Keum Hyun HAN, Ignorance of Photography

 

 Samuso Words Vol.1 “Keum Hyun HAN, Ignorance of Photography” PDF Download [English]

 

“What are you trying so hard to read in photographs?”

This is what Hein-kuhn Oh remarked seeing me trying to grasp the pictures of soldiers via computer screen in his Itaewon office. It was a criticizing comment to critics, whose tendency is to analyze visual images in semiotics. He was right. Despite the fact that I am ignorant in military system, who cannot even identify what uniforms represent what units-land or air-force, I was investigating the images, giving my upmost attention to soldiers represented as objects and mechanical movements of diverse signs embodied in the backgrounds. A soldier wearing marine sailor uniform stood in an awkward gesture, unsure-footed like a young student delivering his presentation before his teacher nervously. The young soldier’s nervous mien, stiff posture, and features that were betraying his habits unconsciously-the working of various signs that represent individuals and collective mind in the photographs of Oh’s work of army portraits was the initial spark of my interest.

 

Expressive Code [1]

 

A uniform manipulates an individual’s actions; army uniforms, especially, dictate soldiers how to act. However, the soldiers in Oh’s work stray slightly from the code of action governed by army uniforms. They stray in different aspects-all the features prohibited officially within the army, such as facial expression, body gestures, and attire like watch or shoes are evident in the photographs. The artist was quite apprehensive about these being revealed to the public, but since they are plain in society unlike in the army, whatever he worried about did not happen. Indeed, had these pictures been exhibited in the army, there could have been scandals. Even though his works are the portrait photographs of soldiers, Oh emphasizes more on the relationships between and backgrounds, or those among men in the pictures rather than men alone. Through this, the artist shows that there is always a gap in what we think conventionally. Oh’s work is a three-year-project supported by the Ministry of National Defense. When one takes pictures of soldiers all over the country for three years, he is abound to be a semi-expert on Korean soldiers; his pictures will be the artifacts of contemporary military photographs. Audience will discover the changes in army uniforms, developing from analogue pattern to digitalized one in Oh’s works. Furthermore, almost every uniform manufactured in Korea-land and air force, marine, chairman, combat, sports-is exhibited. It is a rare treat for public audience.

 There are various episodes related to these pictures; one soldier, it is said, fell in love with the artist’s apprentice. From this instance one could see how photographs are related to personal memories despite the fact that they are objective records. Not only do they embody memories of the artist, they also relate to the audience who behold them, reminding them of their own experiences regarding army. In Korea, army is an indispensable, crucial part of one’s life, and people are connected to the military either directly or indirectly. It is obligatory for a healthy man to serve in the army, and even those who are not fit physically must somehow arrange their terms. Furthermore, women as lovers, friends, and family to these soldiers must suffer and share the time of sacrifice. In this aspect, one could call the Republic of Korea “the Republic of Army”. Therefore, almost anyone will be able to sympathize with the photographs of soldiers from his or her own experience. Even I, completely unknowledgeable about how the army works, remember feeling sympathy for boyfriends who shaved their heads clean before entering the service. As a mother to a son, I feel pity when I see the youthful faces of soldiers. Every image, not just the pictures of soldiers, is read based on the onlooker’s experience and his knowledge-especially photographs that seem objective. Because of this, photographs were often analyzed through semiotic interpretation. Roland Barthes analyzed photographs of advertisements in semiotics in his work Rhetoric of Image, which was published in 1964.[2] Stuart Hall presented how expressions and gestures of an object influence in forming ideology from his work The Determinations of Newsphotographs 1972.[3] In 1980, however, in the last work Camera Lucida Barthes talked of encountering photographs, over all other semiotic analysis, using the expression “punctum.”[4] Numerous scholars analyzed and interpreted photography logically by applying diverse fields of theories, not only semiotics but psychology and culture theories as well. Reproduction within photographs is about reading social, cultural, historical, and personal syntax layered in the images. of theoretical knowledge including semiotics. Firstly, a photograph is a visual encounter: an image that reflects an object transparently. What a photographic image tries to convey is recognizing it as the object itself, which constitutes the photograph rather than for its artistry or communicability. In other words, mutual contradiction in which readable and unreadable points coexist is the fundamental characteristics of photography.

 

Photographic Devices

 

A photograph cannot be far from its form; the diversity of the forms representing the object, therefore, is limited, and images themselves become similar as well. However, there are several instances of ignorance toward photography that lead to oversimplifying or unifying interpretations of objects, just because images appear similar. For example, the logic declaring that works of Korean artists are similar to those of so-and-so in foreign countries is mostly erroneous, shallow judgment based on the similarity of images. How a creator is approaching the object in a criticizing manner via the medium of photographs is overlooked. Furthermore, one does not recognize how photograph strategies that constitute an image are intricately intersected with the artist’s critical approach to an object. Because a photograph is intentionally interpreted based on its visuals, one perceives the image itself instantly before reading the semiotics embodied in it. Unlike images represented by other media, photography proves what really happened in the past, and dresses the actual object as the transparent image undiluted by any artificial retouching. Therefore, primary encounter of photographs is a influential step. Indeed one news shot could alter the truth depending on how it was taken. The effects of diverse implications hidden in the transparent image of photographs are disguised, leading the onlookers to receive the photographs as facts when beholding them. The problem is that factors constituting the images of photographs are furtively related to the workings of these implications. In the case of Oh’s work, lighting is a huge part of his photograph strategies. When representing the objects, the tone of lighting, which is delicately calculated by the artist, is deeply significant in creating the meaning of the images. The photographs featuring soldiers by Oh is largely divided into two tones: the works exhibited in the second floor of the institution bring soldiers’ faces and their tone of skin bright and clearly through vivid lights and slow shutter speed. The glaring lighting of fluorescent lights in the exhibition contributes in making the objects seem gaudier-it is an intentional photograph device created by the artist in order to paradoxically belittling soldiers who are burdened by the sense of duty forced by coerced life. On the other hand, soldiers in the 3^rd floor are rendered heavier and more solemn by rather dark lighting,. The portraits of soldiers in the small room in particular entrap the objects in deep, dark tone; this effect of lighting is where the artist deliberately utilizes his photograph strategies in the way of viewing the object. In Oh’s works lighting plays a crucial role in not only technical reproducing of the photograph but also in generating the images. The meticulous presentation that featured pores and even soft fuzzy hair on teenage girls’ faces in “Cosmetic Girls”(2008) is nowhere to be found in the portraits of soldiers. In their pictures, though, lighting is used for creating the general atmosphere. These kinds of images partake in one’s immediate reaction upon encountering them, and lead to impromptu, visually refreshing and yet psychological shock of experiencing. The photograph devices in Oh’s are not merely representing the object but undertaking the pivotal role of following the flow of works. This, to use a military expression, could be performed only by trained sergeants.

Another mechanism in Oh’s collection is the constitution of framework in which the soldiers as objects and the backgrounds are staged. This part is where Oh’s pictures of soldiers become subjective and personal, leaving the role of objective records. The artist is intentionally staging the objects and the backgrounds. Soldiers were photographed in the army camps, their most familiar, everyday place as the backgrounds. The object in the picture is momentarily paused by the artist; the object, background, and their relationships are reconstructed in a deliberate way. Awkwardness and unnaturalness arouse surreal atmosphere in this still moment. The contradiction of recording the fact yet manipulating it exists in the photographs. Naturalness is excluded on purpose, but overbearing pressure from an artist is restrained as well. The uncertain bond between the object and the background is interpreted as another device for the artist to present soldiers from the perspective of “middleman.” The form may have been created as the artist arranged, but originality of facial expressions and all body gestures cannot be. The organized stage and individuality are in conflict, which result is that all the photographs are generally distorted and unharmonious. They are rickety and unstable like desk drawers that do not fit. The pictures are imprinted in the minds of the audience, grabbing their attention through this sense of uncertainty.

 

Perception, Desire

 

There is a mysterious trait in Oh’s works. The overall peculiarity arises from the audience’s perception and desire. As mentioned before, portraits of soldiers are recreated by the audience’s experience and knowledge. This is further amplified by the incongruity of relationships between the background and object, which was intentionally set. The artist renders numerous perspectives for the audience, but each person desires to perceive the image in the way he or she prefers to see. The desire that denies one’s lack becomes apparent in a narrow-minded way. The subjects who perceive the objects in Oh’s works have been always ambiguous, as in his previous works Ajumma, Girl’s Act, and Cosmetic Girls. He casually throws an unstable viewpoint that threatens the subjects, and causes those who watch to feel uncomfortable pressure. Whereas diverse views about women in Korean society were emphasized in previous series of works, this time various responses toward Korean men are mingled in Middlemen. These responses that threaten the tough image thrust upon soldiers are what the artist has wanted to bring to surface. The group portraits represent the hierarchy within the army and relationships among same sex simultaneously. The photographs of two soldiers in particular, in which Oh deliberately arranged the relationship between them, irk those who observe. Same thing occurs in group portraits in which men are engaged in mock cavalry battles, their torsos naked. The sense of discomfit in observing the way a man looks at his same sex is a counterattack to social bias that regulates right and wrong. However, this perspective that Oh has intentionally created is not the main issue of his works. Rather, he asks why society does not embrace the effect of diversity in perceptions. The one provided by Oh and game of desire awaken the audience to the fact that interpretations are as various as their social backgrounds and experiences.

 

When photograph exhibitions are held in Korea, two ignorant, conflicting arguments hold up their heads. One is ignorance of photography and the other is that of those who partake in the art. The former is ignorance of theorists who do not grasp the characteristics of the medium and yet try to read images of photographs only visually; the latter is rooted from the tendency to evaluate media features of photography merely by technical norm yet not fully comprehending what context those photographs are read in their forms. Are photographs merely for seeing? What is there other than visual characteristics? Is visual aspect of photography merely a thing of surface work? Many seem to be at a loss in how to perceive photographs for they seem to be ordinary objects in everyday life, yet the form of photographs is never simple.