The photographic gaze

The gaze, as a visual act, generates modes of power, domination, and control. It has the ability to categorize people, generate feelings of shame, and assert one’s superiority. The gaze of the superior and privileged person, specifically directed toward oppressed and less privileged groups of people, is one type of the manifestation of power and control. The camera lens is another demonstration of a powerful gaze, referred to as the photographic gaze, simulating the gaze of the naked eye. Indeed, the former could even be more powerful than the gaze of the naked eye due to photographic permanence. Janina Struk defines a photograph as: “a two-dimensional object, a fraction of a second framed and frozen in time” (4). Susan Sontag in On Photography notes that “photographs are a neat slice of time, not a flow” (17). It is the stillness of a photograph that gives it power and makes it more effective than television broadcasting or film. Photography, then, has the ability to capture in “still time” the expression of oppressed subjects as the camera gazes at them.

To understand what is meant by the photographic gaze, explore Daniel Chandler; Notes on ‘The Gaze’: ‘The gaze’ (sometimes called ‘the look’) is a technical term which was originally used in film theory in the 1970s but which is now more broadly used by media theorists to refer both to the ways in which viewers look at images of people in any visual medium and to the gaze of those depicted in visual texts. The term ‘the male gaze’ has become something of a feminist cliché for referring to the voyeuristic way in which men look at women (Evans & Gamman 1995, 13). My aim here is to alert students to existing material and frameworks which may assist them in their own investigations of the issue of the gaze in relation to media texts.

Forms of gaze

In the case of recorded texts such as photographs and films (as opposed to those involving interpersonal communication such as video-conferences), a key feature of the gaze is that the object of the gaze is not aware of the current viewer (though they may originally have been aware of being filmed, photographed, painted etc. and may sometimes have been aware that strangers could subsequently gaze at their image). Viewing such recorded images gives the viewer’s gaze a voyeuristic dimension. As Jonathan Schroeder notes, ‘to gaze implies more than to look at – it signifies a psychological relationship of power, in which the gazer is superior to the object of the gaze’ (Schroeder 1998, 208).

Several key forms of gaze can be identified in photographic, filmic or televisual texts, or in figurative graphic art. The most obvious typology is based on who is doing the looking, of which the following are the most commonly cited:

• the spectator’s gaze: the gaze of the viewer at an image of a person (or animal, or object) in the text; 
• the intra-diegetic gaze: a gaze of one depicted person at another (or at an animal or an object) within the world of the text (typically depicted in filmic and televisual media by a subjective ‘point-of-view shot’); 
• the direct [or extra-diegetic] address to the viewer: the gaze of a person (or quasi-human being) depicted in the text looking ‘out of the frame’ as if at the viewer, with associated gestures and postures (in some genres, direct address is studiously avoided); 
• the look of the camera – the way that the camera itself appears to look at the people (or animals or objects) depicted; less metaphorically, the gaze of the film-maker or photographer.

In addition to the major forms of gaze listed above, we should also note several other types of gaze which are less often mentioned:

• the gaze of a bystander – outside the world of the text, the gaze of another individual in the viewer’s social world catching the latter in the act of viewing – this can be highly charged, e.g. where the text is erotic (Willemen 1992); 
• the averted gaze – a depicted person’s noticeable avoidance of the gaze of another, or of the camera lens or artist (and thus of the viewer) – this may involve looking up, looking down or looking away (Dyer 1982);
• the gaze of an audience within the text – certain kinds of popular televisual texts (such as game shows) often include shots of an audience watching those performing in the ‘text within a text’; 
• the editorial gaze – ‘the whole institutional process by which some portion of the photographer’s gaze is chosen for use and emphasis’ (Lutz & Collins 1994, 368)

James Elkins offers ten different ways of looking at a figurative painting in a gallery (Elkins 1996, 38-9):

• You, looking at the painting, 
• figures in the painting who look out at you, 
• figures in the painting who look at one another, and 
• figures in the painting who look at objects or stare off into space or have their eyes closed.
• In addition there is often the museum guard, who may be looking at the back of your head, and 
• the other people in the gallery, who may be looking at you or at the painting. There are imaginary observers, too: 
• the artist, who was once looking at this painting, 
• the models for the figures in the painting, who may once have seen themselves there, and 
• all the other people who have seen the painting – the buyers, the museum officials, and so forth. And finally, there are also 
• people who have never seen the painting: they may know it only from reproductions… or from descriptions.

