, removed kind of observation. In his films Alfred Hitchcock often invites us to look from one space, through another space at the action in yet another. He perfected this technique in Rear Window. From the vantage point of his apartment, Jefferies (James Stewart), spies on his neighbour, Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr) across the courtyard in between. It is no coincidence that Hitchcock, in a climactic scene, has Jefferies look through the long lens of a stills camera, and at the moment when Thorwald enters Jefferies’ apartment – the moment when the action enters the voyeur’s own space – has Jefferies fire the camera flash several times.

We look at this photograph and we are not unmoved: we know it depicts Georges Bataille and his brother on the knee of their father. We don’t look into the father’s eye, but at a photographic representation of it. We, weak observers, look through the dark room of Bataille’s literary work, at the depiction. We are piggybacked by his writing. The photographer needed his camera, his room in between, Bataille needed the life of a writer.

————-

1 ‘I am born of a paralytic father, who conceived me when he was already blind, and who after my birth was confined to his wheelchair by his sinister disease’, and ‘… The strangest was definitely the way he looked while urinating. As he saw nothing, his eye was moving up in the void, under the eyelid. This happened especially during the moments when he urinated.‘

————-

 

Wim Cuyvers (°1958) is a Belgian architect who works as a forester at Le Montavoix in the French Jura. This text is a translation of the commissioned original, written in Dutch.

Hélène Binet, Vitra Fire Station, Weil am Rhein, Germany, 1993. Architect: Zaha Hadid.

Hélène Binet, Vitra Fire Station, Weil am Rhein, Germany, 1993. Architect: Zaha Hadid.

Hélène Binet (* 1959, Switzerland) is considered one of the world’s foremost architectural photographers. In a career spanning several decades, she has been commissioned to photograph numerous projects by the likes of Peter Zumthor, Zaha Hadid, John Hejduk, Daniel Libeskind, and others. A magnificent overview of Binet’s work has just been released in the shape of a gorgeous monograph, Composing Space, published by Phaidon. Thierry Bal went to meet her in her cavernous studio in North London.

As a photographer, when and how did it become clear to you that you wanted to focus on architecture?

I was trained in Rome – where I grew up – at the Instituto Europeo di Design, which had a very technical emphasis. However, for me a technical approach was not enough. I come from a family of musicians, and after my studies I thought I might be able to work for a theatre, an opera house, or a dance company, and that photography could be an interesting way to be part of the performing arts world.

But then some important things happened in my life: I met a young architect, Raoul Bunschoten, who is now my husband. At the time he was teaching and studying with two important architects, John Hejduk and Daniel Libeskind, who were both interested in trying to redefine architecture. The idea of making iconic buildings was not their main focus. I started to photograph some of their projects: they were not buildings in the strictest sense, but more like conceptual installations, between art and architecture, that tried to deal with the role of space. My camera became a tool to understand. I was thrilled by that, because photographing was not about representation, it was about discovery. As a young photographer it can be hard to keep your mind free from the existing images that you are bombarded with, and to distill something personal from the world.

That was a key period, as I had the chance to meet people that could give me work. I came to London, and Alvin Boyarsky, the dean of the Architectural Association, sent me to Greece to photograph the work of Dimitris Pikionis, and to Sweden to photograph that of Sigurd Lewerentz, even though I wasn’t very experienced. It was very clear that that was what I wanted to continue doing, and I had this sense of having embarked on a big personal investigation, not knowing where I was heading. There was no clear recipe for what photography of architecture was supposed to be.

One of my first experiences of photographing space and buildings was after the earthquake of 1980, in Irpinia, Italy. I got quite involved and photographed the ruins, in order to preserve and give value to something that was not anymore. Again, my first experiences did not involve buildings, and from the start my approach was about questioning.

You mention that when you first started, your camera was not really so much a tool to represent, but a tool to understand your own personal engagement with what was in front of you. Would you say that is still the case?

