Phreshly Squeezed

Written for a class discussing photography and the notion of the archive. The following essay is a response to the prompt that asks for examples so as to define Timothy Mitchell’s concept of “exhibitionary order.”

Exhibitionary Order in Fashion Photography

The concept of the “exhibitionary order,” as postulated by British political scientist Timothy Mitchell in the essay “Orientalism and Exhibitionary Order,” is one that refers to a system in which the “Other” is put on display, resulting in the exotic commodification of native artifacts or traditions for the hegemonic gaze (i.e. that belonging to the white man). This notion of the “Other” often finds itself belonging to at least one of two demographic groups: one that differs from the hegemonic culture (i.e. a foreigner), and one opposite the “dominant”[1] gender (i.e. the woman). The notion of exhibitionary order can be explained, or rather exemplified, through the lens of contemporary fashion photography. The photographs examined in this particular archive, collectively and individually, deliver the idea of exhibitionary order through means of not only objectifying the native artifacts, such as clothing and atmosphere, but also by objectifying skin colour itself. It is to say that blackface[2], which involves the transformation of race through physical means, serves as another, but more extreme, way of re-appropriating racial differences for the white man’s gaze.

Delving into the archive, one notes that Figures 1 and 2 present Dutch model Lara Stone in blackface; Steven Klein took the photographs for the October 2009 issue of French Vogue. While the concept of the foreigner being the Other is often thought of, one must also recall the notion of the Other as being “she.” In all of the photographs of this particular archive, the represented gender is the female. Relating to Barthes’ ideas as presented in Camera Lucida, one comes back to the notion that the subject always is transformed into the object within a photograph (13). More explicitly, the “[p]hotograph is the advent of [himself or herself] as other, a cunning dissociation of consciousness from identity.” (Barthes 12) What can be remarked upon or drawn from this objectification of women is what becomes of it – it in turn lends to the new object’s codification befitting the male gaze – one which embraces the woman as sexuality, sensuality, softness, etc.

Referring to both Klein photographs, one not only sees the exhibitionary order of the Orient, in which they are set up by Westerners to be viewed as an “endless exhibition,” (Mitchell 496) but also that of the woman with her suggestive posing. Figure 1 illustrates Stone with stoic expression and overt sexual demeanour what with her legs widely spread about. There is in a sense the loss of the Western femininity, which relies on timidity and complacence, this Other permits in some sense the objectification of the woman, since one can say that she is not a woman of “our” society, in that she doubles also as the foreign Other, and thus can communicate an overt sexuality without being deemed sexist.

What can be immediately noted about the presentation of blackface with Stone is that it communicates a different means of objectification. As opposed to only objectifying clothing and surroundings, the notion of skin colour, too, has become an object. In utilizing the white woman to represent the Other, there is the notion that the Other is fully a Western construct. It is to say that there is no “real” authenticity in this image; skin colour is now also communicated as part of the display, and not a truth or fact.

Figure 1. Steven Klein, Vogue Paris, October 2009; Accessed Oct 14, 2011 from Models.com (http://models.com/work/vogue-paris-lara-8)

Figure 2. Steven Klein, Vogue Paris, October 2009; Accessed Oct 14, 2011 from Coûte Que Coûte (http://coutequecoute.blogspot.com/2009/10/vogue-paris-october-2009-lara-stone.html).

In dealing with the notion of objectifying the Other, one may pose the question, “can the Other objectify his or herself?” And in some facets, the answer is “yes.”  Figures 3 and 4 deal with such a concept, in which singer/actress Beyoncé Knowles, who is identified as black (“Beyoncé Knowles – Biography”), assumes blackface for an editorial shoot[3] by Mark Pillai for French magazine L’Officiel.  Knowles articulates that the photo-shoot was a means of honouring Nigerian musician Fela Kuti (Steinmetz). What can be said of this tribute is that Knowles, despite being an Other[4], is partaking in the transforming of the African Other[5], objectifying and codifying it in such a manner so that it becomes readable for the Western culture in which Knowles is perceived to be the Other.

