PHOTOGRAPHY AS A PARTICIPATORY METHOD

8/14/2019 PHOTOGRAPHY AS A PARTICIPATORY METHOD

1/54


2/54

Uniwersytetim.AdamaMickiewiczawPoznaniu

Wydzia Historyczny

InstytutEtnologiiiAntropologiiKulturowej

JonatanKurzwellyNr.albumu:340631

PHOTOGRAPHYASAPARTICIPATORYMETHODINVISUAL

ANTHROPOLOGYFOTOGRAFIAJAKOMETODAPARTYCYPACYJNAWANTROPOLOGIIWIZUALNEJ

Pracalicencjacka

napisanapodkierunkiem

drAgatyStanisz

Pozna 2012


3/54

Pozna,dnia30maja2012

OWIADCZENIE

Ja, niej podpisany Jonatan Kurzwelly, student Wydziau Historycznego

Uniwersytetuim.AdamaMickiewiczawPoznaniuowiadczam,eprzedkadan

prac dyplomow pt: Photography as a Participatory Method In VisualAnthropology,napisaemsamodzielnie.Oznaczato, eprzypisaniupracy,poza

niezbdnymi konsultacjami, nie korzystaem z pomocy innych osb, a w

szczeglnociniezlecaemopracowaniarozprawylubjejczciinnymosobom,

aninieodpisywaemtejrozprawylubjejczciodinnychosb.

Owiadczam rwnie, e egzemplarz pracy dyplomowej w formie

wydruku komputerowegojest zgodny z egzemplarzem pracy dyplomowejw

formieelektronicznej.Jednoczenieprzyjmuj dowiadomoci,egdybypowyszeowiadczenie

okazaosi nieprawdziwe,decyzjaowydaniumidyplomuzostaniecofnita.

..............................................


4/54

BAthesis

InstytutEtnologiiiAntropologiiKulturowej

AdamMickiewiczUniversity

Tutor:drAgataStanisz

Pozna,2012


5/54

[AllthequotationsfromnonEnglishpublicationsaremydirecttranslation]

[Allpublishedphotographshavebeenmadewiththecooperationandagreementofpersons

presentedinthem]


6/54

Content

Acknowledgments 6

Introduction 7

Vision.Differencesinperception 8

Perspectives.Multiplerealities 15

Photography.Truthandinformationalvalue.Language 14

Participation.Researchexamples 19

Viewsfrominsideproject(2010) 27

Conclusions 51

References 52


7/54

Acknowledgments

IwishtothankmytutorAgataStanisz,theworkreviewerTarzycjuszBuliski;those

who gave me literature recommendations: Marcus Banks, Jorge Grau Rebollo and Paula

Gonzlez Granados; those who helped me with English grammar: Michael Kurzwelly and

EricaFontana;andallthestaffmembersoftheIEiAKforenablingmetostudyanthropology.

IalsowishtothankMariaLebiodaforoursharedworkwiththeviewsfrominside

project;JesusRuvalcabaMercadoandAleksandraIciekfortheirhospitalityandgreathelpin

partofour fieldwork;BarbaraKeifenheim,MarcinKozowskiand JacekSchmidt for their

advices and their help with the project organization; all the project sponsors: Adam

Mickiewicz University, SanDisk, KingCross Marcelin, Empik, QuickNet, Events Center, TD

Studio,GoblinandBiuroProjektoweJoannaStykaLebioda.

I want to especially thank Witold Jacrzyski for his generous hospitality and

pricelesshelpduringourfieldwork;andofcoursethemostimportantallourNahua,Tzotzil

andKaqchiquelhostsandfriends,whohavebeenreallygenerous,hostedus,gaveusfood,

talkedwithusandwillinglyparticipatedintheproject.

Manythankstoallofyou!

- 6 -


8/54

Introduction

In this thesis my goal is to theoretically ground, and discuss the possible uses of,

participatoryphotography in socialand culturalanthropology.However,beforediscussing

photography,Iconsiderthesubjectivityofsightbypresentinganempiricaltheoryofvision

andmakingaclaimofmultiplicityofrealities.Iprovidesomeculturalandlinguisticevidence

ofthe lackofobjectivity inperceptionandthereby Ishowhow individualpeoplecanhave

verydifferentrealitiesandperspectives.The ideaofmultiplerealities isaconceptadapted

from Amazonianideasofperspectivism.

Ithenbrieflyoutlinesomepreviousstatementsonphotographyanditsconnectionto

realityand informationalvalue,startingwiththe initialclaimofphotographyasamirrorof

reality,asproposedbycritics CharlesBaudelaire,RolandBarthes,SusanSontag,andTom

Gunning. Then I propose a way of combining the theory of vision and perspectivism

described earlier with theories of photography to create a new understanding of the

informationalvalueofphotography.Iwillalsodiscusstheconnectionbetweenlanguageand

photography.

Thesecondpartofthisessayfirstdiscussesseveralexamplesofvisualparticipatory

projectsandsome issuesemergingoutofthem.Later Igivean introductiontotheproject

ViewsfrominsidewhichIconductedtogetherwithMariaLebioda.Idiscussseveralissues

ofparticipatoryphotographymethodologyand things thatneed tobe taken intoaccount

whileplanningsuchprojects.Iprovideexamplesofphotosmadeduringthisproject.

Thegoalof thisessay is to introduceacertainwayof thinkingaboutphotography,

and todiscusssomeaspectsof it. It isnotacompletemanual,and therearemany things

thatarenotdiscussedhere,butIhopethisessaymaybeusefultothosewhoareplanninga

participatoryphotographyproject.

- 7 -


9/54

Vision.Differencesinperception.

Dale Purves (neurobiologist from DukeUniversityMedicalCenter) andBeau Lotto

(ophthalmologist from University College London) in Why We See What We Do Redux

(2011)presentthewhollyempiricaltheoryofvision,asolutiontotheinverseopticsproblem

theproblemofambiguitybetweenthesourcesofretinalstimulationandtheretinalimage.

Theyclaim that the sourcesof retinal stimuluscannotbedeterminedbyanoperationon

imagesassuch(PurvesandLotto2011:58).

PurvesandLottocriticizethepreviousapproachesinwhichthevisionisexplainedas

anaccuraterepresentationofthephysicalworld(definedaswhatweareawareofseeing)

(Ibid.:3).Analyzingallaspectsofvision (lightness,brightness,color,form,distance,depth,

andmotion),theyclaimthatdirectinformationabouttheworldisunavailable.(...)despite

ouroverwhelmingimpressionthatweperceivetheworldasitis,whatweinfactseeonthis

basis isnota facsimileof thephysicalworld that isoccasionallymisleading (causingvisual

illusions),butasubjectiveworld fullydeterminedbyassociationsmadebetween images

and successful behavior over the course of spacies and individual history (Ibid. ix). The

conceptofthesubjectiveworldofeveryindividualwillbecrucialinthisessay.

They underline that the physical context (physical parameters) is interpreted by

empiricalprocesseswhichlinkimageswithbehaviorbytrialanderrorinteractionswiththe

environment. In other words, what we see is a result of how we learned how to see.

Perceptionswecreatefromtheretinalimagesaresubjectiveconstructs.

(...)therearemanydifferencesbetweenretinalimagesandtheperceptionstheimages

ultimately give rise to. These differences include: (1) the perception of lightness,

brightness,andcolor,even though thesequalitiesdontexistassuch inobjects, their

illumination,or the light reaching the eye; (2) theperceptionofdistance anddepth

despitetheabsenceofthesefeaturesintwodimensionalprojections;(3)theperception

of objects as stationary despite continual movement of retinal images due to

movements of the eye, head, body; and (4) the perception of motion when objects

changeposition,even ifasequenceof images isstationary (as inmoviesandvideo).

(PurvesandLotto2011:3)

- 8 -


10/54

They argue, giving evidence from laboratory experiments, that eachof those qualities of

whatweseeisdeterminedbyaccumulatedexperience,bybehaviorswhichhaveworkedin

thepast.Theyargue thatwhatwe see isnotanexact link to reality; it isdefinedby the

behavioralsignificanceofsensedata.

Iffeatureanalysisasamodeofoperationisruledoutinprinciplebytheimpossibilityof

apprehendingthephysicalworldbyoperations in imagesassuch,then it follows that

the information thatvisiondependsonmustbeofadifferent sort. [...]visual system

usesawhollyempiricalstrategy;therelevantinformation,andthereforewhatwesee,is

thehistoryofhumanand individualexperience.Accepting this idea requiresa radical

change in how one thinks about the structure, function, and ultimate purposes of

vision(Ibid.185).

What interests me is how much the realities (worlds) people perceive differ one from

another.Howmuchdifferentcantheworldsofpeoplebe?

Agreatexample isgivenbyColinTurnbull inthecaseofBaMbutiPygmiesfromhis

fieldresearchinCongo.Turnbull,togetherwithKenge,aPygmyyouth,droveoutsideofthe

forest inwhichKenge lived,throughplaceswithhighvisibilityatthefootoftheRuwenzori

Mountains.

Kenge lookedover theplainsanddown towhereaherdofaboutahundredbuffalo

weregrazingsomemilesaway.Heaskedmewhatkindofinsectstheywere,andItold

him theywerebuffalo, twice as big as the forestbuffalo known tohim.He laughed

loudly and toldmenot to tell such stupid stories, and askedme againwhat kindof

insectstheywere.Hethentalkedtohimself,forwantofmoreintelligentcompany,and

tried to liken thebuffalo to thevariousbeetlesandantswithwhichhewas familiar

(Turnbull1961).

Astheydroveneartotheanimals

[]herealizedthattheywererealbuffalohewasno longerafraid,butwhatpuzzled

himstillwaswhytheyhadbeensosmall,andwhethertheyreallyhadbeensmalland

hadsuddenlygrownlarger,orwhetherithadbeensomekindoftrickery.(Ibid.)

- 9 -


11/54

LaterastheydrovefurtherthroughNationalPark,andKengewastryingtoguesswhatthe

animals theysawonthewaywere.TurnbullexplainsthatKengewasno longerafraidor

unbelieving;hewastryingtoadapthimself,andsucceeding,toatotallynewenvironment

andnewexperience(Turnbull1961).This isanexamplethatseeingdistanceanddepthis

notaninbornnaturalfeaturebutisgainedduetoexperience. Therearedifferencesnot

only inwhatwesee,butalso in thewaysofexplainingandunderstanding it.There isno

universalityinperception.

Marshall Segall, Donald Campbell and Melville Herskovits (1966), using several

geometricalandoptical illusions,1 investigatedwhetherperception is influencedbyculture

ornot(Segall,Campbell,Herskovits1966).Theycollecteddatain15societieswiththehelp

ofotherresearchers,makingananalysisof1.878peoplesresponses.Theypointedoutthe

importanceofphysicalenvironment:()plainsdwellerswouldprovemaximallysusceptible,

urbandwellersmoderatelysusceptibleandgroupsthatliveinrestrictedenvironments(e.g.,

equatorialforests)minimallysusceptibletothehorizontalvertical illusion (Ibid.:4).But in

addition to the determination by environmental factors, they also underline the cultural

differences: () certain classesof experiences aremore likely tooccur in some cultures

than inothers,differences inbehavioracross cultures, includingdifferences inperceptual

tendencies, can be great enough even to surpass the everpresent individual differences

withinculturalgroupings (Ibid.:5).Muchcouldbesaidaboutwhat isproblematic intheir

approachandtheirmethods,buttheimportantcorollaryis:whatpeopleseediffers.

TheTurnbullandSegall,CampbellandHerskovitsexplanationsaremainlyintermsof

features of living environment and functionality. Worth mentioning is the SapirWhorf

Hypothesisaconceptionclaimingthat languageshapesthoughtsandshapesthewaywe

perceiveandconceptualizetheworld(andthereforeshapeswhatwesee).Thishypothesis

hasbeentestedmanytimes(alsousingvisual,film,andparticipatorymethodsseeWorth

and Adair 1975), with some affirmative and other negative results. Lera Boroditsky,

psychologist from StanfordUniversity,describes a seriesofexperiments thathave tested

howthenotionofspace,time,shapes,substancesandobjectsdifferbetweenpeoplewho

speak different languages. They compared Korean and English speakers, and Tzeltal and

1These included the MllerLyer and Sander parallelogram illusions, two horizontalvertical illusions and a

perspectivedrawingillusion.

- 10 -


12/54

Dutch speakers,and found that theyusedifferent terms todescribe spatial relationsand

spatiallocations.

Forexample,Englishdistinguishesbetweenputtingthingsintocontainers(theappleinthebowl, the letter intheenvelope)andputtingthingsontosurfaces(theappleon

the table, the magnet on the refrigerator door). Crosscutting this

containment/support distinction, Korean distinguishes between tight and loose fit of

attachment. Forexample,putting an apple in abowl requiresdifferent rational term

(nehta) fromputtinga letter inanenvelope (kitta),because the first isanexampleof

loosecontainmentandthesecoundanexampleoftightfit.Further,puttinga letter in

an envelope and putting a magnet on the refrigerator are both described by kitta

becousebothinvolveclosefit(Boroditsky2003:918).

Do those crosslinguistic differences have cognitive consequences? Laraine McDonough

showed to Korean and English speakers a series of visual examples of tight fit and one

exampleof loosefit (orviceversa), theKoreanscouldeasilypickouttheoddpicture,and

Englishspeakerscouldnot.(McDonoughin:Boroditsky2003:918)

Anotherexperiment tested thecognitiveresponseofspeakersofdifferent languages

to differentialgroupingofgrammaticalgenderofobjects.ItdoesnotprovetheSapirWhorf

hypothesis,butitshowsthatthereisarelationbetweenlanguageandperception.

SpanishandGermanspeakersascribemorefeminineormoremasculinepropertiesto

objectsdependingontheirgrammaticalgender.Forexample,askedtodescribeakey

(awordmasculineinGerman[derSchlssel],andfeminineinSpanish[lallave]),German

speakersweremore likelytousewords like hard,heavy,jagged,metal,serrated,and

useful,whileSpanishspeakersweremore likely tosay golden, intricate, little, lovely,

shiny,andtiny.Todescribeabridge,ontheotherhand,(awordfeminineinGerman

[dieBrcke],andmasculine in Spanish [elpuente]),German speakers said beautiful,

elegant, fragile, peaceful, pretty, and slender, while Spanish speakers said big,

dangerous,long,strong,sturdy,andtowering(Boroditsky2003:920).

Lera Boroditsky summarizes that the evidence available so far suggests that distinctions

made available by ones language may indeed impose important constraints on ones

- 11 -


13/54

thinking. According to Boroditsky, languages influence many aspects of human cognition

(like the examples given above), and linguistic processes are pervasive in fundamental

domainsofthought.Althoughsheclaimsthatlanguageisapowerfultoolinshapingthought,

itdoesnotdetermineitcompletely.Ouranswertowhetheritistheindividualexperienceofphysicalenvironment,nature,

culture, and language or other factors that are causing the differences in perception

depends on the paradigm we with which we respond. Here I try to present those few

approachesfromdifferentfields,inordertoshowthemultiplicityoffactorsonwhichhuman

perceptiondepends.

Perspectives.Multiplerealities

As the visual perception of each individual can differ dramatically and similar

examples can be given forother senses than sight2 we can say that theworldof each

individualisdifferent.There isnoepistemologicallyobjectivereality,andit is impossibleto

definewithoursubjectiveperceptionwhetherthereisoneobjectiveontologicalreality.We

haveaccessonlytoourreality,throughourbody3.Nobodyisanoutsideviewer.Thatis

whyIwillspeakaboutamultiplicityofrealities.Eachperson,eachbody,hasitsownreality

or,inotherwords,itsownperspective.Theperceptionandunderstandingofobjectsandof

others will differ in different perspectives. Those realities, those perspectives, can have

many common points and similarities, which in terms of what is (the meanings) are

intersubjective agreements. The perspective is defined by the body and previous

experiences, aswell as by different processes and relations, which people establish with

objectsandotherpeople.

AgoodexampleofdifferentperspectivesisgivenbyTniaStolzeLima(1999),inthe

caseoftheJurunapeopleinsouthernAmazonia.ShehasbeentoldbyaJurunawomanthat

Thepeccaries [alsocalledskunkpigsorNewWorldpigs] live incommunitiesdivided into

2Idonotclaimthatsightisadominantsense;itisnotmyintentiontobeoculocentric.Asthisisashortpaper

onphotography,Iusesightinordertomakemytheoreticalpoint,comparehumaneyeperceptionwithcamera

andembedphotographyinperspectivism. Idobelivethatallsensesarerelated,andphotography isnotonly

visual, and canprovokeother sensual experiencesormemories. Elizabeth Ewart (2008)writes,usingas an

example thecaseof thePanarpeople,seeingalsomeansbeing seen (visionandvisibility),andbeingseen

involvesthewholebody.3Idonotdividebodyandmind.ThuswhatIcallbodyisanassemblageofthephysicalshapeandthewaysof

being(thatarealsorelatedanddependoneachother).

- 12 -


14/54

families and organized around a chief endowed with shamanic power. They inhabit

subterranean villages andproducebeer,which, from ahumanperspective consistsofno

morenorlessthananextremelyfinewhiteclay.(StolzeLima1999:109)

Thisisanexplanationofthedifferentpointofview,thedifferentperspectiveofthepeccariesandacomparisonwiththeperspectiveofJuruna,whichisappliedintheirrelations

withanimals. Jurunapeopleknow thatdifferentbodieshavedifferentperspectives,which

are as valid for them as our perspectives are for each of us. In Amazonian perspectival

cosmologiesallbeingsthathavesoulsseethemselvesashumans,andtheyseeotherbeings

aseitherpreyorpredators(Ewart2008).

To give another, maybe easier, example of different perspectives (without the

cosmology aspect)we can think about thedifferentnotionsof some concreteobjectsor

places forexample,astaircaseinanapartmentbuilding.Usingrelativism,wecansaythat

thereisonestaircaseseeninadifferentwaybydifferentpeople.Foronepersonthesestairs

maybeanormalwaytocrossbetweendifferentlevelsinabuilding.Forachildthatlikes

toplaythere,itmightbeaplaygroundoraplaceofjumpingandslidingdownthehandrail.

Foranolderpersonwithwalkingdifficulties,itmightbeaninsurmountableobstacle.Butfor

amouseoranant,itmightnothaveafunctionatall.Sowhatrelativismmightdefineasthe

sameobject seen indifferentways,perspectivismwoulddefine ratherasamultiplicityof

objects and meanings in different realities connected with different bodies. In each

perspectivetherecanbeadifferentnotionofit,therecanbeadifferentunderstandingofit,

so in each perspective it will be a different thing.4 According to Tarzycjusz Buliski and

Mariusz Kairski, The body creates perspective, perspective creates the world, the body

verifiesitsauthenticityandassertsitselfinitthroughitsexperience.Entitieswithdifferent

bodies, have different perspectives, they see the world and other beings with different

bodiesintheirownway.Inotherwords,theyareindifferentrealities(2011:297).

Theexistenceofthestairs isalsodependentontheperspective,accordingtoTnia

StolzeLima:Pointofviewimpliesaparticularconceptionaccordingtowhichtheworldonly

existsforsomeone.Moreprecisely,whetheritisabeingoranevent()whatexists,exists

forsomeone.Thereisnorealityindependentofasubject.(1999:117)

4IuseasimplifiedmodificationofwhatiscalledAmerindianperspectivism. Formoreaboutperspectivismsee

ViveirosdeCastro(1996and1998)andStolzeLima(1999).

- 13 -


15/54

And of course, it is important to mention that the individual perspectives change

constantlyasourbodieschangeandaswegainmoreexperiences.Thenweestablishnew,

processesandrelationsorwechangeexistingyetprocessesandrelations.Thestaircasemay

beperceivedsimilarly, ifsomeentitieswhosharesimilarexperiences,and intersubjectivelyagreeabout themeaning,establishasimilarrelation.Howeverafteradramaticchangeof

thebody,oraftersomenewexperiences,onemaychangeonesperceptionofthestaircase.