I really hope so. Of course, I am not as fresh now as when I first started. The projects from the past are now part of my experience. You can’t establish a tabula rasa, that would be fake. Ideally, I would like to be able to see things the way they are experienced for the first time, when you question your emotional response to what is in front of you. You go to a building, and there are so many feelings that have an impact.

There is no such thing as THE rule how to approach a building: you might be using the same lenses, or consistently keep the same shooting distance; that is a personal choice. What recurs is that I am interested in reduction, in silence. The encounter with architecture is such an overwhelming experience that I don’t want to compete with it. If  you do compete, you end up with off-putting, rather agitated images and the viewer might think: ‘I’ve seen it, I don’t want to enter the space’. By not saying absolutely everything, by using black and white film for instance; by focusing on interesting details such as a crack in the wall, or a shadow, you make people want to enter the space. This is what I want to achieve: to create a dialogue between the viewer and the space.

One of the architects that you first worked with, John Hejduk, has said: ‘Compared to other art forms, when we visit and experience architecture, we are digested by it’. That is of course hard to achieve with a photograph. Would you say your photographs offer something additional or may even alter the overall aesthetic possibilities of the building? 

Photographs have their own aesthetic identity, parameters and qualities. A photograph and the building it represents are not one and the same thing. Photography is concerned with time and framing, and is about renaming and displacing: you can bring the photograph to the wall, to the book.

When I work, I want the aestetics of the photograph to echo those of the building. I don’t try to deform, but rather to draw attention to certain qualities of the building by using my tools. That is why I like to understand the work of the architect as much as possible. Not always directly: sometimes I draw a lot from seeing early sketches, in order to appreciate the character and the main concept of the building and the range of things that made the sensibility of the architect go in a particular direction. But I don’t like seeing too many renderings beforehand.

Hélène Binet, Housing, Berlin, Germany, 1988. Architect: John Hejduk.

Hélène Binet, Housing, Berlin, Germany, 1988. Architect: John Hejduk.

Would you say that what you have described are the main roles or functions of the architectural photograph, and do these differ from other types of photography?

Yes, you could say the architectural photograph needs to bring out the essence of a building. But it is not uniquely qualified to do that: I think most photography is concerned with finding something essential within the subject matter, whether you shoot a portrait and you want to capture the aura of a person, or whether you are a nature photographer: you never really want to compete with what is in front of you.

I find it striking how photographs of buildings can really shape the way we think of or remember a particular building. Personally, I have experienced this when I saw your great shots of Peter Zumthor’s Therme Vals after having visited once. I now mentally picture your photographs very easily, and in a way they’ve come to represent the project as a whole. Is there a particular mechanism at play here? 

I am very interested in how photographs can stay with you. Therme Vals as an example is very particular: the building is rather octogonal, and was devised with a strong emphasis on framing: framing the water, the rest areas, the surrounding landscape. I think that what you experience is strongly echoed in the photographs; it seems quite natural that the images linger. When I photographed Therme Vals I chose not to apply a big perspective, and rather than focusing on perspective lines, I picked out lines formed by edges. In contrast, with the photography of one of the first projects by Zaha Hadid, Vitra Fire Station, I had to agree with some of the feedback I received: the building was saying an infinite amount of things more than a set of photographs could. That is probably the case in Vals too, but to a lesser extent; Zaha’s building is not octogonal, it seems endless. You walk through it and there is a constant flow of change. No picture can retain that. In Vals I could keep hold of a certain feeling: for instance, I wanted to convey the experience of contemplating the landscape while resting, so I stepped back and created a duality between a lounging chair and the landscape seen through the huge window beyond. I could not do that with Hadid’s Fire Station. It all depends on the building.

Hélène Binet, Therme Vals, Switzerland, 1996. Architect: Peter Zumthor.

Hélène Binet, Therme Vals, Switzerland, 1996. Architect: Peter Zumthor.

As an architectural photographer you bring a box that gathers light into or near another – much larger – box that gathers light. And the photographic frames you create echo the framing of space by the building. To me, contained within this there seems to be a sort of essence of the relationship between photography and architecture. Would you agree?

