Emma Bourne

Conventionally, photography through its operative nature immobilises its subjects, allowing the viewer to revisit the same image. Whereas despite the ability to record a performance it can only be experienced once as it takes place in real time; it is impermanent. Focusing on the largely photographic and performance-based practice of Hannah Wilke (1940 – 1993) and Ana Mendieta (1948 – 1985) this dissertation explores how the deliberate choices Wilke and Mendieta made when presenting and capturing their bodies through the use of these media impacted upon the interpretation of the works; heightening or denouncing their corporeal agency.

This book contains a digital reproduction of a set of silverprint photographs titled 'Tracing Corporeality' and a piece of text that was displayed in my exhibition space titled 'Vestige' in PULP - the 2014 Loughborough Fine Art Degree Show. Centred around the use of the body as a moving subject, the works seek to demonstrate corporeal agency and emphasise the ever-shifting nature of the human form.

Through examining Regina José Galindo’s performance, Mientras, ellos siguen libres (Meanwhile, they are still free), 2007 along with Jenny Holzer’s Lustmord (1993-1994) this paper investigates the differences between directly and indirectly viewing a body that bears reference to the act of rape against women within visual culture. This paper views the works with two theories of subject formation in mind; Jacques Lacan’s mirror theory and Bracha Ettinger’s theory of matrixial difference. The paper questions how being able to position another subject as, what Lacan would term ‘Other’ to us or as Ettinger would term a ‘non-I’ impacts upon the way in which the viewer may respond to the subjects present within the work, as well as the acts of violence the works relate to. It asks whether allowing the viewer to identify a subject within a piece of artwork as someone separate from themselves prompts the viewer to reject the vulnerability that the work depicts. Or, are there specific circumstances, despite the discomfort that the work may solicit in its connection to the brutal act of rape, which can allow for a more hospitable relationship between the viewer and the works? Is it possible that instead of rejecting the vulnerability of another, a viewer may accept their vulnerability despite difference?

This paper examines both Miller’s photograph, Corpses at Buchenwald and a series of photographs taken by David E. Scherman, under Miller’s instruction titled, Lee Miller in Hitler’s Bath. The former carries an indirect reference to Miller as the photographer, and a direct reference to the violence and trauma afflicted by the Nazi soldiers within the concentration camps. Whereas the in the latter the staging of the photographs is reversed in that the violence and trauma of the war is indirectly present, whilst Miller’s body takes centre stage. This paper explores how Miller’s decision to directly photograph the trauma of the camps in Corpses at Buchenwald, and to indirectly reference the trauma in Lee Miller in Hitler’s Bath, impacts upon the viewer’s response to World War II holocaust violence. This paper also addresses the role of Miller’s personal corporeal agency in making these decisions.