Looking at someone using a camera (or looking at images thus produced) is clearly different from looking at the same person directly. Indeed, the camera frequently enables us to look at people whom we would never otherwise see at all. In a very literal sense, the camera turns the depicted person into an object, distancing viewer and viewed.

We are all familiar with anecdotes about the fears of primal tribes that ‘taking’ a photograph of them may also take away their souls, but most of us have probably felt on some occasions that we don’t want ‘our picture’ taken. In controlling the image, the photographer (albeit temporarily) has power over those in front of the lens, a power which may also be lent to viewers of the image. In this sense, the camera can represent a ‘controlling gaze’.

In her classic book, On Photography Susan Sontag referred to several aspects of ‘photographic seeing’ which are relevant in the current context (Sontag 1979, 89):

• ‘To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed’ (ibid., 4); 
• ‘Photographing is essentially an act of non-intervention… The act of photographing is more than passive observing. Like sexual voyeurism, it is a way of at least tacitly, often explicitly, encouraging what is going on to keep on happening’ (ibid., 11-12); 
• ‘The camera doesn’t rape, or even possess, though it may presume, intrude, trespass, distort, exploit, and, at the farthest reach of metaphor, assassinate – all activities that, unlike the sexual push and shove, can be conducted from a distance, and with some detachment’ (ibid., 13). 

The functions of photography can be seen in the context of Michel Foucault‘s analysis of the rise of surveillance in modern society. Photography promotes ‘the normalizing gaze, a surveillance that makes it possible to qualify, to classify and to punish. It establishes over individuals a visibility through which one differentiates and judges them’ (Foucault 1977, 25). Photography was used in the second half of the nineteenth century to identify prisoners, mental patients and racial types (Tagg 1988). However, looking need not necessarily be equated with controlling (Lutz & Collins 1994, 365).

John Berger: Ways of Seeing

Looking is not indifferent.
There can never be any question of ‘just looking’.
John Berger, Ways of seeing, 1972

In Ways of Seeing, a highly influential book based on a BBC television series, John Berger observed that ‘according to usage and conventions which are at last being questioned but have by no means been overcome – men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at’ (Berger 1972, 45, 47). Berger argues that in European art from the Renaissance onwards women were depicted as being ‘aware of being seen by a [male] spectator’ (ibid., 49).

Berger adds that at least from the seventeenth century, paintings of female nudes reflected the woman’s submission to ‘the owner of both woman and painting’ (ibid., 52). He noted that ‘almost all post-Renaissance European sexual imagery is frontal – either literally or metaphorically – because the sexual protagonist is the spectator-owner looking at it’ (ibid., 56). He advanced the idea that the realistic, ‘highly tactile’ depiction of things in oil paintings and later in colour photography (in particular where they were portrayed as ‘within touching distance’), represented a desire to possess the things (or the lifestyle) depicted (ibid., 83ff). This also applied to women depicted in this way (ibid., 92).

Writing in 1972, Berger insisted that women were still ‘depicted in a different way to men – because the “ideal” spectator is always assumed to be male and the image of the woman is designed to flatter him’ (ibid., 64). In 1996 Jib Fowles still felt able to insist that ‘in advertising males gaze, and females are gazed at’ (Fowles 1996, 204). And Paul Messaris notes that female models in ads addressed to women ‘treat the lens as a substitute for the eye of an imaginary male onlooker,’ adding that ‘it could be argued that when women look at these ads, they are actually seeing themselves as a man might see them’ (Messaris 1997, 41). Such ads ‘appear to imply a male point of view, even though the intended viewer is often a woman. So the women who look at these ads are being invited to identify both with the person being viewed and with an implicit, opposite-sex viewer’ (ibid., 44).

We may note that within this dominant representational tradition the spectator is typically assumed not simply to be male but also to be heterosexual, over the age of puberty and often also white.

Here is a pdf of his book.

Laura Mulvey on film spectatorship

As Jonathan Schroeder notes, ‘Film has been called an instrument of the male gaze, producing representations of women, the good life, and sexual fantasy from a male point of view’ (Schroeder 1998, 208). The concept derives from a seminal article called ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ by Laura Mulvey, a feminist film theorist. It was published in 1975 and is one of the most widely cited and anthologized (though certainly not one of the most accessible) articles in the whole of contemporary film theory.

