After looking at various artworks by Jeanne Dunning, I found some to be strangely disturbing, and yet very fascinating photographs; enough so to make me do some further research. Dunning “investigates the body and its physical boundaries as a metaphor for psychological transgression”(MCP, 2005). She uses exterior objects such as foods and body parts to distort her images and present them in a way to appear to be vague in identity or as if they are interior bodily images (i.e. fruit resembling a human orifice). Some of Dunning’s images that I viewed included Hand Hole (1994), Head Series (1989-90), Tongue (2004), Sample (2001), and Scattered Parts (2004). Art Reviewer, Grace Glueck, of the New York Times, states “Dunning’s work manages to sustain the tension between the sensual and the grotesque, underlying the ambivalent relationship we all have in our own vulnerable physicality, provoking the misplaced notions of identity, individuality, and sexuality.” Identity involves a set of characteristics by which someone is definitively recognizable or known. But, are identities of subjects in photographs always as clear-cut as “definitively recognizable or known?” A sense of identity can be different with everyone.
Although many of Dunning’s works interested me, I found the Head Series to be both simple to re-create, and interesting in his meaning, specifically Head 2 (1989). Similar to Lorna Simpson and her dealing with women and African-American women, I learned that a photographic shot like Dunning’s Head 2 is meant to test the viewer and make the viewer think. What is the identity of the subject in this photo? It is harder to determine if it is a male with a longer hairstyle and a more slender neck, or a woman with a shorter cut in a more masculine suit. Dunning also crosses boundaries of discomfort in most of her works, and although her Head Series seem innocent, they are meant to be that of “phallic-headed” women, transitioning between the feminine and masculine. In fact, “not only do the heads pun on male phallus; they pun on the idea of the phallic woman—the woman who castrates---but replacing one head (male, genital) with another (female, cerebral)” (Desouza, 2005).
When I asked some friend what they thought of Head 2, I got varied responses such as “it looks like a lesbian with that short mushroom cut”, “how could anyone thing that is a guy”, and “it looks like as Shakespearean haircut or Johnny Depp from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” After hearing these varied responses, I created my own version of Dunning’s Head Series, where identity would be questioned.
I found it hard to re-create the phallus look, but what I did instead was take a picture of the back of my head with a hat on and my hair tucked in, while wearing a hooded sweatshirt. To me, this resembled both a masculine and feminine look, similar to Dunning. In this picture, the identity is similarly uncertain. One cannot be certain if this is a more slender-shaped baseball cap-wearing man, or a woman simply trying to be comfortable. Unlike the self-portraits of some of the other students, I attempted to create a gender-neutral photo, in which it would be a challenge to determine the identity of the subject in the photo. I feel like this ambiguity of identity represents the mixed feelings so many people share with regards to their attitudes, opinions, and knowledge of identity. I found that many people disregard these issues as not important even though it affects almost everyone’s everyday life, ranging from job availability and college enrollment acceptance.
This photo has added to further knowledge of my gendered self through the photo’s multiple meanings. What did this photo teach me about my identity? I found this photo to imply concepts of individualism, gender equality, and body acceptance that I didn’t realize before in photographs of myself. With a plain background and similar to the strategies of Lorna Simpson and the Guerilla Girls, who crop picture to remove faced and wear gorilla masks, this photo does not represent an individual, but a representative of gender. Also, like I mentioned earlier, this photo questions the identity of the photographed person and adds to the conflicts with gender equality we have today. In fact, I found that in a world filled with stereotypes, this photo might even evoke a sigh of relief, in respect that for these few moments that gender is in question, I don’t have to worry about typical female negative stereotypes, and can be relieved of that burden for a few moments, maybe even seconds. (If this makes any sense at all). Finally, this photo taught me about body acceptance. I never enjoy having my picture taken. I am convinced I look horrible in every picture I am ever in. But, I found this picture to be different. It is impossible to see any faults of eyes, blemishes, asymmetrical noses, or uneven smiles, from the back a person’s head. This, too, leaves opportunity, in a world infatuated with image, to be not the prettiest of women, or the most handsome of men, but whatever it is that makes you happy, comfortable, and confident. From behind, everyone is equal.
* Glueck, Grace. New York Times. Art in Review; Jeanne Dunning. March 19, 2004. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html
* Museum of Contemporary Photography (MCP). Biography: Jeanne Dunning. 2005. http://www.mocp.org/collections/permanent/dunning_jeanne.php
* Desouza, Allan. “It’s Not Punny if You Have to Explain it: Act III”. X-tra: Contemporary Art Quarterly. Volume 9. Issue 1. 2005
http://www.x-traonline.org/vol9_1/desouza.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment