Earth Photography with the Earth Camera
I arrived home after a busy day stepped into the quiet away from the noise, bustle and smells of daily living. It was a summer’s day and the sun was shining through the window. I threw myself down on a chair and let the sun envelope my body (a quiet moment all to myself to enjoy the simple pleasure of the sun and reflect on life). After a few moments I looked around me and thought I should catch up on some neglected housework, but it was such a lovely day to be working inside so I ventured out into the garden to do some weeding. I knelt on the grass next to the soil (I have always loved the texture and smell) and began to dig into the earth with both the trowel and my hands.
Suddenly I had a strong urge to dig a hole amongst these weeds to create a space where I could place a pinhole camera. I wanted to pull together the sky and the earth, make them one. I returned inside and made a camera through the use of a box which was covered with an open bottom photographic changing bag. It felt important that the photosensitive paper, placed inside, would touch the soil not be separated from it. To begin with, the pinhole was covered with tape, which was peeled back to expose the paper inside. Later I removed the tape and replaced it with a stone. I called it my ‘earth camera’. Nestling in the soil, it reminded me of a coffin. It brought to my mind thoughts about photography, memories and death. The resulting photographs show ambiguous marks. Some of these appear to depict what may be the dust or stars and others fire or water which recalls, for me, our relationship to the four elements - earth, air, fire, and water.
This process runs parallel with other work I have created whereby I use my body as a camera. During this process, bubbles of saliva are formed, the residue from my attempt to use my lips as an aperture which projects light onto photo paper in my mouth (akin to a pinhole camera). The mouth itself becomes the camera. The resulting photographs reveal not only the views from my mouth, but the internal space such as teeth and the edges of lips. I physically handle the paper therefore they are easily damaged. These teeth marks, fingerprint, and scratches all belong to the process and become an important part of the image.
In both works, the tangible and the intangible - the inside and the outside - are combined as one, it begs the question - what is in what and what is in whom?
Earth camera pinhole photographs
The Blindings
I had been collecting found spectacles belonging to strangers over a couple of years, but didn’t know what I was going to do with them. Then one day I was boiling milk to make custard and had the urge to remove the skin from the milk and place it over the lenses of the spectacles. This was the beginning of what I call “The Blindings”.
I was drawn to a small intimate space near the lake at the West Park in Wolverhampton. Myself and five volunteer attendants invited people to be guided on a silent journey around this space whilst they wore cover milk skinned spectacles. A weighing scale nestled within the palms of the attendant’s hands, held the spectacles. This was designed as an offering and given to the willing invited participant. As their vision would become impaired through wearing the spectacles, we were asking for their trust. The nature of their pending impartial sight was designed to encourage their sense of touch. The position, sensation and movement of their bodies and limbs as they walked around, would affect their balance and hopefully encourage their sense of heightened touch. Holding them close-by, each attendant with the guest participant, silently guided them around a designated pathway.
it was a beautiful day, some laughed and joked. many taht took part said they loved the experience of the silent journey. Others commended that they felt very uncomfortable by a very unusual experience! Some people didn’t wish to participate. They seemed (and preferred) to watch others being guided around the place, becoming a passive audience in the park.
I believe that touch confirms what sight alone has difficult with. Sight seems to slip over the surface of things; density, weight and surfaces. Touching enables us to engage with the world and we use all our senses that we possess in order to enhance our perception.
The day prior to this performance, I performed alone in a shop window in Wolverhampton. Here, I revealed the process of covering the spectacles with the milk. People were not allowed into the shop as this was a public, yet private meditative performance due to the fact that I needed to concentrate on the process of boiling and cooling the milk. Indeed, careful concentration is needed to cook the milk to the right temperature to form a custard skin thick enough to be lifted and placed on the spectacles.
