Deedee and Tara
WORK SEEN Spring, 1991 Toronto
John D. MacBride
Deedee and Tara
Physical Addictions and Personal Needs, an exhibit by Montreal artist Linda Dawn Hammond, at Artefect Gallery in March, uses photography to examine personal relationships and contemporary sexual politics. John D. MacBride, curator of the exhibition, has compiled excerpts from his correspondence and conversations with the artist.
John D. MacBride: Your latest exhibition, Physical Addictions and Personal Needs bounces back and forth between neutral observation of personal relationships and subjective commentary on contemporary sexual politics. How do you see these issues as related and what is the significance of discussing them in a public exhibition?
Linda Dawn Hammond: I don't believe there exists such a thing as neutral observation; only a semblance thereof. Even the most controlled laboratory experiment contains hints of its conclusion within the premise and this often dictates the form of the enquiry. Personal relationships under scrutiny are hopelessly entangled in sexual politics and they exhibit either an acceptance or rejection of community social mores.
The first half of the show, Physical Addictions, sets itself up as being an objective portrayal of relationships and certain efforts were made to reduce the influence of the environment on our reading of the subjects. Therefore a neutral space devoid of personal indicators was chosen. There was no interference in the couples' choice of dress (or undress) and it was left to them to determine the degree to which their relationship was disclosed, unconscious slips aside. However, in the the final stage of selection which involved two images being selected from a choice of over 100 [for each couple], subjective commentary displaced all vestiges of neutrality. Without the benefit of a contact sheet to place the choices in context, the viewer is forced to accept my final analysis. If one element of Physical Addictions is more obviously subjective, it is the couples themselves. This is not random selection. This is not middle America.
JDM: What do you mean by that?
LDH: When I refer to middle America, I mean that the term "couples" suggest something quite conservative and a lot of peoplc in the past have been turned off by that term and what it signifies. I think it has dissuaded a lot of people from establishing meaningful relationships. People have been so caught up in individuality rather than merging with other people and sharing. I thought that it would be interesting to present couples in a different light where they seemed more exciting, although that's not really fair to say, because some people find the idea of solidity and conservative morals exciting... but I don't. I want to get away from the traditional idea of what a couple is.
JDM: How did you go about establishing what kind of criteria you were going to look for in couples?
LDH: Well I suppose I was looking for specific things. I didn't want to have too much repetition although I know there are quite a few gay couples in it. One of the things that has always interested me since I was very young is androgyny, where people's definition of male and female is blurred. I like playing with that, where people aren't sure if they are looking at a male- female couple or two females.
There is a reference to the AIDS crisis in this show. We're all affected by AIDS and I think that more and more people are finding that they have to enter into some sort of union with someone else in order to protect themselves. The show is an affirmation of this idea. You could look at other people who defy what a couple is traditionally meant to signify as a form of inspiration. This is only one element of the exhibition and I don't want people to think of this as only an AIDS statement.
P.24 WORK SEEN Spring, 1991
Blane and Francis
JDM: How did you find these people? How did you get couples to agree to be photographed and how do you get them to be so personal and intimate in front of the camera?
LDH: It's funny, some of the people I've known for quite a while and they're friends of mine. Others I know only as acquaintances and I got to know them during the shoot. There's only perhaps one or two couples that I didn't end up connecting with as a result of the shoot, and I won't say who they were. Despite the fact that they appeared to be so open and allowed me to come so close during the shoot, I think that some of the couples were a little disconcerted afterwards.
I first saw the gay male couple with the shaved heads (Luke and Andre) in a cafe and I couldn't tell if they were a couple; they were just drinking coffee. I thought to myself either, these men are skinheads or they're a gay male couple, because it is now fashionable for gay males to shave their heads. So I went up to them and said, "Excuse me, I hope you don't mind my asking, but are you a couple?" I was waiting to have my head bashed in, but they responded, "Yes, we are. Why?" I asked them if I could photograph them and now we're all great friends.
I didn't recruit most people that way. For example, Jimmy and Robert I've known for years. Jimmy's my hairdresser.
JDM: Your photos have this kind of warmth to them. You treat your models with dignity and affection, for lack of a better word. You're kind to them. How do you communicate with them and get them to open up to you the way they do?
LDH: I don't really know exactly why but I think I have this facility to do that. Maybe I learned to do it when I did documentary street photography, shooting people whom I didn't really know at all. I wanted to try and get across who they were as human beings; I felt I had to get under them and develop a rapport as quickly as possible. I guess it's something I have learned to do over the sixteen years I've been taking photos. I'm a very open person when I meet people, and they pick that up. I try to leave myself open and let them know that I'm not going to judge them in a negative way.
Sheila and Chris
JDM: I find it ironic that Physical Addictions examines unconventional, non-traditional relationships to try to understand what the essential ingredients of a relationship need be; yet in Personal Needs you subvert your own identity to become the fulfilment of someone else's desire. Is this an intentional commentary on the roles women assume in order to establish and maintain some sort of human relationship? Or is it a commentary on the ineffectiveness of advertising as a form of personal communication. Or is it a reflection on relationships in your personal life?
LDH: It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of advertising, or which I know nothing. To some degree it represents a reaction to the efforts of males that I've known to recreate me in their own image. Yes, I could have done it, but I chose not to.
The ads were chosen for the humorous interpretation they afforded as well as the specificity of the types requested. One can look at the series in a positive light; as an affirmation of all of the possible paths available to us; a question of choices. Or one can see it in a negative light;how people are forced to conform to other people's ideals, desires and needs in order to establish human contact; a question of manipulation. Each interpretation is equally valid. The ads and their accompanying images reveal more of the seeker than the sought; the description of the ideal represents a nucleus of what eludes the writer of the ad and often why.
JDM: Why did you use yourself to create these ads? Why didn't you go out, as you did in Physical Addictions, and look for the kind of person that you wanted to create? Instead you decided to fabricate one using yourself. I consider that a really big step and a difficult thing to do.
LDH: It would have been a lot easier to shoot other people. You can never light yourself to the degree that you can light someone else. I found that frustrating when dealing with a 4 x 5 camera, because sometimes it takes hours to take one photograph.
P.25 WORK SEEN Spring, 1991
Kitten With Claws
It's often difficult to get someone to sit for that long, so by using myself I got around that problem. I wanted to use one person and transform them in each photograph because it established that any one person can fulfil anyone's ideal. Since the premise required I use only one person, I was the most willing model and always available. It was a very practical reason for doing so. I did have an assistant on those shots. In the beginning I had to make a decision, either use a long shutter release cable or have an assistant to work the shutter. The camera I was dealing with was old, and it would not operate with the long shutter-release cord. I also didn't want the photographs to be self-conscious to the point that you are always aware of the process of the photographer by having the cable visible. I had six different assistants during the course of the series. None of them had ever worked with a 4 x 5 camera before. I didn't want someone who was going to be providing much input into the photograph. I would have them sit in as my model while I adjusted the lighting and the camera. Then we would take polaroids to ensure the lighting and camera angle were correct. When we finally had what we wanted with the polaroid, we would shoot six photos with the regular 4 x 5 film. The whole process was very methodical and very carefully done so that there were no real errors between what we expected to get and what we got in the end.
JDM:But how did you feel, considering the explicit nature of some of the photographs in that series, about posing in front of your assistants?
LDH: It was hilarious actually. For years, I been subjecting other people to my camera and I really don't like being photographed myself. I thought it's only fair after all these portraits of other people revealing themselves (they were doing things in Physical Addictions I would never do) that I subject myself to the same scrutiny.
JDM: But you don't because you take on different personas?