Moreover, we see ourselves through interaction with others. The others are like

mirrorstousandtoeachother.Byseeingthedifferentothers,webecomeconsciousabout

ourselves,andaboutwhatdistinguishesus.Butwedonotseeothersthesamewaytheysee

themselves.Weseethemonlythroughourperspective,andtheyseeusthroughtheirs.We

donothavedirectaccesstoothersortotheirrealities.Thatiswhyexperienceandmany

interactionsarenecessary inordertogettoknowothersandtofamiliarizeourselveswith

theirperspectives.Duringmoreintensiveinteractions,wechangeourperspectiveofothers,

andwe can try tounderstand theirs. In anthropology thebasic tools forgetting to know

others (and in this way getting to know ourselves) are participatory observation5 and

discussion(orassomesay: interviews).Weexperience(usingourbodiesoursenses)the

alterity,andwetrytospeak (usingdifferent languageswithallthecomplexityof linguistic

subjectivism)aboutthedifferencesintheworldswelivein.Whatparticipatoryphotography

canaddtothisprocessistryingtolearnbypicturesandtheirdescriptionswhattheworldof

theother is like.Ofcourse it isaverydifficulttool,too,and it isassubjectiveas language,

butasananthropologicalresearchmethoditcanbeuseful.

Photography.Truthandinformationalvalue.Language

Howcanwelocatephotographyinallthiscomplexityofperspectives?Inmyopinion

itcanhelpasatooloftranslationbetweendifferentrealities.Whatis,andwhatcanbe,the

informationalvalueofphotographicpictures?

At the very beginning of photographical techniques, when the first images were

created,therewasabeliefofcapturingobjectivereality.Photographywasseenasaphysical

and chemical process that can provide truth. The goal was to create images of nature,

5

Participatoryobservation isatermthatIdonot like.Weshouldnotonlyobserve,butbewiththepeoplewewant toknowbetter. Itshould involveourwholebodyandallsenses,notonly thescientificeyesand

brain.

- 14 -


16/54


17/54

shownthatphotographycanbemodifiedinmanydifferentways,anddependshighlyonits

author.

Latermanycriticsofphotographyemerged,whoarguedinmanydifferentwaysthat

photographydoesnotreflectrealityandthatitissubjectiveandsusceptibletomanipulation.Discussionsemergedabouttheinformationalpotentialofphotography,andformanycritics

photographywasnotareliablesourceofinformation.Manyofthemrefertotheinabilityof

objective information inrelationtoasinglegivenphysicalreality(outsideofthesubjective

human).

OneofthemostfamousauthorswhowroteaboutphotographywasRolandBarthes.

AfterhismotherHenrietteBarthesdied,hewrotethewellknownCameraLucida(Barthes

1996 [1980]). It is a book that both shows his grief and at the same time discusses the

subjectivityofphotography.Ashe tries todealwith themanymeanings thatphotographs

canbegivenhe searches for thenatureofphotography.ForBarthes6 thephotograph is

alwayscarryingitsreferentwithitself(Ibid.).Tohimapipeisalwaysapipe,eventhoughit

might refer todifferent time (refer towhatwas), location,anddifferent feelings.Barthes

hadnotescapedtherelativistproblem,andisreferringtoonephysicalreality.Ifweemploy

theperspectivismtheory,wewillknowthatthepipe,whetherseendirectlyorinapicture,

mightnotalwaysbeapipe,justlikeintheaboveexampleofastaircase.Barthesalsoclaims

thatphotographyissomehowreproducingsomethingthathappenedonlyonce,andwillnot

happenagainexistentially(Ibid.).Inclaimingthisheacceptsthelinearnotionoftime,which

isproblematicasphotographsmayalsoreproducesomethingthatisorwillberepeated.

SusanSontaginherwritings(Sontag1986:140)alsoreproducestheideaofasingle

objective reality.Sheclaims thataphotograph isnotonlyan imageand interpretationof

reality,butalsoatrace,somethingthatisreflecteddirectlyfromtheobjectiveworld.She

separatespaintingfromphotography,claimingthatpaintingisalwaysonlyaninterpretation,

and photography registers the light waves reflected from objects. That is why for her

photography has got the trace in itself, a thin connection with the objective reality,

something that she compares toa footprintoradeathmask. Idisagree,asweknow the

photographicprocessisdeterminedbymanyfactors;weusedifferentlenses,whichmodify

6

Ionly focusonpartof thephotographyreality subjectdescribedbyBarthesand Sontag,and it isahugesimplification of their thesis. Iuse itonly toemphasize the one realityassumption,and Idonotwant to

underestimatetheirworksnortheircontributions.

- 16 -


18/54

the qualities of light waves. We can use different mechanical and chemical or electronic

processes,which register the lightwaves indifferentways.Weusedifferentmethodsof

processing and editing the information registered in this process, and then we can use

differentmethodsofpresentingtheimage.AsDalePurvesandBeauLotto(2011)argue,allthe imagequalities are somethingwe learn to see,just aswe learn to seephotographs.

Photographyasaprocesshasnoconnectiontoanyobjectivereality.There isnotraceof

anobjectivereality.

TomGunning,cinematologistfromtheUniversityofChicago,inamuchmorerecent

publication (Gunning 2004) has written about the subject of indexicality7

. First he

demonstrateshowbothanaloganddigitalphotography,byactionon images (forexample

usingaPhotoshopprogram),canundermineorundotheindexical.Healsotellsusthatthe

recognition of a photographic image as an image of its object depends not only on the

indexicalitybutalsoontheviewersevaluationofaccurateness.Theimagemustbelegible

inordertobelikenedtoitssubject(Gunning2004:41).ForGunningthetruthclaimrelies

on both indexicality and visual accuracy. He gives the example of specific photography

manualswritten for crime scenepolicephotographers,whichdrawon constructsofboth

indexicality and accuracy. Howeverusing theempirical vision theory andperspectivism I

consider indexicality as a construct, a social agreement, about some certain belief of

truth that can be put into photographs. The relationship between the object

photographedandtheresultingimageisonlyanassumedrelationshipthatpeopleassignto

photography.Inthesamewayasthereisnoaccesstoobjectiverealityinhumaneyevision,

thereisnodirectaccesstoobjectiverealityinphotographs.Thepolicephotographymanuals

areanagreement (madeby thosewho created the rulesand thosewhoaccept them)of

which conditions of creating images will make them legally reliable; an agreement on a

specifiedprocessthatinvokessimilarrelationswiththosephotographs.Tomeindexicality

meansonlyanintersubjectiveagreementaboutthebeliefthatacertainphotographicimage

canbesomehowrelated(byexperience)topeoplesrealities,andthattherelationbetween

imageandrealitywillbesimilarfordifferentindividuals.However,thisdoesnotundermine

the informationalvalueofphotography,knowing thatall (notonlyphotographical)truth

claimswillbebasedonsimilarintersubjectiveagreements.

7Usingthetermindexicality byCharlesPeirce,hereferstotherelationshipbetweenthephotographed

objectandtheresultingimage.

- 17 -


19/54

In this essay I propose to combine the aforementioned vision and perspectivism

theorieswithphotography.Forourpurposes,weshouldnotseephotographyasasubjective

tool that isprovidingsomeunreliable imagesofobjectivereality.Weshallsee itasa tool

that can provide information about various realities, a source of information inbetweenperspectivesandrealities.Photographymakingtechniquesorprintedimagesshouldnotbe

separatedfromtheauthor,orfromthemomentwhenthepictureistaken.

Theproblemofmanycriticsofphotographywasthattheycriticizedthephotographic

pictures themselves for lack of objectivity and for information manipulation. If we see a

photographic picture and consider it as a separate autonomic unit, we canonly see and

understand it through our perspective, through our experience and through our

understanding of what we see on the picture. What is important in order to use

photographicpicturesassourcesof informationaboutotherpeoplesperspectives is their

descriptionofthepicture,ofthepicturescontext,andaboutthemotivesandthemeanings

thepicturehasfortheauthorofthepicture(akindofadeixis,anindication).

AgoodexampleisthephenomenonofCatCam,whichhasbecomeveryfamouson

theInternet.ACatCamisasmallphotocamera,mountedontheneckofacat,continuously

taking pictures every minute. Some might think that the pictures as a result contain

informationabouttheparticularperspectiveofacat.Buttheretinalimagesthecatisgetting

differ greatly from the images recorded by the camera, and more important, we have

absolutelynoaccesstoinformationabouthowtheparticularcatunderstandswhatitseesor

whatrelationsithaswithobjectsorotherbeings.Withthismethodwecanonlylookinthe

samedirectioninwhichthecatisseeing,butweseealltheobjectsinthewaywelearnedto

see them, throughphotographs.Wecannotask thecatwhat it isseeingat thisparticular

moment,orwhat itseesat the images.Wecanonlyassume it,usingourknowledgeand

experienceaboutcats.Thatiswhy,inordertogetinformationaboutotherperspectives,the

explanation(combinedwithourownexperienceinteractingwithothers)playsacrucialrole.

AsIhavementionedabove,thewaysthatpeopleexplainanddescribephotographic

imagesplayacrucialroleinthevalueoftheinformationgivenbyparticipatoryphotography.

The strengthofusingbothphotographyand language (discussionor interview) lies in the

inability to fully define their relation. A great explanation is given by Franois Soulages

(2007:295301). At first it might appear that language by the use of acoustic symbols(signifiant) refers to a multiplicity or to one given thing (signifi), and that photography

- 18 -


20/54

relatesalwaystoonegiventhing(thisexacttreeinthisexactpicture).Ifso,photographycan

share meaning through immediacy of image. But as Soulages explains, to be able to

understandphotographywealsousecertaincodes.Someartisticphotographscanbeseen

as symbols or allegories. Advertisingphotographs can give the (fake) informational valueaboutobjectsandprovoke imaginationandconsumption.Familyphotographycanprovoke

memoriesand feelings.Travelphotographycanprovideevidence (Iwas there).Passport

picturescanbeseenasanevidenceofwho Iamby referringdirectly tome;butnoneof

those categories are set anddefined. The perception andunderstandingofphotographic

imagesdependsontheviewer.Thesameportraitforsomeonecanhaveahighemotional

value (somethingunspoken),and foranotherperson itcanbeonlyadescriptionofsome

human,alegalproof.Inthiscaseaverbalexplanationcanhelptounderstandthemeaning

oftheportraittobothofthemtounderstandthepicturefromdifferentperspectives.Also

becauselanguageisnottheonlymeansbywhichcommunicationtakesplaceandknowledge

is transmitted, Ibelieve thatphotoscanenrichethnographicwritingsand shouldbeused

muchmoreoften.