As you might imagine, this was a strange experience! I felt like an animal in a cage as crowds gathered around the window and knocked on the glass. I did not make eye contact with anyone, preferring to do my best with the task at hand. For this reason, I ignored people as best I could. all I saw were people’s legs and feet as they passed by, or walked towards or away from the window. I imagined that this might be how homeless people feel when they sit on the street, avoiding eye contact whilst begging.
This was such a strong contrast to another performance, which took place the following day. I had decided on a peculiar idea to make a new piece of work, at dust, at the canalside. So I arrived at the canal at night time, armed with a a pinhole camera consisiting of an egg which contained photo-sensitive paper. I sat close to the water’s edge. The egg was nestled inside the palms of my hands, similar to an offering. I sat completely still for 15 minutes (which was the required exposure time in low light to make a photograph). I was attempting to capture that transient magical moment before or after twilight!
Through using my egg camera I wanted to connect with the area in a physical and intimate way, rather than seeing the location simply as a passive external reflection, where things and experiences are often ignored or latently undiscovered. This photo-performance allowed me to view the objects in the immediate landscape around me, and to enter into a heightened sense of intimacy with it. For me, the use of my egg pinhole camera transforms the photographic making process into a special event, so that in the future, via the documentation created, I would later share with others. With conventional cameras we choose a subject, shoot, and fix one moment (a cut out) of space, time and memory. I believe this can result in us losing our feeling for the nature of things.
Explorations of ‘Identity’
In this paper I will discuss how useful psychoanalysis is as a method of analysing visual processes in the formation of identity? I will discuss this through drawing on theoretical material from Freud to Silverman, Mulvey, Stacey and Cowie. I will also draw upon visual material from other artists along with material of my own.
Psychoanalysis emphasises visual representation and sexual difference as being central to identity formation. Theorists have studied psychoanalysis in an attempt to show how different forms of visual representations may have a profound effect on how individual identities are formed. In turn this may determine which position the subject takes up in society and culture, depending on how the subject makes meaning of what they see when engaging with these systems of representation. The subject is different from the individual in that it evokes subjectivity as being culturally constructed rather than embracing an autonomous stable individual. How we look and make meaning is not just a conscious act but also contains deep rooted psychic processes at the level of the unconscious and psychoanalysis locates the unconscious in relation to looking and seeing along with the image itself in the formation of identity.
I will be exploring psychological concepts of Freud and Lacan’s theories, the oedipal complex, castration anxiety, the fetish, mirror phase and scopophillia, alongside which I will discuss, contrast and compare the work of theorists who are influenced by psychoanalysis and are concerned with how practices of looking and spectatorship may shape the formation of identity. I will link these theories and psychic processes with the analysis of Allen Jones’s work and a personal video installation, which consists of three interrelated video projections, that take into consideration the architectural spaces used, in an attempt to decide how useful psychoanalysis is as a method for understanding the impact of visual representations on the formation of identity.
Freud’s theories are based on the unconscious mind and defence mechanisms for unresolved feelings, which are difficult to express. Emotions which arise during the oedipal stage when the boy unconsciously forms erotic feelings for the mother but realises that his father is an obstacle to his desires. The first identification takes place when he sees that his mother does not possess a penis, and imagines with fear that he may loose his own penis. Fearing castration the boy identifies with the father and looses his erotic urges for the mother. Freud says the girl identifies with the father she sees the penis knows she doesn’t have one and wants it so her identification consists of envy and lack. To replace the missing penis she desires a child. She blames the mother for her lack and turns away from her. Freud described the fetish as an object choice that stands in for the mother’s penis, which the boy imagines is there but is not there. So the fetish harks back to a repressed fear and desire.
Alan Jones work appears to reflect castration anxiety. Jones find’s inspiration from fashion, advertising, etc. which seems to organise our ways of seeing e.g. high heel shoes, skirts which restrict movement etc. Freud states that the fetish can take the form of the shoe and underclothing which harks back to the boy seeing the mother undress ‘the last moment in which the woman could still be regarded as phallic’ (Freud,1977,p.355)
‘Hat Stand’1969, Mixed media, h.191cm, Private Collection (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nearnearfuture/91052563/)
Jones furniture sculpture ‘Hat Stand’ appears fetishistic, it shows an image of a woman whose whole body seems to be suggestive of the phallus, it stands erect, her head is held upright by a tight leather band around her neck, which is attached to straps and buckles that holds up a garment of underwear covering her genitals. She seems to be uncomfortably constricted by the neckband and the tight stiletto heel thigh high leather boots. Her outfit reflects bondage and hence punishment.
Silverman explains how Lacan’s theory builds on a semiotic understanding of psychoanalysis taking Freud’s theory further by saying that the penis in not the phallus, the penis is the ‘symbolic order’ in which the subject enters when they renounce organic needs and enter language. The boy enters into language and hence the symbolic order, whereas the girl lacks the phallus and remains outside the symbolic order. She argues that the phallus still represent the penis because ‘he mortgages the penis for the phallus’ (Silverman,1999a,p.353). This suggests that the male gains privileges within a patriarchal society whilst the woman is excluded from the symbolic order through her biological body and culturally constructed ‘lack’.
‘Hat Stand’ seems to exclude the female at the expense of the phallus that reflects the Oedipal narrative, which is for Silverman the discourse of the family. Freud finds it difficult to analyse the female he creates opposition’s active/passive etc. where identity is connected to our biological bodies. Lacan’s theory also creates opposites through sexual difference, suggesting that the Oedipus order is fixed in that it portrays a ‘normal’ stage leading to the male and female choosing opposite sex partners rather than same sex partners.
In Laura Mulvey’s essay ‘You don’t know what is happening, do you, Mr Jones?’ she provides an analysis of Jones work through Freud’s concepts of fetishism. She investigates the male unconscious world, which seemingly portrays women as a fantasy presence. She provides a convincing analysis suggesting that the woman is not present at all. She discusses how his works show women with phallic substitutes, which have a sadistic aspect ‘tight shoes and corsetry, through rubber goods to leather and torture’ (Mulvey,1987,p.128) these are represented by phallic extensions e.g. whips, billiard cues, erect nipples, cigarettes etc. and his women are constricted as if being punished by buckles, tight belts and neckbands. She discusses how we are asked to identify with these images on a daily basis through the mass media.
Women ‘are being turned all the time into objects of display, to be looked at and gazed at and stared at by men. Yet, in a real sense, women are not there at all. The parade has nothing to do with woman, everything to do with man. The true exhibit is always the phallus. (Mulvey,1987p.130).
Jones works appear to portray well-worn images of the mass media that some women identify with; celebrities and women in society may wear these same restrictive clothes. His work received approval, but it also caused aggressive demonstrations in 1978 when his sculpture ‘chair’ was attacked by feminists however it was a woman who repaired this work after the attack). How we identify with the work depends on what meaning we take from these images. Mulvey’s analysis can help us to read visual representations through the look, the unconscious and desire. But as Silverman argues with regard to the phallus like any other signifier it can be activated only within discourse and the Oedipal order is based on the discourse of the family, which provides privileged positions, based on the biological body and binary oppositions.
In Laura Mulveys essay ‘Visual Pleasure and narrative cinema’ she suggests that the structure of cinema viewing ‘satisfies a primordial wish for pleasurable looking, but it also goes further, developing scopophilia in its narcissistic aspect’ (Mulvey,1987,p.17). Hence film consists of voyeuristic objectification of the female and narcissistic identification of the ideal ego seen on the screen. This look relates to Lacans mirror stage, when the child sees its reflection in a mirror and identifies with it as if its part of the self. This is a mis-recognition as the image shows a desirable coherent whole. It does not reflect the child’s fragmented body and dependence on others.
Mulvey says there are two types of pleasurable looking based on the desire to be the other and to control the other which are translated into the fantasy world of cinema. She argues that the way these looks are structured result in a split between active/male and passive/female. She says that spectators are aligned with the male protagonist. This suggests that cinema is fundamentally male and assumes a male spectator. Her essay is very insightful but seems to leave no room for a female spectator/protagonist, or an erotic male portrayed as erotic object. Mulveys analysis of Jones work reflects these looks, which she explores within the cinema. But how can Mulveys analysis of the look in cinema be applied to a video installation?
The video ‘Machine I’ and ‘exposure’ appear to reflect the fetish but in a different way to Jones work. We see a close up of a mouth, projected large scale in an arched opening reflecting the structure of the mouth. Mulvey suggests that the large close ups of women’s legs or face destroy the narrative of film portraying women as spectacle to be looked at ‘one part of a fragmented body destroys the renaissance space, the illusion of depth demanded by the narrative it gives flatness, the quality of a cut out or icon rather than verisimilitude to the screen’ Mulvey,1989,p.20). However this isn’t an idealized close up, nor is the mouth passive as it is used as an aid to make photographs and it doesn’t have a fixed sex. The image is full of allusions, suggestive of a vagina, anus, nipple/breast or an eye. Freud connected the eye with the penis/phallus and wrote that to be blinded represents castration. In the installation the sense of sight has been displaced onto the mouth and whilst the artist performs the eyes are closed. Her body is still and rigid in order to be a camera. ‘loss of the power of motion signifies loss not only of life but of the penis’ (Fenichel,1999,p.334).
‘Machine I’ and ‘exposure’ video installation (detail)
However the bubbles, which emanate from the mouth continually move, this may suggest that the penis is there but not there. As the eye for Freud is connected with the penis this suggests that the mouth is the object choice for the penis. This could represent multiple identities that connect with the pre-oedipal stage where Freud suggests that the subject is bisexual representing precisely the moment at the primal scene before the splitting of identification that seems to privilege the paternal
‘Exposure’ is a tiny image of the upper body of the woman in ‘Machine I’. The image is beautiful bit not idealized it is elongated and appears alien ‘to know oneself through an external image is to be defined through self-alienation’ (Silverman,1999a,p.344). The image is projected on the side of a ‘coffin like’ bench within the space. The images hide the painful process of making the photograph because the artist stands rigid and still during the 6 minute exposure time during which the body and mouth aches which may signify punishment. Mulvey suggests that the contrast of light and dark in the cinema and the way the screen glistens and shape shifts promotes voyeurism and fantasy, the feeling of peeping in on a private world. Both works contains the language of the fetish, because they are beautiful (they glisten) and ‘Machine I ‘doesn’t show the straight genitalia. But they also appear to be non-fetishistic because they show bodily fluids and the work implicates the spectator’s presence within the work rather than them just looking at it enabling them to be active or passive. They have a choice they may sit of the floor, stand or walk. There are two projections in the same space, they choose the time spent on each and how they view them looking at one at a time or moving the head whilst viewing them alternatively. ‘The middle of nowhere’ which I will be discussing later is placed in a different room a short distance away from the other two projections enabling the spectator to view the two projections in the one space and then walk into another room to view the other projection after which they may return to the other projections and identify with them in a different way. There are other people within the space how does the look work here? Do they stand or sit close to someone else whilst viewing the screen? Do they talk to the person about the work or do they remain silent? Or might they try to find a dark space or a corner to hide so the other cannot see them? The formation of identity here could be said to be different to when we view a film at the cinema it implicates the real and imaginary body within the spaces used.
