envision this dialogue between Ken and I . Was he asking for help ? Trying to warn me ? Send a message ? Questions like these followed me up to this point and led me to inquiry certain representation and framing issues in Alon Reininger ’ s iconic photograph .
Considering the formal elements , and relevant theoretical concepts in the field , the following analysis will explore the concept of death and its immediate relation to photography , as outlined by Barthes in Camera Lucida , as well as ideas raised by both Elizabeth Dauphinée and Jay Prosser when writing about shock and atrocity photographs . As a consequence of my own engagement with the photograph , I was motivated to explore a personal feeling which will be supported by Campt ’ s idea of Stasis . Alongside these theoretical links , the representation issues raised in my analysis , are derived from my experience of researching into the photograph and assisted with the aid of an example of AIDS remembrance and narration .
In order to analyse this photograph , it is crucial to recognise the notion of death and the role it plays on the subjects circumstance and respective framing . The concept of the ‘ what has been ’ explored by Barthes in Camera Lucida ( 1980 ) takes a double meaning with the chosen photograph . Right now , if one was to look at the image of Ken Meeks ( who has been dead for 35 years ), will see an image of a man who once was alive . That would be the first layer of Barthes idea . However , Ken is captured so weakened , scarred and ill , that one might think of a Ken before the wheelchair , before the weight loss , before AIDS ; A Ken that ‘ has been ’. Meeks , however , did not live to see the photo , as he died only three days after the portrait was taken . In this case once again , drawing concepts from Barthes , the Ken Meeks that we know was born a ‘ Spectre ’, he did not live long enough to become one . Just like the portrait of Lewis Payne , shown in Camera Lucida , Ken Meeks ‘ is dead and he is going to die ’ ( 1980 ).
Atrocity and shock photographs raise a number of ethical concerns , both in regards to representations of the subjects ( victims and perpetrators ) and the framing strategies adopted to depict such atrocity , broadly explored by many theorists ( Sontag , 2004 ; Dauphinée , 2007 ; Prosser , 2012 ).
Ken ’ s harmed and weakened body fits into broader concepts of atrocity imagery . According to Dauphinée , “ images of the body in pain are the primary medium through which we come to know war , torture and other pain-producing activities ” ( 2007:139 ). This act of representation , according to her “ fetishise pain in their drive to make visible what is essentially ‘ unimageable ’ and as a consequence “ the body in pain is thus produced as an aesthetic visual image , a symbolic icon that stands in for itself as the referent object of political violence ” ( 2007 : 140 ). This concept was also analysed by Prosser , noting that “ the imbalance in bodily exposure between the photographic subject and the photographic viewer may leave the experience of viewing atrocity photographs with an uncomfortable proximity to looking at some kinds of pornography or other modes of domination through acts of representation ” ( 2012 : 9 ). The conflictive encounter some might experience , with images like these , can be linked to the atrocity photograph being able to lure us in at the same time as it can repel us and make us want to “ turn away ” ( Prosser , 2012 : 9 ).
As I have mentioned before , while analysing this image I had a very peculiar feeling . I was not getting the answers I was reaching for by just looking at the photograph . The friction between Ken ’ s gaze and mine caused such tension , that it was impossible to ignore . Explored by Campt ,
SCHOOL OF THE ARTS 2021 / 2022
45