Laura Mulvey did not undertake empirical studies of actual filmgoers, but declared her intention to make ‘political use’ of Freudian psychoanalytic theory (in a version influenced by Jacques Lacan) in a study of cinematic spectatorship. Such psychoanalytically-inspired studies of ‘spectatorship’ focus on how ‘subject positions’ are constructed by media texts rather than investigating the viewing practices of individuals in specific social contexts. Mulvey notes that Freud had referred to (infantile) scopophilia – the pleasure involved in looking at other people’s bodies as (particularly, erotic) objects. In the darkness of the cinema auditorium it is notable that one may look without being seen either by those on screen by other members of the audience. Mulvey argues that various features of cinema viewing conditions facilitate for the viewer both the voyeuristic process of objectification of female characters and also the narcissistic process of identification with an ‘ideal ego’ seen on the screen. She declares that in patriarchal society ‘pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female’ (Mulvey 1992, 27). This is reflected in the dominant forms of cinema. Conventional narrative films in the ‘classical’ Hollywood tradition not only typically focus on a male protagonist in the narrative but also assume a male spectator. ‘As the spectator identifies with the main male protagonist, he projects his look onto that of his like, his screen surrogate, so that the power of the male protagonist as he controls events coincides with the active power of the erotic look, both giving a satisfying sense of omnipotence’ (ibid., 28). Traditional films present men as active, controlling subjects and treat women as passive objects of desire for men in both the story and in the audience, and do not allow women to be desiring sexual subjects in their own right. Such films objectify women in relation to ‘the controlling male gaze’ (ibid., 33), presenting ‘woman as image’ (or ‘spectacle’) and man as ‘bearer of the look’ (ibid., 27). Men do the looking; women are there to be looked at. The cinematic codes of popular films ‘are obsessively subordinated to the neurotic needs of the male ego’ (ibid., 33). It was Mulvey who coined the term ‘the male gaze’.

Here is a pdf of Laura Mulvey’s original essay:

References:
Berger, John (1972): Ways of Seeing. London: BBC/Harmondsworth: Penguin
Burgin, Victor (Ed.) (1982a): Thinking Photography. London: Methuen
Caughie, John, Annette Kuhn & Mandy Merck (Eds.) (1992): The Sexual Subject: A Screen Reader in Sexuality. London: Routledge
Evans, Caroline & Lorraine Gamman (1995): ‘The Gaze Revisited, Or Reviewing Queer Viewing’. In Burston & Richardson (Eds.), op. cit., pp. 13-5
Dyer, Richard ([1982] 1992a): ‘Don’t Look Now: The Male Pin-Up’. In Caughie et al. (Eds.) op. cit., pp. 265-76; also in Dyer (1992b), op. cit., pp. 103-119
Elkins, James (1996): The Object Stares Back: On the Nature of Seeing. New York: Simon & Schuster
Foucault, Michel (1977): Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon
Fowles, Jib (1996): Advertising and Popular Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Lutz, Catherine & Jane Collins (1994): ‘The Photograph as an Intersection of Gazes: The Example of National Geographic‘. In Taylor (Ed.), op. cit., 363-84
Messaris, Paul (1997): Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. London: Sage
Mulvey, Laura ([1975] 1992): ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’. In Caughie et al. (Eds.), op. cit., pp. 22-34. Also published in: Mulvey 1989; Mast et al. (Eds.) (1992), op. cit., pp.746-57; abridged version in Bennett et al. (Eds.) (1981), op. cit., pp. 206-15; originally published in Screen 16(3): 6-18
Schroeder, Jonathan E (1998): ‘Consuming Representation: A Visual Approach to Consumer Research’. In Barbara B Stern (Ed.): Representing Consumers: Voices, Views and Visions. London: Routledge, pp. 193-230
Sontag, Susan (1979): On Photography. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Tagg, John (1988): The Burden of Representation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press
Willemen, Paul ([1980] 1992): ‘Letter to John’. In Caughie et al. (Eds.) op. cit., pp. 171-83; originally published in Screen 21(2): 53-65

Tasks/ Assignments/ Activities – see photopedagogy

How does the gaze function active vs passive within social media, popular/ celebrity culture at large, such as our desire for gossip, tabloid journalism, post-truths, AI generative content?
Who controls what we are looking at?
How can we manage/ curate our own information and what we are looking at, or directed towards
Images = knowledge = power =control = consumerism = money = power.