There was a mixed reception to the video installation, some felt uncomfortable with the bodily fluids and large size, but also found it sexual compelling and beautiful. Others felt uncomfortable with the lack of distance within the work, they preferred to be separated rather than embodied within the work. However some enjoyed being active and embodied. Mulveys work helps us to understand the way our identities may be formed through being subject to images, which are imaginary, based on the mirror stage, the unconscious, desire and different ways of looking. However within her work the look is disembodied and fixed and it only seems to invite a masculine look. In her ‘Afterthoughts’ on visual pleasure she opened up this look but still maintained ‘that fantasies of action ‘can only find expression … through the metaphor of masculinity’ (Stacey,1999,p.394). Her work can be used to analyse the installation but seemingly only in a limited way.
Stacey expands on Mulvey’s theory. She argues that the spectator may take up different gendered positions within the space of cinema that may consist of a woman’s desire for another woman, or a male portrayed as erotic object. This opens up a space for different gendered spectator positions allowing for interaction on multiple levels with the characters on the screen, and challenges a unified masculine model of spectatorship. Stacey argues that if we were to abandon gendered binary oppositions, this would enable us ‘to separate gender identification from sexuality, too often conflated in the name of sexual difference’ (Stacey,1999,p394). She explores what the differences may be between a woman and a male spectator viewing a female character through analysing the pleasure women may take from film through identification with another woman. Women who have very different feminine identities and involve one woman having the desire to become more like the other woman who she sees as her ideal, however this ideal is never fully achieved maintaining difference. This offers a different kind of look within the cinema. How can Stacey’s analysis be applied to ‘Hat Stand’ and the video installation?
As argued earlier ‘Hat Stand’ does not abandon gendered binary oppositions, it appears to have a fixed reading which, Mulvey makes convincing. However it was both women who attacked and repaired his work, which reflects Stacey’s analyse of different female identities. The video installation appears to abandon gendered oppositions. So Stacey’s theory of the spectators multiple identities/pleasures provide a more thorough understanding of the work than Mulveys fixed look. However the positioning of viewers in relation to cinema is different to those within video installation, which gives another look, and identity that needs to be addressed in relation to how spectators are gendered and take pleasure from video installation work. Also the spaces themselves used within the installation have their own meaning, history and power, and the images themselves may take on different meanings depending on the space they are shown within.
Elizabeth Cowie embraces a theory, which allows for different subject positions where the viewers situate themselves in an imagined mise-en-scene through fantasy. The mise-en-scene is the setting out of desire and derives from the primal scene, which is re-worked into a secondary fantasy through daydreams, which contains a wish that is there but is misplaced. She expands on Freud’s concept of the experience of satisfaction to explain desire within the mise-en-scene. Cowie explains that the lack experienced by the child when it does not have the breast, is not about the object but the satisfaction of suckling. Hence the displacement of the breast becomes a sign associated with unattainable desires, which the subject attempts to make visible through fantasy. So the mise-en-scene is about lack and what is absent.
The video installation appears to set out a mise-en-scene. The displacement of the mouth for autoerotic zones, the bubbles of air represent the penis, the displacement of saliva for milk, urine, etc. The setting out of this scene seems to pull together different sexual identities as one. Lacan says that the subject is caught up in the sequence of images and is designated no fixed place within it and becomes de-subjectivised. Maybe the viewers were uncomfortable with this work because they were assigned no fixed place within it, the work does not mirror a realistic stable autonomous individual. Neither are they comfortably separated from the scene, rather they are aware of their own and other bodies within it. Perhaps the work did not correlate with their idea of reality. For Cowie fantasy cannot be separated from reality. She uses Freuds discovery that his patients witnessing of the primal scene whether imagined or real had an effect on their real daily lives as an example of intertwining fantasy and reality. ‘The vehement demand that we should be able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy even in fiction, bears witness perhaps to the fear involved in apprehending the reality of fantasy’ (Cowie,1999,p.366) This suggests that we only believe something is real if it reflects reality and conforms with conventions.
