Through the Eyes of the Viewer
Framing in photography is considered as a way for the photographer to determine his agenda and perspective. The photographer has the power over what he will put in the frame and what he will not. What is in the frame is what will determine how the photo will be interpreted by the viewer. In the context of the Borrowing Eyes and Seeing Space Exhibition by Fehung, in my opinion, this is not entirely true, but rather the opposite. Fehung’s photographs are determined by what is not in them. If we know the logic of Kress and Leeuwen (in Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design) about narrative representation; then what is called a vector here is the relationship between the objects in the photo (the frame as proposed by Fehung) with the subjects that are not presented there (which are omitted by Fehung). The white area in the middle of the frame, in Fehung’s logic, determines how we see the pile of fruit, chicken meat, women’s panties… and thus determines the perspective of the owner of the eyes that Fehung borrows.
By eliminating the objects in the middle, Fehung seems to give space for the viewer to fill it with whatever comes from their memory. This work seems to be able to describe how our brain works in understanding reality. Reality (more precisely Perceived Reality) is always a collaboration between the senses and memory; when there is something that must be understood/felt by the senses, our brain will automatically unpack the memory suitcase and display it there mixed with sensory sensations, and process it into what we call reality.
So, I don’t just see Fehung’s approach as just a form of point of view. However, this is a proposal about how photography can be used in the process of learning empathy. The biggest problem in human relationships is empathy, how one of the most frightening characters of the human personality called psychopathy is defined (among other things) as the lack/absence of the ability to empathize. Fehung’s works invite viewers to empathize by filling the white area in the middle of each photo with anything from our life experiences and knowledge that we have acquired throughout our lives.
Good luck.
Akiq AW (Curator for this exhibition)
Looking at the frame and looking through the frame
Photography is a matter of framing: What is in front of the camera is recorded into a four-sided field. The photographer chooses, consciously or subconsciously, only a portion of what is presented in front of him and frames it in a photograph; determining what to show in a photo frame and what not.
In photographic composition, we know the term “framing,” which is the use of elements in the foreground to frame other elements in the background, in a photograph. Meanwhile, the photograph itself is a frame for viewing the world, so this framing technique is also known as the term “frame within frame.” The use of this technique usually requires paying attention to the relationship between the foreground and background elements, because if the two are not connected, the presence of the foreground as a framer will actually be disturbing.
This framing technique within a photo frame is what is used by Yudha Kusuma Putera, a young artist who is usually called Fehung, in the exhibition Meminjam Mata dan melihat Ruang. In each displayed photo, Fehung then removes the background part that is framed by the foreground, so that only the framing element itself remains.
Fehung is a member of a photography-based artist group in Yogyakarta, MES 56. Fehung was born and raised in Magelang, Central Java, and has lived in Yogyakarta since 2005 when he entered the Photography Department at the Faculty of Recorded Media Arts, Indonesian Institute of the Arts Yogyakarta. He has obtained a bachelor of arts degree from his campus this year.
Fehung began joining MES 56 since working with this group in an exhibition entitled New Folder (Ruang MES 56, Yogyakarta, 2011). In the exhibition with three other young artists, Fehung photographed his family members in their respective comfort zones. His mother, a housewife, was photographed in the kitchen and in the garden. Meanwhile, his father, a studio photographer who is no longer active, was photographed holding a camera in front of items from his former studio, such as advertising for photography product brands.
Towards the end of that year, Fehung also exhibited his work at Beyond Photography (Ciputra Artpreneur Center, Jakarta, 2011), a group exhibition co-curated by Jim Supangkat and Asmujo Jono Irianto. Here, Fehung displayed three photographs taken in sequence, showing the process of dissolving a colored substance in a glass container of water, with a rice field in the background. Responding to the theme beyond photography—whatever the intent and meaning, which the curatorial team allowed the exhibition participants to interpret—Fehung tried to show a time span through this series of photographs.
In the middle of this year, Fehung held a solo exhibition as his final assignment, entitled Humorous Statues and Plastic Tarpaulins in Staged Photography (FSMR ISI Lobby, Yogyakarta, 2012). In this exhibition, Fehung played around with the humorous side of photography, taking inspiration from the works of Austrian artist Erwin Wurm. As the title suggests, Fehung formed a “statue” by covering the figure of a person in his photograph using plastic tarpaulin.
In his previous works, Fehung often used a performative and staging approach. This is quite common, as many contemporary Indonesian photography artists also use the same approach. This custom was also acknowledged by Akiq A.W., another member of MES 56 who acted as the curator of this exhibition, in his artist talk show at an art space in Bandung, a few weeks ago. For this exhibition, Fehung photographed a number of scenes in the city of Yogyakarta using the framing technique. Then, as written above, he removed the background, so that our attention—whether we like it or not—is focused on the foreground elements that act as the frame in the photographic field. I think this is quite brave, because this time Fehung works using a different approach from what he usually uses. This photo project about frames began with Fehung’s participation in the MES 56 photo book project—individually, not as a group. The books resulting from the Melawan Lupa project were then exhibited at the National Gallery of Indonesia, Jakarta, in the middle of this year. In his book project, which at that time he titled Realise the Frame, Fehung saw that routines help determine our perspective, and thus, determine the objects that we can and cannot see from that perspective.