Participation.Research

examples

Photography, an invention ascribed tobothDaguerre andTalbot, served from the

beginninginmanydifferentways.Itwasusedasatoolofshowingculturaldiversity,ofthe

others,givingevidenceoftheirexistenceorexplainingtheirwayofbeing(forinstancethe

famous photographs by Edward Curtis). It has been present in social and cultural

anthropology in many ways, from photographs that have been used as additions to

decorateresearch(asintheworkofanthropologistslikeBronisawMalinowski,FranzBoas,

Edward EvansPritchard and many others), to the use of visual techniques as a basis of

methodologies and the rise of the subdiscipline visual anthropology. In this essay I will

presentseveralexamplesoftheuseofvisualparticipatorymethods insteadoffocusingon

historyofphotographyorhistoryofvisualanthropology8.

8Thehistoryofphotography inanthropology isdiscussed inmoredetail in ElizabethEdwards (1994,2001,

2011). The history of visual anthropology is discussed in Banks and Ruby (editors, 2011). Contemporary

developments and methods are presented in Banks (2009 [2001]) and Pink (2009 [2001]). History ofphotographyingeneralandinconnectionwithartisdiscussedinmoredetailin BorisvonBrauchitsch(2004),

orinthecomprehensivevolumeeditedbyMichelFrizot(1998).

- 19 -


21/54

Whatdoesparticipationchangeintheresearchsituation?Participatorymethodshave

often been praised for escaping from the authoritative position of the scientist, for the

attempt todecrease thepowerdifferentialbetween the researcherand the researched

(Packard2008:63).

Whenthephotographsaretakenasaresultofcollaboration,theycombinethe

intentionsofboth the ethnographer, aswell as the informant, and provide a

resultthatisaneffectofnegotiation(Pink2009:99).

The intentionsof theanthropologistandhisorher researchpartners shouldbe revealed

during discussions. In such a process the created pictures could serve both the

anthropologist (for his publications or exhibitions) as well as the participants (for family

albums,assouvenirs,orphotoswhichtheycanexhibittoothercommunitymembers).The

projectparticipantsmayaswellenjoythe ideathattheirpictureswillbe latershownasa

representationoftheirreality(seethefurtherexamplesinthe Viewsfrominsideproject).

Inthisapproach it isthey,theparticipants, whodecidewhattopresent theyaregiven

more authority. Does it really change the relationship between power and knowledge

creation?JoshPackard,asociologistfromVanderbiltUniversity,hasquestionedthis issue.

In order to equalize power relationships in a project, technical competencies must be

similar.Anunequalpowerdynamicisimmediatelyandirrevocablyestablishedthemoment

the researcher must instruct a participant on how to operate a piece of equipment

(Packard2008:64). Ontheotherhand,theresearchersarethosewhoaretaughtaboutthe

participants lives, so in this aspect the participants have the authority of knowledge.

Howeveritisstillwe,thescientists,whohavethepowertogiveauthority.Forusitisstill

aninvestigation;wewanttoobtainsomeparticularknowledgeanduseitforourpurposes.

Forallthosereasons,inmyopinion,theauthorityoftheresearcherdoesnotdecrease,but

theauthorityofresearchpartnersincreases.Thisisnotaruleanditmightdiffer,depending

on personal attitudes and the exact methodology. It can as well be used without any

concernaboutthepowerdynamics.Iwillgiveexamplesofsuchdifferences insomevisual

participatory projects in order to underline different partnership relations, but also to

brieflyexplain thedifferentmethodologiesemployed, the informationobtained, and thetechnologyused(filmmaking,drawing,paintingandphotography).

- 20 -


22/54

OneofthefirstexamplesIwanttomentionistheparticipatoryfilmprojectledbySol

Worth and John Adair (1972)9, with Navajo in Southwestern United States. They asked

Navajopeopletomakemotionpicturesdescribingtheirculture.Theprojectthey led inthe

1960swas related toquestionsof languageandcommunication.Theywanted to findoutwhatpatternsof filmmaking thepeoplewoulduse,andassumed that thosepatternswill

reflecttheirculture.TheytestedwhetheritwouldbepossiblefortheNavajofilmmakersto

presenttheirculturewithouttheuseoflanguage.

Howdothepicturesonemakes thepaintings,thephotographs,thefilms work?How

doesafilmmakerknowhow,forexample,tosequenceasetofvisualeventsrecorded

on strips of film so that when the viewer sees them, he knows what the filmmaker

meant?Whatprocesses inhumanbeingsallow them to communicatevisually?What

happenswhenthefilmmakerandtheviewerdonotsharethesameculture?Arethere

things we can understand in pictures or film no matter how different our cultures

happen to be? Can we compare the structure of visual events such as paintings or

photographstostructuresofverbaleventssuchaswordsandlanguages?Canwelearn

somethingabouthowweknowourworldbystudyinghowweknowthingsthatothers

communicate to us visually? Can anyone make movies? Can anyone understand a

movie?(WorthandAdair1975:15)

Although the results of the Worth and Adair project do not provide explicit

conclusions, theprojects importance lies in theparticipatorymethods theyused.Project

participantsnotonlymadefilms themselves,butalsoeditedthemandpresentedthemto

othermembersoftheircommunity.Thevideosserved thepurposesoftheresearchers,but

theNavajopeoplealsolikedthemalotandweregladtoproducethem.Inthisproject,not

onlythefilmmakingprocess,thefilmscontent,andtheaudiencesresponsestoit,butalso

the performativity (the moment of filmmaking itself), were important. Although some

aspects of their methods may be questioned, it certainly has created a methodological

model.

Some importantaspectsthatemergedduringtheWorthandAdairprojectemerged

aswell inmy fieldwork. I call it the inadequacyof the technologybeingused.After the

9ItisalsopresentedinBanks(2009[2001]).

- 21 -


23/54

Navajo films were finished, a premiere was organized at the community school dining

room10

.ApproximatlysixtyNavajocametowatchtheresults.Afterthepresentationofthe

film Adair interviewed some adults from the audience about their evaluation and

understandingof the films. Therewere two interesting responsesofpeoplewhodidnotunderstandthefilms:

Whenasked,Doesthatfilmtellyouanything?a44yearoldwomanwithoneyearof

schooling,whoneversawamoviebefore,replied:

I cannot understand English. It was telling all about it in English which I couldnt

understand.

Anotherresponsewas:

ThatpicturewasalsobeingexplainedinEnglish.ThereasonIdidntgetthemeaningis

becauseIcantunderstandEnglish.(Ibid.130)

Theywereallsilent films.WorthandAdair (Ibid.131)assume, thatwhensomeoneseesa

moviehedoesnotunderstand,hemightassume that it is inanother language.Since the

researchersspokeEnglish,eventhoughthefilmhadnosound,therespondentassumed it

wasinEnglish.Ithinkthereasonmightbealsoexplainedwithreferencetotheinadequacy

ofthetechnologybeingused.Films(andothervisualrepresentations)areatechnologythat

can be normal andunderstandable to usbut strange toothers. Readingof a filmor

photography requires previous experiences with this technology as well as with subjects

presentedinit.Ifthewomanindeedhadnopreviousexperiencewithfilms,thetechnology

wasstrangeforher,strangeasthepeoplewhobroughtitwiththem,shemayaswellcallit

inEnglishjustastheotherthingsshedoesnotunderstand.Film,cameras,projectors,and

filmshowingsbelongtotheEnglishworld,sothefilmitselfwasinEnglishforher.Thisis

onlyoneofpossibleexplanations,whichinordertoprovewouldrequiremoreknowledgeof

thecontext.Later Iwill return to theproblemof the inadequacyof the technologybeing

used.

Anotherproject Iwant to recall is Showme yourworld showme your school

(Vorbrich 2009), conducted by researchers and students from the Adam Mickiewicz

10Worth recommendation is a great film made by Barbara Keifenheim and Patric Deshayes Naua Huni

IndianerblickaufdieAndereWelt(1984),whichIwillnotdiscusshereduetothelimitedspace.KeifenheimandDesheyesrecordedKashinawa (endonym:NauaHuni)audience responses toa filmabout theRuhrgebiet (a

Germancoalminingandindustrialarea)

- 22 -


24/54

UniversityamongDogonchildren inMali.Theyaskedschoolchildren,attheageof7to13

years,todrawandpaintpicturesonseveraltopicsandtheirgoalwastoseetheirworld11

from theperspectiveofachild.Artworkshops tookplace inthreeschools,wherechildren

paintedanddrewpicturesonsevendifferenttopics:(1)writeapostcardtoPolishchildrenaboutavisitinanAfricanvillage;(2)showmeyourschool;(3)whowouldIliketobecomein

the future?; (4)whatdoesmymother teachme,andwhatdoesmy father teachme?;(5)

funeralintheeyesofachild;(6)Imanadultnowinitiation;(7)howtheworldwascreated

(Ibid. : 21). Children were also asked to talk about their pictures in front of a camera.

Afterwardsexhibitionswereorganized,wherethepaintingsofallchildrenwerepresentedto

themand to theirparents. Ingeneralover500workshavebeencollectedandbrought to

Poland for further analysis. In this project the topics of images were created by the

researchers,andtheparticipantshavenotbeengiventhefreedomtotalkaboutwhatthey

consider important.AstrongrelationofpowerhasbeenmaintainedEuropeanscientists

fromdevelopedPolandcametoinvestigateandeducatechildrenindevelopingMali.

