I was very nervous for my micro teach as I knew I had selected quite a contentious book as my teaching object: ‘The Hyena and Other Men’, by Pieter Hugo, a South African photographer, who has frequently been criticised for aestheticizing otherness. I now realise this was a completely inappropriate teaching object for a short teaching session where there would not be adequate time for unpacking all the issues these images raise.
Some feedback was positive, some less so. Fortunately, the seminar on feedback, especially ‘Stephanie responds to feedback’ (Macfarlane, 2004) prepared me to not respond in a defensive way and to see the criticism as constructive. It was interesting to read Stephanie’s reaction to feedback on her lecture, as well as her thoughts on another lecturer’s delivery. She reminded me how easily it is to become defensive when getting negative feedback. Instead of being defensive one should be open to trying out new pedagogic techniques. Also, if students are not happy with lectures one needs to question one’s own teaching methods rather than blame the students.
My aim for the micro teach was to show a monograph by a photographer whose work I had initially responded to in a very positive way, but with time and more critical reflection I found the subject matter of the work problematic, while still appreciating the photographs. My aim was to encourage critical reflection, and to discuss the notion of ‘othering’ in the colonial practice of photography but I realise that the way I presented my session, without framing the work first, led to discomfit amongst some participants.
The reason I deliberately chose not to contextualise the work before showing it was because I wanted people to respond to it in an unpremeditated way. I was hoping to elicit comments about the unacceptable nature of these photographs, but no one responded in this manner, perhaps out of politeness or not being sure what my position was on these highly problematic images, which I nevertheless admitted to finding compelling when I first saw them. My aim was to problematize these images after admitting to liking them so as to illustrate how we can be drawn to things that may not be acceptable. I realise that the way I structured the micro teach session, showing the book first and stating that Hugo is an internationally famous photographer, led to mixed messaging and a lack of clarity about my position concerning the photographs in question. One of my peers, who was familiar with these photographs by Pieter Hugo, stated that they were encouraged to think more critically about them after my micro-teach. This was my aim. However, I realise that I did not take sufficient consideration of my audience and what these images might trigger. In addition I failed to include a trigger warning. The inclusion of a trigger warning may have alleviated some of the discomfit.
On a more positive note, people did seem to appreciate my honesty and vulnerability. They appreciated the way I interwove my own practice with the work of Pieter Hugo, addressing problems in my own photographic practice. I lecture on the BA fashion Photography course at LCF where my students are constantly asked to interrogate not only why they are making the images they make, but also why they are drawn to certain fashion photographs or fashion photographers’ work. In my micro teach I aimed to make the point that being drawn to certain photographs simply for their aesthetic appeal is not adequate, and can sometimes be seriously problematic, particularly in the light of #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter. The gaze has shifted from the hegemonic male gaze to a multiplicity of gazes and fashion photographers need to be responsible and accountable. The fashion photography students are encouraged to consider their own positionality and the way they represent others. I have shared my own practice with them to indicate that I too have made work that is now considered problematic and that I also need to, and am, interrogating my own practice.
Since receiving feedback, I am aware some of Pieter Hugo’s images can be construed as being racist, in particular the image of a black man with his pet monkey. In Johannesburg, South Africa, I taught at the Market Photo Workshop, where most of the students are black and from previously disenfranchised communities. I, and other lecturers, have frequently shared this particular series of images, ‘The Hyena and Other Men’, with the students at the Market Photo workshop, and while we are all aware of the problematic nature of Pieter Hugo’s images, students have rarely taken offense. Perhaps this is a question of context. Despite an awareness of the deeply racist connotations of monkeys in South Africa – indicated by, for example, outrage caused by H&M’s racist advertising showing a young black boy wearing a t-shirt that states ‘the coolest monkey in the jungle’ or Penny Sparrow’s extremely racist comments, where she likened black beachgoers to monkeys in a Facebook post, and was consequently fined for hate speech – when showing Pieter Hugo’s image in the context of conversations around photography, this image has not elicited outrage from black South African students. Although the students do contest his exoticisation of black Africans. In South Africa there has been a very strong move away from a Eurocentric viewpoint for quite some time now, and decolonisation has been a very important part of society ever since the end of apartheid. What I realise is I need to be a lot more aware of context. In the current climate, particularly in the UK, Europe and the US, where black people are a minority and where racist actions are prevalent, it is unacceptable, and irresponsible on my part to show such an image without taking my diverse audience into consideration. This is not to say that I would not question showing this image in a South African classroom, or at the very least, adequately contextualise it. As Rolando Vázquez, a professor deeply invested in developing decolonial ways of thinking, teaching and learning, writes: ‘In the moment in which the other is turned into a spectacle she is erased.’[1] This of course, leads me to problematise much of my own photographic practice.
Saying this, I find myself wondering if I am not becoming the type of student that Bruce MacFarlane and Lesley Gourlay warn about in the article: ‘Enacting the Penitent Self, 2009, which addresses the performance of personal transformation. In this article Macfarlane suggests that there is a level of hypocrisy involved in assessing teaching and learning – on the one hand innovative and experimental teaching and learning is encouraged but at the same time the student of teaching and learning is discouraged from challenging the methods/theories expounded by the teacher. Social constructivist methods are encouraged yet at the same time learners are required to conform to the ethos of the institution – critical thinking, while being encouraged, is also ‘self-censored’. Students are required to think critically but according to the beliefs and values of the institution – Foucault’s notion of control through self-regulation. However, what did help me realise the seriousness of my error in showing this particular image was when I completed the Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity online learning module. This training session really drew my attention to how we need to be extremely considerate of a diverse student cohort with very diverse life experiences, coming from very different societies with different values. We really need to question the impact showing certain images may have on our students. I understand better the importance of accountability. So, no, I am not self-censoring because I am required to conform, rather I am self-censoring because I have been encouraged to critically reflect on my own teaching and practice (such as the images I posted above, to illustrate my blog).
Watching some of the other presentations I realised that while my presentation may have been interesting it was too broad a subject to engage with in such a short time, especially considering the fraught nature of the subject.
REFERENCES:
Janson, M. A. 2020. Fashion and the Phantasmagoria of Modernity: An Introduction to Decolonial Fashion Discourse in Fashion Theory, Vol 24 issue 6. Routledge.
Macfarlane, B. 2004. Teaching with Integrity: The ethics of higher education practice. Routledge.
MacFarlane, B. and Gourlay, L. 2009. ‘The reflection game: enacting the penitent self’ in Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives. Vol 14, no. 4. Routledge.
Hugo, P. 2007. The Hyena and Other Men. Prestel.
[1] Quoted in Jansen, 2020