Yes, that is something I have experienced. I talk about this dialogue in my forthcoming book, with regards to Libeskind’s Jewish museum in Berlin. I was also struck by the idea that the same ray of light that touches the floor of a building, will also touch the film or digital sensor.

You could compare it to the pas de deux in ballet. The total image is made out of two bodies, you can’t separate them. For me, that is photography of architecture: one final new shape is made out of the interaction between camera and building.

Hélène Binet,  Jewish Museum,  Berlin, Germany, 1998. Architect: Daniel Libeskind..

Hélène Binet, Jewish Museum, Berlin, Germany, 1998. Architect: Daniel Libeskind.

That is a nice way to put it. You’ve said that you like photographing buildings in an unfinished state, and often also the actual building sites. Could you elaborate on this?

I like to look at how a building works in terms of forces. You need specific and simple things to look at. The way something is built, how the engineers have resolved certain issues, all this is very pure at the stage of construction. You are faced with the skeleton of the building, or in case of a lot of Zaha’s buildings and Libeskind’s Jewish Museum: a casting process, which is very technical and sculptural. Only the essential bare minimum is there: no ornaments, windows, stairs or fire escapes. That can be very powerful. I think it is important to record that.

You called your recent lecture at Harvard University ‘Composing Space, which made me think of the film maker Tarkovsky who described his practice as ‘sculpting in time’. Time and space as raw material. Is that how you would essentially describe your way of working? 

Yes. For two reasons: in photography, the moment you insert your frame into the constant flow of reality, you are composing. Or rather, you are recomposing the space that is being experienced. You need to know about the rule of thirds, how much foreground to show, what to include or exclude from the frame.

And then there is the musical parallel: as a photographer I feel like a musician who follows a score. I interpret it my own way, but I need that score.

You’ve also compared shadows in photographs to pauses or stretches of silence in a musical composition. Continuing this analogy, what musical instrument would you relate to most in that sense, if you consider your practice?

I think you need to compare the attitude. I have a very strong fascination for the voice. As a vocalist, you are both the instrument and the player of that instrument. A sound is generated by a voluminous vibration, which is very spatial. In that sense the voice is not any different from the cello, the piano, or the drum: the body is the equivalent ‘casa acústica’.

Immersed in architecture, you experience the space primarily with your body. So perhaps, the voice is closest to that.

John Hedjuk complimented you by saying that some of your photographs brought him back to the time when he had his first exciting thoughts about an early stage project. These thoughts can later on become burdened by various complex financial, legal and other processes. Would you say that is somehow what you try to do? To go back to the core qualities, the excitement of the architectural environment?

It was an amazing compliment, I was of course very happy with that. Yes, I try to go back to that feeling of freedom, when the creative process seems almost effortless. But you don’t know how that holds. When an architect starts thinking about a building, he or she has to connect with something, something very free in his or her imagination: a dream, an obsession. To give that obsession form, to turn it into reality, he or she might of course have to make a lot of changes. But the initial sense of freedom is wonderful, and it feels great if I manage to capture that.

One thing I think you do extremely well is to show the context the building is situated in, alongside the building – not just what is immediately visible, but also the impact of weather for instance, but without using the wide-angle lens all that much. Has this been a strategy from the beginning?

I am interested in the minute things that are happening: phenomena or their traces that occur in and around the space. The building is a box that channels light, it deals with water in a particular way, it has entry and exit points. Photographs can refer to the external world, but I am interested in glimpses of things that are just there. No need to say: ‘I am going to look at the city’, but rather, ‘I am going to look at how the city is influencing that building’. Some of my early photographs of Hejduk’s IBA project in the 80s illustrate this. His building would have been completely different if it wasn’t situated in Berlin. Hejduk was obsessed with local references: towers, the surveillance, fences; the buildings reflect that. I was looking for some sort of presence, a wall under construction, or an old caravan nearby. I think that a building is successful when it can absorb those elements gently, when there is a playful relationship between that building and its surroundings.

More and more you are photographing landscapes, alongside more ‘pure’ architecture. In a way the architects here are the universe, gravity, or the weather. Is there a difference in approach when you photograph landscapes?