Differentdrawingandpaintingmaterialswereintroducedtothechildren,andasone

of the researchers mentions (Polaszewski 2009: 54), some of them were unknown and

causedconfusion. Intheschoolclasseschildrenmainlyusedgreypencilsandwhitechalk

theuseofcrayonsandcoloredpaintswasnewforthem.Especiallyinthecaseofcolors,the

technologywas an obstacle and the childrenneeded some time tobe able touse it. As

Polaszewskidescribes (Ibid.)many improper (by improperhemeansdifferent than in

nature12

) colors were used. This is what I earlier described as inadequacy of the

technologybeingused.Howewer itdoesnotmean that the informationwillbe invalidor

unimportant.The informationwillberatherofadifferentkind,andmoreexperimental.As

paints are something completely new, it may happen that more focus is given to the

11AnothergoaloftheprojectwastoprovidedevelopmenthelpbyconductingartworkshopsforchildrenandbygivingeducationalmaterialstothreeDogonschools(giftshavealsobeengiventoteachersandtochildren

directly).Theprojectunderlinestheimportanceofhelpgivenbythedevelopedcountriestothedeveloping

poorones.Itvaluesthegovermentalfoundingprogrammes(theprojectwascofoundedbythePolishforegin

helpprogram),theworkofNGOsandeventhegenerousworkofPolishmissionaries(Ibid.12).But itdoes

notdiscuss theproblematic issuesofdevelopment (seeEscobar1999),suchas therelationsofpower it is

creating, nor does it ask the Dogon people what kind of help they would prefer to receive. It takes the

positiveaspectsofdevelopmenthelpforgranted,andtherebyreproducesallthe issuesraisedbytheso

calledpostdevelopmentcritics.12Descola and Palsson (1996), deconstruct the culturenature dichotomy, by showing that the concept of

natureiscultural,andthatitisuseddifferentlyindifferentcontextsbydifferentpeople.

- 23 -


25/54

materials than to thecontentofapicture. Insuchacase Ibelieve that thesituation itself

(theperformativity)providesmuchinterestinginformation.

Another example is a participatory photography project with children by Paula

GonzlezGranados,describedinherdoctoralthesis(2011).Sheconductedtwoworkshops,one in Shared Schooling Unit in Tarragona (Unidad de Escolarizacin Compartida en

Tarragona),and thesecond inaCommunityCenter inMexicoCity (CentroComunitarioen

MxicoDF)withchildrenandadolescents from10 to17yearsofage.Theworkshopsshe

conductedwereeachbetween3 and5months long,with1or2 sessions aweek.More

interviews have been conducted with all participants based on photographs made

individuallyoutsideof theworkshops.Asa resultpublicexpositionsofphotoshavebeen

organized(Ibid.150152).

Duringtheworkshopsthemainmethodologyconsistedofphotographicwalks,but

picturesofotherauthorsandcertainstyleswerealso introducedinordertofamiliarizethe

participants with photography, as well as to motivate them and introduce some level of

reciprocityof information (in return for the information theyprovided to the researchers

about their lives). The walk places were decided between the researcher and the

participants, leaving the children free to takephotosof the space,ofpeople in it,andof

eachother.DuringthewalksPaulawasthereonlytohelpwith technicalproblems,notto

suggestwhat tocapture inphotos.Therewerenocrucialproblemswith theuseofphoto

cameras,sincetheparticipantshadpreviousexperiencewithphotography,andthecameras

wereofaneasyuseautomatic type.Soherewecan say that the technologywaschosen

adequately. The anthropological goals of the walks were: to observe the dynamics and

reasons behind choosing a location that is good for photographing; to observe the

interactionsduringthewalksandthewaysoftakingpictures;toseewhattheparticipants

were interested in, including how they posed in front of the camera (their auto

representations); conflicts that arose while using the cameras; and finally to analyze the

outcomeoftheimagesinrelationtoallthepreviousinformation.(Ibid.195202).

Theparticipantsalsomadephotosbesidethewalks.Theyweregivencamerasfor27

days,withthegoaltoexplainwhotheyareandwhattheirdailylifeislike.Laterinterviews

wereconductedonthebasisofthosephotos (Ibid.202210).Those interviewsarecrucial,

because Paula Gonzlez Granados interpretations and valorizations of the photos weredifferentfromthoseoftheparticipants.Completelydifferentmeaningshavebeenrevealed.

- 24 -


26/54


27/54

andcriticizedwithanthropologicalandpostcolonialist tools,but this isnot thesubjectof

thisessay.

Anotherexample is theprojectLandmarksofaNewGeneration (Afshar),created

by theGettyConservation Institute.Thegoalof theprojectwas toseehowyoungpeopleunderstandculturalheritagebyaskingquestions likeWhat isa landmark?Youngpeople

frommanycities(LosAngeles,CapeTown,Mumbai,MexicoCity,andParis)showedplaces

thatwereimportanttothemwiththeuseofphotocameras,.Afterwardstheprojectspread

toindependentinitiativesinDelaware,Sydney,andSalzburg.TheGettystaffmemberswere

sokind tosendmeacopyoftheSalzburgprojectoutcomebrochure(Kaindl1997). Inthis

project, young (919 years old) participants were trained in photography skills and

accompaniedbyFieldAssistantstheymadepictures inSalzburg.Thepictureswerechosen

bytheFieldDirector.Thepictureshavenotbeenfurtheranalyzed,andoneofthegoalsof

theprojectorganizerwastoteachyoungpeoplethevalueofculturalheritage(Ibid.10).This

isanotherexampleofaprojectinwhichtheparticipationisverylimitedandtheoutcomeis

mostlyimposedandgeneratedbytheprojectleaders.

Participatoryphotographyalsocanbeusedforarttherapy.Agoodexampleisthe

workofMarcPataut(PatautinSoulages2007:182196)inapsychiatricclinicinthesuburbs

ofParisinthe1980s.Hewantedtogobeyondasimplereportage,andatthesametimethe

clinicwantedtomakeaformoftherapywiththeuseofphotography.Hegavecamerasto

childrenwithoutany instructionsonhowtousethem.Theywereabletoexperimentwith

the camera, to play with it, to use it in their games. Afterwards Pataut observed the

fascinationof thechildrenwhen theysaw theappearanceof imagesonpaper in thedark

room,andhowthechildrenusedtheoutcomeimages(thewaytheymadepersonalalbums,

spoketothephotographs,ordestroyedthem).Lateranexpositionofthesephotosappeared

inthehospital.Patoutisanartistphotographerratherthanasocialscientist,andtherefore

hismethodsandgoalsaredifferentthanthoseofaresearcher. Theprojectprovidesmuch

information about those children and their relationswith what theyhavephotographed,

althoughparticipationoccursataverylimitedlevel.

- 26 -


28/54

TheprojectViewsfrominside(2010)

Myideaofconductingaparticipatoryphotographyprojectdevelopedbeforestarting

myanthropologicalstudies,duringmysummerWorkandTravelvacationsinVenezuelain

2008. Irealizedhowdifferentlymyphotographsareperceivedbymyfriendsandfamily in

Polandandbypeople fromGranSabana.However,themain inspirationwasmycontact14

withCarlotaDuarte,thefounderofArchivoFotogrficoIndgena,aphotographicalprojectin

Chiapas (Mexico), in which local Maya people have been given the opportunity to use

photographybythemselves.AtthebeginningIwantedtocreateaparticipatoryproject,but

moreintermsofacollaborativeartprojectthanasasocialscienceresearchproject.NowI

would describe the first version of the project concept as a rather nave one. At the

beginningIplannedtocooperatewithCarlotaDuarte,buttheprojectdevelopedindifferent

ways (although the locationwaspartiallymaintained).During the very firstmonthofmy

studiesofculturalanthropology, Iwent todiscuss the ideaof thisprojectwithoneofmy

teachersdrJacekSchmidtandhehelpedmetochangethewhole idea intoaresearch

project using anthropological methodologies. Later, Maria Lebioda, another anthropology

student, joined the project, and we cooperated at all levels of preparation, including

fundraisingandlaterthefieldwork.

Withthehelpandadviceofourprofessors,wepreparedaresearchplan.Wewanted

todoanextensivefieldworkproject inChiapas.Weplannedthemethodology;wewanted

to create portraits from inside of the participants. Our methodology and our plans

changedalotoncewearrivedinMexico.Thefirstchangehappenedthroughtheinfluenceof

Jesus Ruvalcaba Mercado and Aleksandra Iciek (scholars at the CIESAS, Mexico), who

convincedus todoanevenmoreextensive researchproject and togowith them to the

regionLaHuasteca,wherewestayedinaNahuavillage(Hueycuatitla)andrealizedthefirst

partofourresearch.ThenwewentasplannedbeforetotheHighlandsofChiapas,wherewe

stayedataMayaTzotzilvillage(LasLimas).AfterwardswemovedtoGuatemalatoaMaya

KaqchiquelvillagecalledSanJorgelaLaguna,neartoLakeAtitlan.Atthosetwolocations,we

workedwithfriendsofWitoldJacrzyski(professoratCIESAS,Mexico). Theportraitsfrom

insideconsistedofageneral interviewwitheachoftheparticipantsabouttheirworkand

14WitoldJacrzyskicontactedmewithCarlotaDuarte.Witoldhashelpedwiththisprojectatallitslevels,and

withouthimtheprojectwouldnottakeplace.

- 27 -


29/54

freetime,theirfavoriteactivities,theirlivingsurroundings,joysandsorrowsofdailylife,and

theirplans for anddreams about the future. In retrospect I think itwas amistake todo

questionnaire interviews,as this imposesourvaluesofwhat is importantand interesting.