As a means of reinforcing the idea of the African Other, and not the Western Other (in which Knowles is recognized as), one may be quick to point out that Figure 3 introduces a complement. This complement articulates the qualities with which one may associate with Africa in general – such as vibrant colours and African animals[6] – based on acquired culture and knowledge via media in various forms. Figure 4, however, draws the viewer in by adding to the blackface that represents the African Other via the strong gaze and bright tribal marks. The gaze is one that is connotative of bewilderment, almost questioning the viewer as to what he or she is doing by imposing on this cultural sphere. It is seemingly almost a challenge to the objectification and commodification of the Other; however, coming back to Barthes’ notion of the photograph being violent, one acknowledges that “in it nothing can be refused or transformed” (91). Therefore, it can be said that the gaze merely puts distance between viewer and the recognizable Western iconography (that being celebrity, with Knowles).

More interestingly, though, is the partial blackface in both of these photographs.  More exemplary in Figure 3, the contrast between the two skin tones is quite apparent with only Knowles’ face transformed into the African Other, while the rest of her body remains untouched. What can be posited is that there is an intersection of two exhibitionary orders within the photograph, and thus creating a particular tension and discourse. This intersection deals with the African Other that is heavily portrayed by its complements, and the Western Other to which Knowles belongs. On one side, skin colour is objectified through an active transformation, and on the other, it remains untouched so as to say that that she too is an Other, in her own culture, and that it should be recognized, therefore, part of her “air” is to be seen.

In addition, this objectification of culture strips the represented of any identity. In the four photographs examined so far, the only “fact” that we can ascertain is that these images are about the Orient. There is no particular culture or ethnicity being communicated in and associated with any of these photographs[7] – it is to say that this transformation of the Other from subject into object for the white gaze has resulted in an aggregate and anonymous identity. In other words, everyone and anyone befitting certain clothes will be lumped in into the Orient sphere.

Figure 3. Mark Pillai, African Queen, L’Officiel Paris, March 2011; Accessed Oct 14, 2011 from Models.com (http: //models.com/work/lofficiel-beyonce-african-queen/48828)

Figure 4. Mark Pillai, African Queen, L’Officiel Paris, March 2011; Accessed Oct 14, 2011 from Models.com (http: //models.com/work/lofficiel-beyonce-african-queen/48828)

The last image, the only one with a title denoting a particular ethnicity or culture, draws upon the Orientalism and allure of Morocco. The idea of Orientalism in itself is comprised of three aspects – “unchanging racial or cultural essences,” otherness, and “a series of fundamental absences (of movement, reason, order, meaning and so on).” (Mitchell 495) The representation of the Moroccan dream is what we – the Western society – would prefer to view it as, and not its actual reality. In fashion photography especially, it can be said there is truly is the commodification of exotic objects (in this case garb) for the white man’s gaze.

To explain, the clothing depicted here does not belong physically to the orient, only the idea or “inspiration” holds a tie to the ethnic body. The white man’s gaze makes reference to these items as exotic, yet familiar because of there is no deep elaboration, merely an extrication of the essence of the culture. And perhaps what signals to the viewer that these clothes are for the hegemonic culture and not the Other, more so in this photograph than the others, is the fact that model (Sasha Pivovarova) is wearing what appears to be a rather revealing swimsuit. Drawing from the general culture/knowledge, the average viewer can quickly surmise that this revealing piece does not belong to the Other, but that rather, this piece is being imposed on the Other.

In any case, the argument for the objectification of skin colour (via blackface) in this particular photograph is not as clear as Figures 1 through 4. Granted, the literal idea is not exemplified in this case, but rather is modified – Pivovarova’s skin tone is green. However, what should be more importantly noted is the deliberate move to “otherize” the model as best as one can, creating a distance or absence of logic and reason between the Western world and the one being portrayed. The clothing no longer separates the Western world from this foreign land much, because of the fact that it is commercially available in the Western sphere, and thus loses its power as an exotic allusion. Skin colour, although objectified, is not commodified, which allows for one to add to this continued display of exoticism and the Other.

Figure 5. Steven Meisel, Moroccan Holiday, Vogue Italia, May 2009; Accessed Oct 14, 2011 from Models.com (http: //models.com/work/vogue-italia-moroccan-holiday)

In examining this archive arises the question as to whether or not it is honorific or repressive. This dichotomy in traits brings us back to The Body and The Archive by Alan Sekula, who in 1986, comments on the system of representation being capable of functioning both honourifically and repressively[8] (Sekula 5-7). Admittedly, such can be difficult to discern within an archive that objectifies both women and the Other. That said, the qualities of repression are evident in these photographs; the objectification of skin colour, and therefore distancing of race from Western culture, the repression of the woman by transforming her into a sexual viewing object through the male gaze, and the reduction of the Other into nothing more than an exhibit. However, with the archive, one must also recall that according to Sekula, the archive is fluid, meaning that its values are neither fixed nor are they static.

It can be argued that there is a valorization within the photographs, enabling the argument that there are honorific qualities to this archive. Perhaps the strongest argument can be found in the regard that the photographs serve as a means of honouring culture, while the means of doing so have been through transformation, is that it is a symbolization of progression in two facets. The first being that race is fluid, that by changing skin colours so easily and objectifying it can one dispel the notion that skin colour is to be a stigma. The second being that these photographs celebrate culture by means of displaying Western items that have been heavily influenced, keeping in mind that these garbs are indeed for sale not simply created for the occasion.

Finally, coming back to the category of fashion photography as a whole, one draws upon French theorist Roland Barthes’ work on the subject. Barthes proposes in “Fashion Photography,” which appears as an appendix in the 1967 work The Fashion System, that within fashion photography, there are three key styles – objective, romantic, and mockery[9]. Immediately the labels of objectivity and mockery do not jump out at the viewer as appropriate for these photographs. For if they were to be objective, the representation of an Orient woman, for instance, would be literal, as opposed to being symbolic (i.e. using a white woman in blackface). And if they were to be under the guise of mockery, the element of outrageousness would be evident; however, there is a quality of “”realism” that is strived for in all of these photographs. The notion of romanticism, though, in this context, evokes the idea of illustrating desire and, and more importantly, the imaginary. These five photographs all fall into this sub-category of romanticism, which in turn, can be said to reinforce this idea of construction in exhibitionary order – a construction not by the Other but by those who are viewing the Other.

Overall, it can be surmised that the exhibitionary order puts the Other, whether it be foreigner, woman or both, on an endless display as captured by the photograph in the process of embalming the subject into an object. The exhibitionary order, however, cannot be defined as solely repurposing native artifacts and traditions for the white man’s gaze, as Mitchell had proposed in his essay. It should be noted that ethnicity and skin colour, too, are a part of the exhibitionary order, especially when dealing with photography; their objectification, especially through blackface, creates a real distance from the “authentic” and “reality” of the true Other. It is to say that the act of fully removing the person eliminates any possibility that perhaps there is veracity in what is being shown, and thus creating a real absence or disconnect, of which Mitchell discusses in his definition of Orientalism. Those key aspects to Orientalism – essentialism, Otherness, and absence – are also applicable to defining the representation of the Other in general within the exhibitionary order. After all, the fashion photographs examined, for instance, create this exhibitionary order by means of removing an actual cultural identity, giving a subjective and objectified view of the Other and creating a disconnect in discourse of events. While the archive is said to be fluid and can be deemed both honourific and repressive, the context in which one understands the Other often lends to a more negative and pejorative view, hence the criticism that much of these photographs have faced upon release. That said, the exhibitionary order is a problematic one; it presents cultures not as they are, but as how the photographer believes they should be perceived. The average person, who intakes thousands of images per day, would have to manually process and decipher the codes that embedded in the photograph so as to realize the disillusion presented. Otherwise, the photograph may very well be taken as a “true representation” because of his or her unfamiliarity with the unidentified Other.

“Beyoncé Knowles – Biography”.  IMDB. October 18 2011. <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0461498/bio>.

“Blackface Minstrelsy”.  1999. American Experience.  PBS Online. October 18 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/foster/sfeature/sf_minstrelsy.html>.

Barthes, Roland. The Fashion System. University of California Press, 1983. Print.

Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida. 1979. Hill and Wang, 2010. Print.

Klein, Steven. Vogue Paris, Paris, 2009.

Meisel, Steven. Moroccan Holiday. Vogue Italia, 2009.

Mitchell, Timothy. “Orientalism and the Exhibitionary Order.” The Visual Culture Reader. Ed. Mirzoeff, N.: Routledge, 2002. Print.

Pillai, Mark. Beyoncé African Queen. L’Officiel, 2011.

Sekula, Allan. “The Body and the Archive.” October 39 Winter (1986): 3-64. Print.

Steinmetz, Katy. “Beyoncé in Blackface: Fashionable or Foul? Critics Weigh in on Controversial Photo Shoot”.  2011.  TIME. October 15 2011. <http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/24/beyonce-in-blackface-fashionable-or-foul-critics-weigh-in-on-controversial-photo-shoot/>.