I don’t think so. I am not interested in panoramic views, where everything is present and beautiful, but you feel distant from it. I don’t show big skies. When I was asked to contribute to the book Paysages en Poésie, I went to Switzerland and photographed in the Alps, which are totally overwhelming. The whole world is contained in just one valley. I decided to concentrate on diagonal lines which I always found to be very prominent when I went on walks.

Forces of nature mould the landscape. Shapes are created by magma flows, weather, by movements of ice caps which push stones along. I look at these phenomena the same way as I would at a building cast by Zaha Hadid.

Hélène Binet, Paysages en Poésie, Vaud Alps, Switzerland, 2004.

You grew up in Rome, surrounded by history. Are you conscious of the fact that as photographer you are also a historian, and you are have some responsibility with regards to the creation of historical documents?

It has been said that when you make a photograph, you create an instant ruin. The ruin is how we look at history, as it offers traces of what is not anymore. Creating a photograph allows for people to look at something that no longer exists. However, I never thought about this sense of responsibility. When I look at my photographs I am often amazed by how much they say about the particular time they were created in. With Hedjuk I thought, God, this is so 80s. In some shots you could see only one tiny roof and just one car. You know that things will or have changed, but you don’t think about that at the time. You just do what you feel you have to do. When you look back, you realise that the photographs represent a time that has gone.

I recall a project Peter Zumthor was commissioned to do: the Museum of Terror in Berlin, at a site where the Gestapo had formerly been housed. A very beautiful, and tough building to construct; but in the end they decided not to go ahead with it. Zumthor was very upset. They stopped right after the foundations and the staircases had been built. I went there, and stood on this heavy soil – very aware of the unpleasant history – and photographed what already felt like a ruin before they took everything down. The photographs are now the only visual representations of that project. So that felt quite poignant.

We’ve talked a lot about Peter Zumthor. How different are the longstanding working relationships you have with him and Zaha Hadid?

Quite different. Zaha loves my work, but she has always commissioned a variety of photographers: she likes her buildings to be seen by different sets of eyes. She still does that now.

Zumthor is more about control. He doesn’t like to produce too many publications, and when he does produce books, he is very particular about the look and feel of them. He prefers his buildings to be seen and experienced in situ. I respect him a lot for that. Other photographers have worked with him, but he asked me to do his first book. I did not know so much about his work, I had only seen one of his buildings, I wasn’t really a Zumthor fan as such.

How do you feel your work has changed over the years? 

When I look back at some of my early photographs I often think they are the best. People seem to think you have to immediately reach for some kind of summum. These photographs weren’t amazing technically, but some are very strong, and I see them as early sketches of something that I developed further during my career, and I made it more defined. But that process is not completely linear.

It was very interesting to work on the book, and to make choices, because it is not just about one project. After making the book, I felt I was much more demanding in terms of what works and doesn’t work. You edit for 6 months, and you reach a point when it becomes much easier to say ‘no’ to a particular photograph.

What are the photographers or artists outside architecture photography that you have found particularly inspirational?

Too many to mention. Definitely Vermeer, the Dutch painter: to me he was the master of conveying the quality of space, in a very calm and subtle way, based on observations of light and composition.

I recently loved the William Klein exhibition at Tate Modern, where I had another look at his seminal book New York. This book – one of the first I saw about the city when I came to London – had such a big impact: he was both the photographer and the creative genius behind the book. New York taught me a lot about the value of the book, about presentation and the creation of stories with a particular pathos.

These are very different artists that made me discover different things. Of course you can’t get past the golden period of Man Ray, and Lazlo Moholy-Nagy either. They’ve done everything: they’ve opened all the doors, had incredible energy, had this love for life, wanted to celebrate and be free of rules. That is what you carry with you during your whole career, you try to keep up the sort of energy they had.

Johannes Vermeer, The Geographer, c. 1668-69.

Johannes Vermeer, The Geographer, c. 1668-69.

Is there one building (to photograph), architect to work with, or particular project that would be your dream commission?