Rather,we should have asked the participants to introduce themself, giving them a freechoice of what to talk about. However, at the beginning we followed the questionnaire

strictly,butmanytimestheanswersweredifferentthanwhatwehadexpected(forexample:

the idea of what is work was completely different). They did not understandwhat we

wanted to know, so we experimented with making the questions more open, more as

indications than concretedemandsof responses. However, itwas stillwewho indicated

what we want to know. All interviews were recorded and later transcribed. After the

interviews we explained the use of an automatic digital camera to the participants (we

explainedonlyhowtoturnthecameraonandoffandhowtotake apicture;wedidnotsay

anythingaboutcompositionoraesthetic issues).Thenweaskedthemtomakephotosthat

could introduce us to their joys and sorrows, to things they like or dislike in their

environmentaswellaswhatseemstobeimportanttothem.Weaccompaniedthemwhile

theytookthepictures,andunfortunately,wealsostartedtakingpictures.Ithinkthiswasa

mistake. By taking pictures ourselves, we unconsciously gave examples of what kind of

photoscanbetakenandfromwhichangles,andgenerallyhowacameracanbeused.After

thepicturesessionswe lookedatallthepicturestogetherwiththeparticipants.Weasked

themtodescribethepicturestheytookandtotelluswhytheytookthem.Weaskedthem

to show us which pictures they liked most. Then we invited each participant to take a

portraitphotoofthemselves inthesurroundingsandwiththepeopleoftheirchoice.After

conductingtheprojectineachvillageweprintedphotosofeachparticipantandgavethem

totheauthorsasasmallgift.

Thewholeprocesswitheachpersontookatmostseveralhours,whichwasamistake.

Iamsurethatifwewouldhavespentmoretimewitheachperson,ifwerepeatedthephoto

shootings,thequalityoftheobtained informationwouldhavebeenbetter. Itwasourfirst

fieldresearch(wewentthereduringsummervacationafterthefirstyearofstudies),andwe

mademanymistakes;wehad to confrontourexpectations and the little anthropological

knowledge we had, as well as the difficulties of communication between us and the

participants with their very different perspectives. We had to learn how to speak withpeople,and fortunatelyallpeopleweworkedwithwerevery friendlyandhadenormous

- 28 -


30/54

patiencewithus.Ibelieve,however,thatthemistakeswemadewereusefulforthepurpose

ofthispaper,as Iamnowmoreconsciousaboutwhatcangowrongandwhattoavoid in

furtherprojectsofthiskind.

There are several methodological issues of participatory visual research I want todiscussherewiththeuseofexamplesfromtheprojectViewsfrominside.Oneofthefirst

things to do while planning such a project is to establish the purpose of it for both

researchersandparticipantsthelevelofparticipation.Forourproject,thepurposewas

toinvestigatethemethoditselfanditspossibleuseinethnography,andhowitcanbecome

a method of communicationjust as important as language. As I already mentioned, we

prepared themethodology, thequestions, and the subjectsofphotosbefore starting the

project. This is one aspect I want to critique. Inparticipatory methods, the researcher(s)

shouldworkfromtheverybeginningwiththepeopletheywanttogettoknowbetter.The

participantsshoulddecideabout thesubjectsofphotography,and the researchers should

only give propositions. This way, they are given a voice and the possibility for self

presentation. Ifweare interested inonespecifictopicorpartof lifeofourparticipants, it

should also be discussed with them. The authority of the researcher in the relationship

cannotbeeliminatedduringsuchactions,butIbelievethatthiswaymoreauthorityisgiven

to thepersons we work with.Although it was still us, the researchers,who initiated the

photographysituations,thepeoplemostlyseemedtoenjoyit. Theyliked theideaoftheir

photosbeingpresentedinfarawayPoland,andtheylikedthefactthattheyreceivedprints

afterwards.Ourpresencewasalsoespeciallyimportanttoourhosts,notonlyforeconomic

reasons (we paid for accommodation and food), and possible status increase (those

strangersstayatmyhome,andnotatmyneighbours),butalsosimplyforthefactofhaving

interestingstrangerstotalkto.Somepowerrelationswereunwillingly(andunconsciously)

maintained,eventhoughwealwaystriedtotreatparticipantsasfriends.

I further think we should prepare photos from our own life and environment to

maintainalevelofreciprocityofexchangedinformation.Weshouldgivethepeoplewework

with also thepossibility to get to knowus a littlebitbetter and to satisfy their curiosity

(although it isunderstandablethat,inmanycases,ourphotosshouldnotbeshownbefore

wehavefinishedourphotowork,asitcouldinfluencetheparticipants).

Animportant issueistheaforementionedinadequacyofthetechnologybeingused.Therewereseveralsituations inwhichprojectparticipantsdidnothaveanyexperience in

- 29 -


31/54

takingphotos,usuallyinthecaseofolderpeople.Insomecasestheparticipantsmanagedto

usethecameraafterafewunsuccessfulattempts,andinothertheyuseditwiththehelpof

theirchildrenorgrandchildren.Oneofthosesituationswasespeciallycrucial,asaman(very

friendly)afteraninterviewrefusedtomakephotossayinghedoesnotknowhowtodoit.Iassumedthismeanthedidntunderstandmyexplanationsabouthowtotakepictures,soI

explained twiceagainhow topush the shutterbuttonof the fullyautomatic camera.But

againandagainheclaimedhedoesnotknowhowtodoit.ThenIunderstoodthatitwas

about the camera itself. It was an object thatdidnotbelong to his reality. It wasnot a

problem for me to take pictures. To him the camera was as strange as myself, so I was

allowed to take pictures of him and his wife. He was already used to the situation of

interviewandstrangequestionsbecauseof thepreviouspresenceofanthropologists in

this village, but taking his own pictures was something too strange. For this reason the

technology used in visual participatory projects should be either adjusted to previous

experiences,orprecisely taught (whichwouldchange thecharacterof research).Notonly

the technology, but also how much to teach about it, should be taken into account. In

teachinghowtousethecamera,wealsotransmitourunderstandingandourwayofusingit.

Theuseofphotographictechnologygivessomeadvantages;forexample,itiseasier

than video, requires less preparation time, and needs fewer explanations. However,

dependingonthecircumstances, itcanbetoodifficulttousephotography,for instance, in

cases where the technology is not adjusted to the knowledge and existence of the

participants (however, the experience of situations such as when the camera becomes

something too strange forparticipants might also provide some interesting information).

The photo shootings we arranged were rather short ones. We always accompanied the

photographers during their photo shooting. This provided us with information about the

performativity of taking photos, but it does not leave them free to photograph in more

privatecircumstances.Ithinktheidealmethodwouldbetodoboth(justlikeintheproject

ofPaulaGonzlezGranados)and leavethecamerastotheparticipantsforsometime.We

didnotdo thisbecausewehadonly two cameras for theparticipants. I consider it as a

mistake, in retrospect, not to have allowed time for individual (unaccompanied) photo

shootings.

An advantage of the method of participatory photography is the possibility ofgivingexplanationsofwhatweseeorunderstanddifferently.Manytimesparticipantsmade

- 30 -


32/54

photos I understood in a completely different way than they did. It was a result of my

different experiences and, often, my stereotypical thinking. After explanations by the

participants,Idiscoveredcompletelydifferentconnotationswiththesubjectofthepictures.

Averygoodexampleisapicturetakenbyourfirsthost,oneofthefriendliestpersonswemetAlfredo,atailorandapossibleprospectiveshaman.Oneoftheveryfirstphotoshe

made,justafteraphotoofhisworkspaceandhisdaughter(theorderoftakingphotosalso

providesimportantinformationaboutparticipantspriorities),wasaphotographofthesmall

creekbehindhishouse.

(photo:AlfredoHernandezMaria)

Ithoughtthathewasemphasizingtheimportanceofhavingasourceofwaternearby,which

is used for cooking, cleaning, dishwashing and so on. But later, while talking about the

photos,Alfredomentioned thedangerandworries related to the creek.During the rainy

season, the levelofwater risesdramatically,and therehavebeen floods in thepast.The

watersupplywasonlyasecondaryreason.

OtherexampleswerephotostakenbyDoaMariaGuadalupe,a63yearoldwoman

fromthevillageofHueycuatitla.Shefirsttookpicturesofhergrandchildren.

- 31 -


33/54

(photo:MariaGuadalupe)

Butwhen she started to speak about thisphoto, she immediatelybegan todescribeher

childrenandtheconditionsofobstetricsandmedicineduringhertimes.Shegavebirthto

11children,but5ofthemdiedduringthebirthorasinfants.Whatambiguityofemotionsis

provoked by the picture of her grandchildren? She treated them with care, and it was

obviousthattheyaredeartoher.However,atthesametimetheyprovokememoriesofher

own losses and pains. Here photography helped to provoke some very personal and

emotional utterance. I do not know if such experiences would have been discussed so

quicklyifshehadnotbeendescribingapicture.Anotherexampleofdifferentunderstanding

of imagesisthephotoshetookofwhatIthoughtwasherhouse.Later,sheexplainedthat

thesubjectwasthestreet,HERstreet.

(photo:MariaGuadalupe)

- 32 -


34/54

Photos likethepreviousgrandchildrenofDoaMariaGuadalupeareunderstoodby

theparticipantsintermsofemotionsandfamily.Otherphotoshavethepurposeofshowing

aconcreteobject(asortofphotographicaldeixis)lookatthis,Iwantyoutoseethis.

Examplesarephotos takenbyMariaMagdalenaHernandez,averyhumorous65yearoldwomanfromthevillageofHueycuatitla.Beforetakingpicturesofherfamily,andlaterofher

religious artifacts, she took a picture of her own house and the house of the neighbour

acrossthestreet.

DoaHernandezhouse(photo:MariaMagdalena

Hernandez)Theneighbourshouse(photo:MariaMagdalena

Hernandez)

IdontlikemyhouseexplainedDoaHernandez,itisuglyandold.Andthenreferringto

the secondpicture, sheexplained,this is thehouse Iwould like tohave, if Ihadenough

money.Sheshowed thedifferingvalueofnewandtraditionalconstructionmethods,and

howtheneighborisinabettersituation.

IwillnowpresentthreeEnglishtranslationsofportraitsfrominsidecreatedduring

the project,just to give a glimpse of the final results. In total there are more than 40

portraits, and they can be found (in Polish) on the website of the project: www.od

wewnatrz.pl.Eventhoughthismethodfocusesonindividuals,onecangetsomeideasabout

thecommunityofpeopleafterlookingatthepicturesandcommentsofmanyindividuals.