The setting out of desire in ‘Hat Stand’ seems to portray lack through the displacement of phallic substitutes, which represent the missing penis. It does not point to other sexual identities and the vagina is disguised or supplemented in ways, which distract attention from it (Mulvey, 1987,p.128). It works in line with the Oedipal order, whereas machine I seems to attempt to disrupt the Oedipal narrative, in the same manner as Stacey and Cowie attempt to do away with its privileged binary opposition. This may open up spaces for different sexual identities, not an identity where the female or the male hold or don’t hold the phallus rather multiple identities allowing subjectivity to be distributed.
Cowies theory appears to challenge Mulvey’s and push Stacey’s theories into another dimension. Through the analysis of Freud’s ‘A child is being beaten’ she suggests that the audience project their desire onto the scene through the form of its composition rather than a fixed relation to certain characters, where the viewer may not identify with a character through appropriation but rather ‘in the position of the character, as actant, a locus within the narrative of activity – of both doing and being done to – which is presented as a position of view and hence knowledge, in which we locate ourselves and thus identify with’ (Cowie,1999,p.336). This may enable the viewer to participate in a scene where they can identify with both positions of a person being punished and the punisher. How can we read Cowies above analysis in the video installation and hat stand?
‘The middle of nowhere’ is projected large scale in an architectural space which has similarities to a small chapel referencing the phallus, the father and religion which is one of ‘the institutional supports with which it is finally synonymous. Those supports include not only the patriarchal family, but also the legal, medical, religious, technological and educational systems, and the dominant political and economic organization.’ (Silverman,1999a,p.353)
‘The Middle of Nowhere’ 2005 video installation (detail)
The image is compelling the silver chain glistens against the softness of skin, and a powerful glowing light emanates from the silver aperture. The aperture seems to represent the phallus/penis, but the phallus does not hide the vagina/anus as it does in ‘Hat Stand’. In fact the aperture /penis is very small compared to the mouth and appears to be devoured by the mouth/vagina/anus as if to destroy as well as take pleasure from it. The aperture is slowly inserted into the mouth at the beginning of the video implying sexual intercourse. Does this enable the audience to identify with different sexual subjects in the fantasy scene in relation to doing and being done to? There are chains that are pulled out tight at the start of the video which swing and hang down from the mouth reflecting bondage and sadomasochism. So maybe the viewer can take on both positions of sadomasochist and masochist within this work. Hat Stand is a still rigid idealized woman where no one is doing and being done to, it’s more of a fixed work, which is based on binary oppositions and the Oedipal order.
‘The Middle of Nowhere’ video installation (detail)
Cowies analyse seems to comes closer to answering questions in relation to how the viewers identify and position themselves within the video installation, and also in relation to the author of the work who appears to become de-subjectivised. The absence of the author allows for multiple positions within the space. However Cowies analysis still does not address the different looks and their effects on the formation of identity when the spectators are embodied within a space.
In this essay I have argued in keeping with Stacey and Cowie that the use of psychoanalysis as a method for analysing visual processes in the formation of identity can be limiting. Attempting to understand how useful psychology is as a method for analysing visual representations has been the main concern of this essay. As Silverman points out Lacan and Freuds works are based on the biological body and binary opposites through sexual differences and the structures of the Oedipus order is fixed, it appears to give a universal account of the formation of identity it does not allow for differences within identity formation. and appears to be ahistorical. Mulvey does attempt to diminish the fixed order of the oedipal scenario in relation to the spectators unconscious desires and fears, and her work gives visual representations a powerful force, but her insistence on the female/male opposites through the use of psychoanalysis limits this force. Stacey attempts to disrupt the Oedipal complex, which opens up the look, but it is still a disembodied look. The use of psychology in Cowies analyse seems to be much more fruitful especially the use of Freud’s ‘A boy is being beaten’ and Lacans theory of desire, absence and presence where the subject becomes de-subjectivised. So psychoanalyse can be useful when it is pushed and pulled, and disrupted in an attempt to analyse visual representations in the formation of identity but it still has its limitations.
