Page 144 [144]
OCR
Social Differentiation and Construction of Elites in Belgrade Studio Photography historian Ljubomir Milanovié calls it (2007: 182), which points to the encounter with social norms and mechanisms of both photographed and photographer (see also Owens 1992; Silverman 1996). Thus my interest is in studio photographs (carte de visite or cabinet cards), which are understood as representations and manifestations of “ideal images”! of their sitters—as a summary presence of them (Siegel 2010: 222). In this paper I will propose an interpretation of “ideal images” as a form of Other and a kind of se/f-othering, as well as their function in setting boundaries of self rather than displaying homogenous groups (Barth 1969). What “Ordinary Pictures” Tell About the Other I am waiting for them to stop talking about the “Other,” to stop even describing how important it is to be able to speak about difference. It is not just important what we speak about, but how and why we speak. Often this speech about the “Other” is also a mask, an oppressive talk hiding gaps, absences, that space where our words would be if we were speaking, if there were silence, if we were there. This “we” is that “us” in the margins, that “we” who inhabit marginal space that is not a site of domination but a place of resistance. Enter that space ... (hooks 2000: 208; also cited in Fine 1998: 130) As the American feminist and social activist bell hooks, born as Gloria Jean Watkins, and many other Black feminists have noted, it is important to question concepts of binary thinking and to avoid reinforcing them by choosing different perspectives. Looking at the vast body of literature dealing with photography and visual culture as a whole, I started asking myself what “ordinary” studio photographs could reveal about society, culture, community, and group or, for that matter, individuals. To begin with, “ordinary” images or portraits of “ordinary people” generally produced for their own or private consumption/use have to a far lesser extent been the focus of research—at least with regard to questions of Self-Other relations compared to “extraordinary,” strange, or “exotic” pictures (e.g., ethnographic pictures; documentary photography; artistic photography; photographs reflecting power relations such as prison photography; photographs of disabled persons, of supposedly socially inferior persons; and others, which can also be defined as photographs of non-White middle-class). I was wondering whether the reason for the lack of attention, therefore, is a belief that “ordinary” images have less or maybe nothing to tell at all or if the preference in focus, rather, tells something about anthropology’s ongoing interest in problems, difference, and extraordinary practices. Asking these questions, we also must think about who defines—at what times and under which circum ! There have been numerous debates about what photography is (e.g., its representational character, materiality, alleged objectivity, power). Due to its rarity, early studio photography much more than the later amateur, or Kodak photography, conveyed ideal images of the sitters, offering an all-encompassing presentation of their status, role, and standing in society. 141