- 33 -


35/54

DonSebastianMartin

gender:Maleage:66

photographicexperience:none

region:LaHuasteca

placeofbirth:Hueycuatitla

placeofresidence:Hueycuatitla

education:twoyearsofprimaryschool

maritalstatus:married

children:6

DonSebastiandecidedtohavehisportrait

photowithhiswife.

Where(how?)doyouwork?

Inthefields.

Howdidyoulearntodoyouwork?AsasmallchildIlearneditfrommyparents.

Whatdoyoudoduringyourfreetime?

InmyfreetimeImnotdoinganything.Iliketoeatsugarcane.

Whichmomentsofyourlifedoyouconsidermoreimportant?

Theworkinthefields.

Whatmakesyouhappy?

Inmy life Ihavehadmuchhappinesswhen Iwasachild.Thebestmemoriesarewhen Iwasachild.Nownot.BecauseofmyageIhavenohappiness.

Whatusuallymakesyousad?

Itsthesamemyage.Icannotworkwellanymore.

Whatareyourfutureplans?

Idonthaveplansanymore.

Whatkindofdreamsorwishesdoyouhave?

Iwouldliketobecomeacarpenter,tomakefurnitureslikechairs,windowsordoors.Iwouldlikethat.

- 34 -


36/54


37/54

Thisisthefencetokeep

chicken,andIlikechickenalot.

Comment:someother

peoplealsosaidthey

likechicken,andinall

casestheyreferredto

thetasteofmeat.

Thisisourbathroom.

- 36 -


38/54

Iusedtoworkwithinstruments.

Comment:hereferredto

theinstrumenthanging

onthewall.

ItookthisphotobecausethereisaTV.

DonSebastianMartintalkedtomewhileIwastakingphotoswithanotherperson.Heaskedmeif

hecouldparticipateaswell.Heverymuch liked the ideaof takingpictures thatwillbeshown

latertothepeopleintheforeignlandofPoland.

Thenotionofworkwasveryproblematicinallthreeregionswewentto.Somepeopledidnot

considerworkonthefieldstobework(Spanish:trabajo).Thewordworkinmostofthecases

ofadultswasconnectedwithearningmoney.DonSebastianisanexception.

- 37 -


39/54

We can observe a characteristic stiff pose that people in Hueycuatitla make in front of the

camera,whichissimilartostandingatattention.OnceIwasaskedtotakepicturesoffoursisters,

gatheredforafuneral. Itookpicturesoftheirwholefiguresaswellascloseupportraits.After I

gave them theprints, they toldme that thosepictureswith theirwholebodies in themweremuchbetter.

Examples:

photo: JonatanKurzwelly photo: MariaLebioda

- 38 -


40/54

Benito

gender:Male

age:25photographicexperience:doesnotposessa

camera,buthastakenpicturesbefore

region:HighlandsofChiapas

placeofbirth:Chimtic

placeofresidence:LasLimas

education:highschool,stillastudent

maritalstatus:married

children:1

Benitodecidedtohavehisportraitphoto

withhiselectrickeyboardinstrument,which

hevaluesalot.

Where(how?)doyouwork?

Idontwork,Imastudent.LastyearIfinishedmyhighschoolandnowImdoingasocialserviceinahealthcenterasateacher.Iteachchildren,ingeneralsubjectslikemathematics.LaterIwant

togoandstudymedicineattheuniversity inGuadalajara.Imsearchingnowforapossibilitytodoso. IwanttogotoGuadalajarabecausetheeducation inSanCristobal istoocorrupt,and inGuadalajaratheprofessorsdonotacceptanybribes.Iwishtotakemywifeandmychildwithme.

Howisyourhouse?Howwouldyoudescribeit?

It'smyfathershouse.Thisisonlymyroom.Ilikehowitisconstructed.

Howmanypeopleliveinit?

Me,mywifeandmychild.

Whatdoyoudoduringyourfreetime?Iliketoplaychessverymuch,andIalsoliketoplaymykeyboard.

Whatisyourfavouriteactivity,whatdoyoulikemost?

I lookforwardtomystudies.Idon't liketowork inthefields,because inthefieldsyousufferalot.When Igotothefields,andobserveothersworking, Iseehowmuchtheysuffer... It isverydifficult towork in thefields.And I don't like it, because one does not earn anymoney, onlyproducesthefood.

Whatmakesyouhappy?

I'mhappywhenI'mnotsick,andwhenIseethatIamachievingmygoals.I'mhappytofinishmypreparatoryschool[highschool],andtofinishsoonmyhospitalsocialservice.

- 39 -


41/54

Whatusuallymakesyousad?

Itmakesmesadtoseehowmydadisageing.WhenmyparentswilldieIwillbeleftalone.Andseeinghowheonlyworksinthefieldsmakesmesad...andIdon'tIdon'thelptheminthefields,becauseI'mastudent,andsometimeswehaveconflictswithmydad,becausehetellsme"you're

notworkinginthefields".Andthatmakesmeverysadsometimes...and...Noonehelpsme.

Whatareyourfutureplans?

Iwanttobecomeadoctor.Iwanttohelppeople,andearnmoneytosupportmyfamily.AndIwillbeabletogivehandtomymother,myfather,mybrother...becauseIhaveaplan!Andalsowhentheygetsick Iwillalreadyhaveexperienceand Iwillknowwhatmedicine toapply.This ismyplan.

Whatkindofdreamsorwishesdoyouhave?

Iwouldliketohaveacarandanicer,bigger,home.AndIwishtohelpmychild,whenhewillbe

6or7yearsold,withtheeducation.Iwishtosupporthimwithuniversitystudies,sohewillnothavetosufferlikeIdo.

PicturestakenbyBenito:

Thisismywife,Yolanda.Sheisverybeautiful.

- 40 -


42/54

Teddybearslookverynice,andIlikethema

lot.

Commentary:those

teddybearsarenottoys

ofBenitoandYolandas

child theyaremorea

decorationandobjects

ofhighaestheticalvalue.

Idon'tlikethisbecauseitisugly,untidyanditisa

mess.

- 41 -


43/54

Iliketoplayalot.

Comment:Benito

emphasisedmanytimes

hismusicalskills.

I'vedoneitbymyselfandIlikeitalot.

Comment:thiswas

displayedinacornerof

hisroom,butinsucha

waythateveryvisitor

couldseeitrightaway.

Benitoistheyoungestof9childrenofourhostinthevillageofLasLimas DonVictorio.Hewas

veryhelpful;hespentalotoftimewithus,andtranslatedthe interviewswemadewithpeople

whodidnotspeakSpanish.HewasalsoverycuriousaboutPolandandEurope.

- 42 -


44/54

EustacioCorollonPos

gender:Male

age:75photographicexperience:none,buthe

wantedmetoteachhim

region:MunicipioSolola

placeofbirth:SanJorgelaLaguna

placeofresidence:SanJorgelaLaguna

education:none

maritalstatus:widower

children:9

(62grandchildrenand28great

grandchildren)

Eustaciodecidedtohavehisportraitphoto

withthestaffthatisasymbolofthe

municipalmayor.

Where(how?)doyouwork?ThisyearIstoppedtowork.Icantbearitanymore.ButIamaconstructor.Imaforeman.Imaforeman! Im theonewhomakesplans. Ihavehadworkersworkingforme. Im theonewhomanages. Ibuilt3houseshere [inSanJorge laLaguna].But Ialsoworked inGuatemala [city],SololaandinPanajachel.Imadehouseswith3levels! IstartedtoworkwhenIwas17yearsold,firstasstonemason.ThenIworkedandworkedandIbecameaforeman!Butnotanymore.Imafraidofclimbingtheconstructionsitenow.AndtobeamayorThatisnotwork,youonlyhavetotalkwithpeople.Youonlytalk,thereisnowork,thereisnomovement,thereisnothingyoujustsitaround.

Howdidyoulearntodoyourwork?

I learned itallmyself. Ibuiltahousehere,withoutknowinganything,Iwasntevenamason. IstudieditmyselfandthenImadeahouseoftwolevels.Imalsoahewerandaplumber.Ihavenotstudiedatall,butIknowhowtoreadalittlebit.

Howwouldyoudescribeyourhouse?Itsaone levelhouse. Ihavefourflats.Theotherflatsaresmaller. Igavethemtomychildren,and Ihaveaquarterofthehouseformyown.We livefouratthishousemeandthreeofmysons.Andtheyliveherewiththeirchildren.Butmyflatisseparated,sonoonedisturbsme.

Whatdoyoudoduringyourfreetime?

Nothing.Irest.Isleep,orIdosomethinginthehouse.SoIrest.OrIgotoseethefields.Ihavefields,andworkersthatworkthere.ButIdontworkinthefields.

- 43 -


45/54


46/54

PicturestakenbyEustacio:

Iwanttohaveareminderofyouboth.

Comment:Eustacio

passedthecamerafirst

tomeandthentoMaria,

andaskedustotake

photoswithhim.

- 45 -


47/54

Iseethischurcheveryday,andyoudont.SoImadethisphotoforyou.

Comment:Eustacio

askedMariatoposein

frontofthechurch.Itis

theoldestandbiggest

buildinginthevillage.

Thisisourlandscape.Imadeapictureofthelakeforyou,totakeitto

Poland.

- 46 -


48/54


49/54

Thisismyhome...

WhenwecametoSanJorge laLaguna,wewenttoasktheauthoritiesforpermissiontodothe

project(thisisanimportantactofrecognitionofauthority).ThatshowwemetEustacio.Hewas

happytowelcomeus,andtoshowusthevillageandhishouse.

Duringtheproject,wealsogavethecamerastochildrenplayinginthevillages.Itwas

nottpartoftheprojectplan,andunfortunatelywedidnotpayalotofattentiontothisissue.

Nevertheless, Imadea fewobservationswhichmergewithFranois Soulagesanalysisof

Marc Patauts project (Soulages 2007: 182196). When we gave cameras to groups of

children(situationsinwhichanindividualchildwasgivenacamerawerealittledifferent),it

became an object of games and interactions. Thejoy and emotions of making pictures

appearedmore importantthanthe imagesthemselves.Makingpicturesofotherscouldbe

compared,recallingSoulages,toatoypistolshootingIshotyou,Icapturedyou asa

matterofprovokinginteraction,wherethemomentofshootingismoreimportantthanthe

result.Iseeyou!Dosomething!Childrenalso interactedwithadultswhopassedthrough

theplacewheretheywereplaying.The interactionaspectwasthemost important.That is

whyall thepictures takenby themarepicturesofotherspassingbyorofotherchildren,

includingmanycloseupsoftheirfacesorofbodyparts therewerenopicturesofplacesor

things.

- 48 -


50/54


51/54

buttonwaspushedaccidentally,orbytwochildrenatthesametime.Inthesecasesitisnot

possibletodefineoneauthor,asthepicturesareresultsofthewholegroupsinteraction.In

thiscaseIdobelievetheauthoriscollective.

Inthissituationthecamerahasbeenpassedtothechildrenby

me.Thepersonwithcamerawasaskedtomakeaphotoofthet

shirt,onechildinstructedtheotheraboutthecompositionofthe

frame,andfinalythethirdboypushedtheshutterbutton.The

wholesituationwasaresultoftheplayofalloftheboystogether.

(photo:JonatanKurzwelly)

Anexampleofanimagewithcollectiveauthors.This

pictureandthesituationinwhichitwasmadeprovideus

informationabouttheidolsofNahuachildrenfromthis

village,aboutthevalueofthisconcretetshirtanditsrole

inselfrepresentation.

(photo:ChildrenofHueycuatitla)

(photo:JonatanKurzwelly)

- 50 -


52/54

Conclusions

Thereisnoobjectivity inperception.Everypersonhashisorherownuniquereality

(perspective).Oneobjective realitydoesnotexist.Even ifanontologicallyobjectiveworld

exists,wedonothaveproofof itandnoaccessto it. Itdoesnotexistforus.Noone isan

outsideviewer.Ourbodiesandexperiencesdetermineourperspectives.

Manypreviousdiscussionsaboutphotographyhavetriedtodescribetheuniqueness

of this technique to establish its particular relationwith reality.Butphotography isno

magicindexicaltrace.Itisassubjectiveaslanguageorpainting.Truthclaimsmadeonthe

basisofimagesareagreementsaboutmeanings.Howewerthisfactdoesnotunderminethe

informational value of photographs. Individual meanings ofphotographicpictures canbe

transmitted by explanations. That is why taking pictures for purposes of communication

requireslanguage.

Insocialandculturalanthropologythequalityofobtainedknowledgeaboutothers

depends on experience. Tarzycjusz Buliski and Mariusz Kairski (2011) propose the

evaluative term thick experience. The thickness of experience depends on time spent

interacting,partnersofinteraction,andintensityofinteraction.Iagreewiththemthatlong

term interactions with high frequency and with many partners provide more experience

than short term research. The thirdqualityof thick experience is intensityof interaction.

Intensitythatinvolvesallsenses(notonlysight,andalsonotonlydiscussiondiscussion),and

theintensityofengagementintheinteraction.

Participatoryphotographycombinesdiscussionandexplanationofperspectiveswith

sharingvisualexperiences.Itoftendemandsmoreengagementthanonlyinterviews,asboth

researchersandparticipantscollaborateintakingpictures.Thosepicturescanlaterbeused

forexpositionsorjusttoenrichthecollectionoffamilyphotosaproductiscreatedasa

resultofinteraction.Participatorymethods,notonlythevisualones,givemoreauthorityto

thepeopleweworkwith.Wellusedparticipatoryphotographyhasmanyadvantages. Ido

notclaimsuperiorityforthismethod;mygoalisjusttoshowitsutility.

Onlysomeaspectsofparticipatoryphotographyhavebeenpresentedinthisessay.It

isnotamanual.Muchmorecouldbesaidaboutthismethod,andstillalothastobetested

andexamined.HovewerIhopeitmightbeusefulforanyonewhoisplanningaparticipatory

photographyproject.

- 51 -


53/54

References:

AfsharM.(ed),Landmarksofanewgeneration,UsersManual,GettyConservationInstitute,LosAngeles(unknownpublicationdate)

http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/landmarks_new.p

df(accessed:15.12.2011).BanksM.,Materiaywizualnewbadaniachjakociowych,WydawnictwoNaukowePWN2009;BanksM.,RubyJ.,MadetoBeSeen:PerspectivesontheHistoryofVisualAnthropology,TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2011

BarthesR.,wiatoobrazu,Uwagiofotografii.,1996BaudelaireCh., Nowoczesnapubliczno ifotografiain:Rozmaitoci estetyczne,Gdask2000,pp.243248

Boroditsky,L.,LinguisticRelativity.InNadel,L.(Ed.)EncyclopediaofCognitiveScience.MacMillanPress:London,UK,pages917921, http://www

psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/linguisticrelativity.pdf(accessed:15.03.2012),

2003

vonBrauchitschB.,Maahistoriafotografii,Cyklady,2004BuliskiT.,KairskiM.,Wiedzaterenowawantropologii.Wposzukiwaniunowegowymiarubada terenowych.In:TerenWAntropologii.Praktykabadawczawewspczesnejantropologiikulturowej.,pp.291333,2011Collier J. Jr., Collier M., VisualAnthropology: Photography as a researchmethod,UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque,1999

Descola P., Palsson G., "Introduction" in Nature and society. AnthtropologicalProspects,London&NewYork,Routledhe,pp.121,1996

EdwardsE.,AnthropologyandPhotography,18601920;YaleUniversityPress,1994Edwards E., Raw Histories: Photographs, Anthropology and Museums; BergPublishers,2001

Edwards,E.,TracingPhotography,in:BanksandRuby,MadetoBeSeen:PerspectivesontheHistoryofVisualAnthropology,TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2011EscobarA.,Antropologiaydesarrollo,in:Maguare14,p.4273,1999

EwartE.,Seeing,HearingandSpeaking:MoralityandSenseamongthePanarinCentralBrazilin:Ethnos:JournalofAnthropology,73:4,505522,2008in:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00141840802563949(accessed:18.04.2012)

FrizotM.(ed.),Anewhistoryofphotography,Koln1998

GonzlezGranadosP.,Tmiralafoto,peronoselaenseesanadie,Anlisisdelaprcticafotogrfica,losdiscursosylasrepresentacionesdeniosyadolescentesenelcontextodetalleresdefotografaparticipativa.Dosestudiosdecaso,doctoralthesis,unpublished,UniversitatRoviraIVirgili,Tarragona,2011

(UsedwithPaulaspermission)in:

http://www.tesisenred.net/bitstream/handle/10803/51883/TESISTDX_Paula%20Gon

zalez.pdf?sequence=1(accesed:10.05.2012)

GunningT.,WhatsthepointofanIndex?or,FakingPhotographs,in:NordicomReview12,http://www.nordicom.gu.se/common/publ_pdf/157_039050.pdf

(accessed:24.04.2012),2004

KeindlK.(fielddirector),PictureSalzburg.Landmarksofanewgeneration,ArchAustria1997

- 52 -


54/54

PackardJ.,'I'mgonnashowyouwhatit'sreallylikeouthere':thepowerandlimitationofparticipatoryvisualmethods,VisualStudies,23:1,6377,2008PinkS.,Etnografiawizualna,obrazy,mediaiprzedstawieniewbadaniach,WydawnictwoUniwersytetuJagielloskiego,2009PinkS.(ed),VisualInterventions:appliedvisualanthropology,Oxford,Berghahn,

2007PinkS.,KurtiL.,AfonsoA.I.(eds),Workingimages,London,Routledge,2004PolaszewskiM.,Poka miswoj szko,in:VorbrichR.(ed.),Pokamiswjwiat,Edukacjarozwojowaaantropologiawizualna,Pozna 2009PurvesD.andLottoR.B.,WhyWeSeeWhatWeDoRedux:AWhollyEmpiricalTheoryofVision,SinauerAssociates,2011SegallM.,CampbellD.T.,HerskovitsM.J.;TheInfluenceofCultureonVisualPerception,chapter14,1966in:http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/socialperception14.pdf(accessed:30.03.2012)

Sikora,S.,Fotografiamidzydokumentemasymbolem,Warszawa2004

SontagS.,Ofotografii,Warszawa1986SoulagesF.,EstetykaFotografii,StrataIZysk,2007StolzeLimaT.TheTwoanditsMany:ReflectionsonPerspectivisminaTupiCosmology,Ethnos,Vol.64:1,pp.107131,1999in:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00141844.1999.9981592(accessed:

16.04.1989)

Turnbull,C.M.,SomeobservationsregardingtheexperiencesandbehavioroftheBaMbutiPygmies.AmericanJournalofPsychology,74,304308,1961in:http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/templates/student_resources/01550606

78_rathus/ps/ps06.html(accessed:10.03.2012)

ViveirosdeCastroE.,ImagesofNatureandSocietyinAmazonianEthnology,AnnualReviewofAnthropology,25:179200,1996

ViveirosdeCastroE.,CosmologicalDeixisandAmerindianPerspectivism,JournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute(N.S.),4:46988,1998.

VorbrichR.(ed.),Pokamiswjwiat,Edukacjarozwojowaaantropologiawizualna,Pozna 2009

WorthS.,AdairJ.,ThroughNacajosEyes.AnExplorationinFilmCommunicationandAnthropology,1972in:http://isc.temple.edu/TNE/introduction.htm(accessed:18.12.2011)

Films- BornintoBrothelsbyRossKauffmanandZanaBriski(2004)- "NauaHuni IndianerblickaufdieAndereWelt" byBarbaraKeifenheimandPatric

Deshayes(1984)

- ShootingwithMursiOlisaraliOlibuiandBenYoung(2009)Photosmadebycats(CatCam)

http://www.kittyphotographer.com/(accessed:12.05.2012)

// /

PHOTOGRAPHY AS A PARTICIPATORY METHOD

Documents

Transcript of PHOTOGRAPHY AS A PARTICIPATORY METHOD