LDH: I know, this is how I got around it. I can't deal with myself unless I'm masked. But getting back to the assistants, in the photograph Kitten witb Claws the persona I assume has a witch-like quality. The assistant I used for that photo shoot was actually a practising witch. I thought it was important that, where possible, I could have my assistants directly involved in the personality I was trying to uncover. Just by being in the room, I think it affected the photograph. For the masochist photograph, my assistant was a practising masochist. Genius with a Big Dick was one of the more difficult photographs to do because I'm not a man and I don't have a penis. So during the shoot I had two male assistants, one gay and one straight, telling me I was masturbating wrong! It felt so ludicrous.
JDM: Your exhibition includes text from Gilles Deleuze's essay, Coldness and Cruelty. How do you feel that Deleuze's theories on masochism impact on personal relationships (as you have examined them)? How has Deleuze shaped the development of your work?
LDH: I attended a class at McGill University entitled, "Masochism and Popular Culture," taught by Brian Massumi. The readings included Deleuze as well as Freud, de Sade, Von Sacher Masoch and Mulvey. I chose Deleuze's essay to provide a subtext because he refers to the text of the writers which influenced the series in such beautiful language that I thought he could offer additional readings of the images. Deleuze himself didn't shape the works as they were being created, but he offers a form to help understand them. Masochism is a question of power relationships and there are elements of these struggles in all human contacts. Some photos deal with the question: is the Masochist in control of the relationship or is the Sadist? Others allude to the reduction of the object of desire to fetishized body parts (penises, breasts). Some present the female in her idealized "safe" role of housewife/ mother but the subtext suggests ominous undertones. This is the first time I've combined text with photos. I've previously rejected it because it has been so trendy for so long to eilher scribble all over photos, blow them up obscenely large or retrieve them from the garbage or public archives AND blow them up obscenely large and call it "appropriation.
JDM: Some artists today feel that politics and social issues have no place in art. They argue that aside from "dating" a piece (i.e., it loses its relevance within a few years), it diverts attention from the "purer" concepts that art can explore. As an emerging artlst, what do you see as the role of art for yourself? How do politics and social issues fit into your artmaking?
P.26 WORK SEEN Spring, 1991
LDH: We live in an age where ignorance or dishonesty regarding one's sexuality can lead to death. Yet we are also residing within a decade of renewed intolerance and censorship as conservative trends seek to return to a lost period when 'turning a blind eye' erased the problem. Agreeing to display one's intimacies in public is a political statement in itself, of considerable courage, and can be taken as an open challenge to be who you want to be and not deny your inner truths. Now I hear that "political statements" are finally in vogue. "Angry art," they call it. Oh good! Perhaps I'll finally find a place in Contemporary art. I'm considered pretty angry after all...
JDM: Do you consider yourself angry? I don't consider tbe work to be angry.
LDH: No, this work isn't angry. This work really was a departure for me because it was the first time I'd worked in a studio setting. Prior to this, and you've got to remember I've been shooting for over 16 years, I almost exclusively photographed people in documentary street settings. The photographs were more involved with the politics of poverty. I shoot a lot of political photography. Even though these new photographs demonstrate an affection, as you put it, to the subjects, in many degrees they can represent an affront to straight middle class morals. There is a degree of anger in the fact that I am making my audiences confront this. It's not necessarily anger but a confrontation is there. The confrontation isn't with the people themselves; it's with a society that would judge that these people are doing something unacceptable. Despite my age, I'm anti-authoritarian. Maybe its something that's plagued me in my dealings with the establishment. Politically, the things I've been involved with make me seem angry. I've been involved in documenting and supporting concerns in Central America for years. The issue of poverty has concerned me since I began photography. I was involved in the police/ gay confrontations in Montreal last summer and because of that I became quite vocal about police aggression in Montreal, which caused me a lot of problems. Then I decided to hang out at Oka to avoid the Montreal Urban Police. I guess I just don't like people telling me what to do or what to think.
P.26 WORK SEEN Spring, 1991