A while back I visited Kasbah in Morocco. The architecture is of the kind that makes you unsure if it was created by excavation; whether they took the earth away to create space, or if something was built on top of it. The relation with the earth is so strong. The earth and the buildings are the same environment, with the same colour. I thought it could be an interesting challenge to try to understand this complexity photographically.

Also, I once went to a lecture by a scholar named Joseph Connors, and he was talking about how Borromini [the 17th century architect from Ticino, a leading figure in the emergence of Roman Baroque architecture] was very innovative in his use of spirals. He was showing us little tools developed at that time that helped Borromini to create wooden spirals. He first used the spiral in a library, a model that can be seen as a precursor to its later incarnation in religious architecture. One very simple tool allowed the creation of something new. I think it would be a great idea to go photograph the tools, the library and then also the spiral tops of his churches, and to show these photographs in an exhibition where everything is presented at the same scale.

Kodak Ektachrome 34 1978 frame 4, C-41 Photographic Print, 120 x 120 cm, 2012, by Adam Broomberg & Oliver Chanarin.

A young, glamorous Caucasian woman wearing a white fur stole, long black evening gloves and an expensive-looking pearl bracelet is pictured from the waist up in front of a mid-grey background. The way the photograph is framed makes it unclear, but she is surrounded by what appear to be three velvet cushions in primary colours: one blue, one yellow and one red. Her friends call her ‘Shirley’.

The print she inhabits is what is known as a ‘norm reference card’ and the model pictured worked at the Kodak lab in Rochester, NY, in the mid 70′s. When colour film was first developed in the 50’s, Kodak photographed a white female employee , the original Shirley, and distributed a picture of her to all of its colour printing labs across the US. All subsequent cards with different models are known as ‘Shirley cards’, and ‘skin-colour balance’ in photographic printing refers to a process in which your Shirley of choice is used as a basis for measuring and calibrating the skin tones in the photograph.

It was the French director Jean-Luc Godard who made the apparent predilection of Kodak for white skin famous, by refusing to use Kodak film stock on a filming assignment in Mozambique in 1975. He had been invited by the newly-elected Marxist president Samora Machel – alongside Jean Rouche and Ruy Guerra – to formulate a new model for a national television station. Local TV didn’t exist in Mozambique and Machel didn’t want to follow the Western capitalist model. Godard accepted the commission on the condition that he could use video and not film. Kodak film, he insisted, was ‘racist’.

It was only after Kodak’s two biggest consumers, the confectionary and furniture industries, complained that they could not accurately render dark chocolate or dark wood that the chemists in Rochester began to develop an emulsion that could more accurately depict darker colours. Their Gold Max was the first popular consumer film to address this problem: it was initially referred to by Kodak as being able ‘to photograph the details of a dark horse in low light’.

The relationship between the social and the technical, the possibility that politics could be bound up with the material, and the idea of a material unconscious has always interested us. Once, on our way out of Tel Aviv airport after visiting and photographing Yasser Arafat in his compound just weeks before his death, our 5”x 4” film was X-rayed maybe 30-40 times. The Israeli security staff knew where we had been and what we had been up to, and they were deliberately attempting to damage our film. They succeeded. The yellow waves – a result of X-ray damage, evident on the negative and subsequently on the print – is their clumsy signature. What is so interesting is that the film continued to record the narrative of that conflict even after it had been exposed. Film, as a material, it seems, has a longer biography then we imagine and has a political life of its own, one of which we are not entirely in control.

Recently, we accepted a commission to ‘document’ Gabon. We made two trips out there to photograph a rare Bwiti initiation ritual. Months before our departure from the UK, we began to collect unexposed Kodak film stock that had expired between the 1950’s -70’s; film that Godard would have called racist. We took just this film stock along with us on our journey deep into the rainforest to find the most orthodox and authentic version of this ritual. Using outdated chemical processes we succeeded in salvaging just a single frame from the many colour rolls we exposed there. This is it.

 

 

Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin are artists living and working in London. Together they have published nine monographs and have had numerous international exhibitions.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers