Vantage Points in Visible Culture

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q9bng59i_hE/UHBFXFhH8YI/AAAAAAAAEsM/F-RmIMlixvY/s1600/elephant.png

"Seeing" the Elephant for the first time

“Seeing the world is not about how we see but about what we make of what we see. We put together an understanding of the world that makes sense from what we already know or think we know.”

Georgina Kleege (2005) responds to W.J.T. Mitchell’s (2002) statement that “visual culture entails a meditation on blindness, the invisible, the unseen, the unseeable, and the overlooked” by reminding readers that “the language we speak, the literature that we read, the architecture that we inhabit, were all designed by and for the sighted” (p.180). Considering this perspective, it is apparent that our language and forms of communication are heavily dependent on our ability to see; therefore, I wonder how do we consider what alternative vantage points should be used when exploring visual culture?

Nicolas Mirzoeff (2015) in How to See the World asserts, “Seeing the world is not about how we see but about what we make of what we see. We put together an understanding of the world that makes sense from what we already know or think we know” (p.73). This point resonates as we begin to explore different perspectives of visual culture from the sighted to those who do not have the ability to see. Below is an illustration of the 19th century poem "The Blind Men and the Elephant" by John Godfrey Saxe (1816–1887).

The poem is about six blind men who each touch different parts of an elephant to learn what it is like (tusk, skin, tail, etc.). The men then compare their experiences and learn they are in complete disagreement. Their understanding of what they have ‘seen’ of the elephant (via the use of their sense of touch) makes sense based on what they already know to be true. Using the language and the accepted classifications of the sighted society, it turns out that all of the blind men are incorrect in their description of an elephant.

Through the exploration of visual studies from blind authors who represent their experiences of blindness as something besides the absence of sight (p.187), Kleege reinforces how limiting it can be for those that cannot see to communicate using language and classifications created by those who can. Citing Helen Keller’s experience of being questioned (by an editor) for using the verb “see” in the place of “visit” reinforces the somewhat restricting role language can play for blind people and in visual culture studies. Keller’s experience reminds us that to deny her the ability to use seeing-hearing vocabulary would be to deny her the ability to communicate at all (p. 185). There have been movements to use more inclusive language based on gender and ability leading one to wonder how we can be more aware of including people who are blind. Is the interpretation of language too literal or is it unknowingly creating divisions? As an educator, I now wonder: How can the language use around visual culture be more intentional and inclusive?

Kleege, G. (2005). Blindness and Visual Culture: An Eye Witness Account 25 (338-346)