I have considered in some detail a range of images drawn from sculpture and video installation. I argued that Jones work appeared to be limited to Mulvey’s theory based on the fixed Oedipal order. The central argument has been the problem of moving from an analyse of the position of viewers and spectatorship in relation to narrative cinema and using these same theories in relation to different kinds of visual representations. The outcome appears to be that the conditions of the look within the cinema are not fully met in relation to video installation. In considering the impact of video installation on the audience I suggested that spectatorship played an important role in the formation of identity. I suggested that techniques of looking could be analysed through the interrelationship between real bodies in space in relation to each other along with historical and imaginary spaces. It appeared to suggest that we may have become separated through engaging with visual representations which contains a fixed, comfortable, disembodied look, resulting in us feeling uncomfortable with our own and other bodies in spaces when this look back does not mirror a fixed position for the spectator. This look could be explored in future work but as the conditions of the look within cinema through the use of psychoanalysis are limiting when analysing the formation of identity within these other visual representations it would be necessary to also investigate other forms of looking, which are historical and emphasis the power structures of looking between real bodies and spaces. Foucault’s work would inform my studies further in this respect.
References
Cowie, Elizabeth (1988) ‘Film as progressive text – a discussion of Coma’ in Penley, C (ed.) Feminism and Film Theory, London, Routledge/British Film Institute
Cowie, Elizabeth (1999) ‘Fantasia’ in Evans, J. and Hall, S. (eds) Visual Culture: The Reader, London, Sage/The Open University. Originally published in Cowie, E. (1997) Representing the Women, London, Macmillan.
Fenichel, Otto (1999) ‘The scoptophilic instinct and “identification” in Evans, J. and Hall, S. (eds) Visual Culture: The Reader, London, Sage/The Open University. Originally published in Fenichel, Hanna and Rappaport, David (eds) (1954) The Collected Papers of Otto Fenichel, Second Series, New York, W.W. Norton
Foucault, Michel (1999) ‘Panopticonism’, in Evans,J.and Hall,S. (eds). This edited version was originally published in Foucault (1977)
Freud, Sigmund (1999) ‘Fetishism’ in Evans,J. and Hall, S. (eds) Visual Culture: The Reader, London, , Sage/The Open University. Originally published in Freud,S. (19770 On Sexuality.
Lambirth, A (2005) ‘Allen Jones Works’ Royal Academy of Arts, London
Mercer, Kobena (1999) ‘Reading racial fetishism’ in Evans,J. and Hall, S. (eds) Visual Culture: The Reader, London, , Sage/The Open University. Originally published in Mercer, Kobena (1994) Welcome to the Jungle, London, Routledge.
Mulvey, Laura (1989) ‘Visual and other pleasures’ The Macmillan Press Ltd, London Originally published in Screen, vol.16 no.3 pp.6-18
Mulvey, L (1973) ‘You don’t know what is happening, do you, Mr Jones? in ’Pollock, G and Parker, R (1987) Framing Feminism Art and the Women’s Movement 1970-1985, Pandora Press
Richards, A (1977) ‘Sigmund Freud 7. On Sexuality Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality and other works’ Penguin Books, London
Silverman, Kaja (1999a) ‘The subject (The Lacanian Model)’ in Evans, J. and Hall, S. (eds) Visual Culture: The Reader, London, Sage/The Open University. Originally published in Silverman, Kaja (1983) The Subject of Semiotics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Silverman, Kaja (1999b) ‘The subject (The Freudian Model)’ in The Subject of Semiotics, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Reproduced as Offprint 2.1.
Stacey, Jackie (1999) ‘Desperately seeking difference’ in Evans,J. and Hall, S. (eds) Visual Culture: The Reader, London, , Sage/The Open University. Originally published in Gamman, Lorraine and Marshment, Margaret (eds) (1988) The Female Gaze, London, The Woman’s Press.
Walker, Ann (2005) Video installation ‘exposure’ ‘the middle of nowhere’ ‘machine eye’