A shop owner or attendant, for example, during work can only look out of the shop through the door or window, which is often covered by displays of merchandise, whether it be women’s underwear, fruit, or tombstones. Or also pedicab and andong passengers, whose views during the journey are limited by the windows and tents of the pedicab and andong themselves. From this observation, Fehung then invites us to look at frames, and to realize their existence and consequences in the way we see space.
I see several interesting things in this series. First, the discussion about frames themselves. Personally, I often ignore the presence of frames in my daily life, because they are so ordinary and unimportant. During a land trip along the Bengawan Solo river a year ago, my view was framed by the window of the vehicle I was riding in. While sitting eating at Mbak Wanti’s stall, next to the old MES 56 Room, my view of Mbak Uut’s salon across the street was framed by the stall’s window. However, those frames were not present in my consciousness.
I considered those frames non-existent, because for me, what is important to see is what is framed, not the frame. Fehung reverses this assumption by removing what is framed and, in doing so, forces us to pay attention to what frames. The framer then becomes more important than what is framed.
Furthermore, Fehung also emphasizes the intensity of time: My view was framed by Mbak Wanti’s stall window only as long as I sat eating there, while Mbak Wanti’s view has been framed by her stall window since she first opened the stall many years ago. Right here Fehung’s statement then has an echo: Realize, your view is limited by the shop window—both mine and Mbak Wanti’s.
Second, another interesting thing is the point of view. Not only does he reverse the relationship between the framer and the framed, Fehung also reverses the point of view of the subject and the object. I think most people who pass by on the streets of Yogyakarta are not familiar with the views offered by Fehung in this series, because we usually experience them as outsiders looking in (the subject looking at the object). Through this work, Fehung lends us the point of view of an insider looking out (the object that was previously seen is now the subject looking).
However, there are also things that I don’t like about this series. Personally, I am a bit disturbed by the way Fehung removes the background of each photo, because the removal seems to be done roughly. I once expressed this to Fehung directly. I thought this work was not finished, because the workmanship was so rough.
Fehung explained that the rough cuts in his work started from the assumption that the objects that were the frames in the photo would continue to move, increase, or decrease. So, the cuts that did not exactly follow the outline of the objects were intentional; to give us space to see other possibilities in the movement of the objects. Hopefully, this intention can also be understood by the audience (exhibition visitors).
What Fehung did regarding the issue of borrowing eyes and seeing this space can be understood as one way to discuss the issue of perspective. At least, that’s what Akiq A.W. and I felt when we talked about this work. The discussion about perspective is certainly still broad and can be discussed in other ways. The idea of frames and perspectives also tickled me a bit to expand the discussion to a little outside the visualization offered by Fehung in this exhibition.
This world is limitless, while our perspective is limited, as is the medium we use. A photograph always comes with four sides that limit the frame. This making photography a problematic medium. A photographic frame only records what is in front of the camera and not what is behind, above, below, left, or right—and what is now and not then or later. Because photography can only record a portion of reality, some have questioned the validity of the reality recorded in a photographic frame.
Others have debated the validity of the point of view chosen to record that reality; which one best represents the reality recorded. This has to do with how photography has been celebrated as a medium that is said to be able to capture reality most closely, since its creation in Europe in the nineteenth century. In looking back at the reality recorded in a photographic frame, the context in which the photograph was made should also be important to consider.
How a photographer frames his image with a certain point of view can be seen as an act of separating the chosen object from its original context in a chaotic world. Thus, looking at a photograph can help us focus our attention on a particular object in the photograph; we do not need to see other things that distract us. Imagine a beautiful girl, photographed by including dozens of other people in the photo frame, of course it is difficult for us to focus on the girl.
On the other hand, this framing can also provide a new context to the object. This happens because our minds then build a new meaning for the object that has been separated from its original context, both the context of space and the context of time. Imagine the beautiful girl, this time photographed in close-up, then we start to notice her wavy hair, her half-hearted smile, her baggy eyes, her lipstick that is either thin or has started to wear off, and we start to imagine who she is, what she is doing, where she is, or even guess the quality of the lens used to photograph her.
This is just an example, because meaning is not in a photo frame; meaning is present in the mind of the viewer—this is very subjective. Subjective too, the way of seeing offered by Fehung by borrowing the eyes of others to see the space they experience.
These are perhaps the things that I can offer to all viewers (exhibition visitors) in viewing Fehung’s photographs displayed here. I do not dream of being able to reveal the meanings in each of the photo frames exhibited. Let the meanings form in the minds of each viewer so that we can discuss them later.
To end this article, I will write some quotes related to our discussion.
“Where a painter starts with a blank canvas and builds a picture, a photographer starts with the messiness of the world and selects a picture.” Stephen Shore, in the book The Nature of Photographs (Phaidon, 2010)
“You take 35 degrees out of 360 degrees and call it a photo. No individual photo explains anything. That’s what makes photography such a wonderful and problematic medium.” Joel Sternfeld, in an interview with the Guardian, in 2004
“Photography is about the frame you put around the image; what comes in and what is cut off. And yet the story doesn’t end. It’s told beyond the frame through a kind of intuition.” Joel Meyerowitz, in the series The Genius of Photography (BBC, 2009)
“What is true of photographs is true of the world seen photographically.” Susan Sontag, in the book On Photography (Penguin, 2008)
“When the camera used basically represents the human eye that takes the picture, reality or knowledge is necessarily subjective.” Seno Gumira Ajidarma, in the book Kisah Mata (Galang Press, 2005) ∎
Budi Dharmawan (Writer)