In Douglas Crimp’s article “Portraits of People with AIDS” (first presented at a conference in November of 1988), Crimp discusses images of people with AIDS. Namely photographs by Nicholas Nixon (Portraits of People with AIDS- PWAs), a CBS program titled “AIDS Hits Home”, an episode of PBS Frontline “AIDS: A National Inquiry”, and lastly Danny a twenty minute videotape film by Stashu Kybartas. In all examples, excluding Danny, Crimp feels that the portrayal of the “victims” of AIDS creates false stereotypes. He feels that ultimately, they reveal images of people “dying” with AIDS instead of “living” with AIDS.
Where Crimp feels that Danny succeeds is in how it confronts the “terror at imagining the person with AIDS still sexual.” He explains that Danny presents “phobic images” that show the central figure living, fleshing out relationships with his family, and more importantly interacting with the person on the other side of the camera.
Crimp concludes his article by stating that it is not effective to simply dismiss the other (not Danny) representations of PWAs, and that the end result should not be to produce portraits that counter-type the stereotype.
Throughout the article Crimp focuses much attention on the individual versus representative. He elaborates on whether the feelings elicited by the images are brought on because of the subject’s abandonment of sense of self or because of the relationship between the photographer/filmmaker and subject. I feel that by labeling these images as either “representative portraits” or “individual pictures of people” Crimp awards too much power to the viewer. I feel that he ignores the intention of the subject. Why or why not might the subject have wanted to be portrayed as a “victim”?
One other issue I had with the article was that I had a difficult time differentiating between Crimp’s desires to portray AIDs as a “lifestyle” as opposed to a disease. To me, this seemed to be creating a stereotype within itself. Not necessarily terrible, but just confusing. I understand that he feels there should be more individual and case-by-case representations of people with AIDs, but I do not understand how this helps people to become more aware of the disease (what I feel he wants to happen), instead of the lifestyles of the individual subjects.
“Video Remains: Nostalgia, Technology, and Queer Archive Activism
In the article “Video Remains: Nostalgia, Technology, and Queer Archive Activism” (2006) Alexandra Juhasz discusses his film Video Remains (2005) . The film focuses primarily on an interview with his best friend, Jim, who eventually died from AIDS, blended with the voices of living female AIDS activists. Of the mixing accounts Juhasz states, it "enlivens my old tape and recommits to a contemporary conversation about AIDS, its representations, feelings, activism, and history."
Juhasz spends a large part of the article talking about nostalgia and video and how they relate and are played out in his Video Remains. He says that his film is about “the relationship between individual biography and the biography of groups or nations, between personal and collective memory.” He states that unlike Crimp who understand works of art such as these that address, death, loss and AIDS, to be melancholy and mourning the loss of an individual life, his video recalls a “lost, shared, collective time and place: AIDS activism, New York City, late 1980’s.”
I enjoyed reading this article because it offered alternating interpretations to some of the work discussed in the previous Crimp article. I also liked how the subject’s intentions were taken into account. For example, when he quoted one of the females saying, “When I am dead and gone, and the people I have interviewed are dead and gone, these tapes will still exist, so that someone can later use them to understand what happened.” Why can’t we think of any of the subjects from PWAs or video documents from the previous article in this same way, considering what the subject might have wished to convey?
Overall, however, I felt it was a little difficult to give much credit to the article because of the over-sentimental language.
“The Spectacle of AIDS”
In Simon Watney’s “The Spectacle of AIDS” (1987), Watney discusses the way in which AIDS is portrayed in media. He states that the “subject continues to be framed by a cultural agenda that is as medically misinformed as it is socially misleading and politically motivated.” He acknowledges that in an attempt to provide people the “truth” and “knowledge” about the disease media has ultimately pinned it on high-risk groups. He further explains that the “truth” of AIDS “resolutely insists that the point of emergence of the virus should be identified as its cause.”
He goes onto describe how people with AIDS are inaccurately described as AIDS carriers that threaten “the family”, “the nation”, and “the species.” Ultimately, Watney explains how the “spectacle of AIDS” operates as a public masque in which we witness the corporal punishment of the “homosexual body.”
How does the art from the previous articles fall into play in this argument of the “spectacle of AIDS” as described by Watney. Does it support or contradict it?
What about a “spectacle of AIDS” that exist today? What groups are targeted in an attempt to relay the “truth” about AIDS today?
(IMAGE FROM GERMAN AIDS AWARENESS POSTER)
I felt like Watney and Crimp were on the same page. Both were extremely critical of the representations of AIDS and the ways and means that these images communicate a sense of fear and urgency throughout the population. I was pretty horrified reading Crimp’s descriptions and critiques of the mainstream media programs (PBS should be ashamed!). I feel like every one of the “portraits” that Crimp describes reinforces the stereotype criticized in Watney’s argument that what is understood by the hegemony is that the “truth” of AIDS “resolutely insists that the point of emergence of the virus should be identified as its cause.” I don’t think Watney would agree with Crimp about the “lifestyles” images.
ReplyDeleteI was shocked by all the details in the Crimp article. And I agree that PWAs have been dismissed to an extent, and Crimp's descriptions really bring light to the stereotypes. I had the same issue with Crimp's AIDS lifestyle, vs. AIDS being a disease. And I really think that this article pointed more towards the images described instead of the actual PWAs. I did like the contrast between the Crimp, and Juhasz articles. I thought the Juhasz article was more humanizing. I don’t know if I’m just oblivious or don’t watch the news enough, but I seem to be completely unaware of all the media attention AIDS is getting. But after doing a little surfing around, it seems like the US is far behind the curve, or is just to “PC” to talk about it. “We” (and I’m using this as a HUGE blanket term) can’t point fingers at the gay/ lesbian community even if “we” want to. All the other countries seem to be embracing the LGBTQ community and doing as much as possible to educate them as well. Seems to me that the Unites States needs to get on it…
ReplyDeleteThe thing that I kept thinking during the Crimp article about the Frontline episode is how much worse the other media venues must have been at the time. If PBS can be accused of insensitivity and playing into stereotypes imagine what the 700 Club must have been saying.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that so many of my acquaintances to this day still believe AIDS is somehow unique to the homosexual community and intravenous drug users. Once I got into it with a friend of mine because he said that AIDS was some kind of curse from (G)od upon the gays. I told him that his (G)od must really like lesbians because they are the safest demographic. He responded that he didn't appreciate me "putting word in the Lord's mouth."
wait a second?!... i thought ALL gay men were born with AIDS. isn't that what i'm supposed to think? isn't that what the fear campaign of the 80s was about? it seems very telling that catherine wasn't aware of all of this AIDS attention... AIDS is not a subject that america talks about anymore. i'm interested to know what people who didn't live through the gay = death 1980s thought about these articles.
ReplyDeletethe problem i have with the watney and crimp articles is that they seem to be calling for a common sense response from the american public. you can't put a face on a disease that infects so many people. and the disease can't function as an adequate definition of the individuals infected. the problem i have with both articles is the pains they both take to address something i already accept. the "gay community" in the 80s was vilified by an american public that needed someone to blame for an incurable disease. i'm sure the crimp article had a much more powerful impact in 88.
the juhasz article was much more interesting to me because of the idea of nostalgia functioning as an active counterpoint to mourning, and the idea that video becomes the best tool for this type of activation. i must admit, reading this article again i have my doubts about the legitimacy of this idea. the video provides a more convincing illusion, but seeing what things were like is not knowing what things were like... and, sadly, it never can be.
I agree that trying to put a face on a disease is just plain silly. Unfortunately--stereotyping is an easy path to definition. I remember a discussion last year where we were talking about diseases and what gender was assigned to those illnesses and why. In the discussion, Cancer was female and AIDS was male...in fact all STDs were male (save Chlamydia- and I only think that is because it sounds like a girls name.)I still think it is interesting how we arrive at these stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteI can think of no campaigns to put a face to Cancer or Influenza...why AIDS? Is it because we are voyeurs? The difference in a passive or active disease?