#black white binary

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

Source

[gradientsofidentity]

“I’ve found that people identify me with their own perceptions in mind. For instance, Dominicans think I’m Dominican, Indians think I’m Indian and the list goes on. Being ‘racially ambiguous’ confuses people on a daily basis. I used to be offended when people asked ‘What are you?’ But, over time I’ve learned how to respond to this question and make it a teaching moment for another person. So my answer is: I don’t think people know how to identify me, and when they do, it’s their own experiences that they push on me.

I identify myself as a black and white, American woman. A daughter who loves her family and friends, who wishes to help people think about race critically on a daily basis, and expand her own knowledge about issues that affect people around the world.”

-Heléna

[gradientsofidentity]

"I don’t think the world knows how to identify me. Those brave enough to explore their confusion do so in the most harmful way with the question, 'what are you?' It becomes easier for persons to ease their confusion using the black white binary. On this spectrum I am either off white, grey, or a lighter shade of black. Between the two poles of racial identity is supposed tragedy. The girl who can never be white enough to get all the unearned advantages of whiteness or the girl who gets too many light shaded advantages to get unearned subjugation. 'Mulatto' is the word that smoothly rolls off of people's tongues and pierces my soul. My father is no pure bred stallion and my mother is no beast of burden. Their daughter is not a creature whose only ambition is unfruitful death. My healthy womb is the murder weapon used to smother the 'mulatto' into oblivion.

I am a being. A being capable of love, fear, pain, joy, hope, and forgiveness. I am your possibility  of disillusioning race to foster agape of all. I am the dissolvable stitches of race which will force others to endure pain to restore harmony. Finally, I am a life protected by Maria Root’s 'Bill of Rights for People of Mixed Heritage': I have the right:        -not to justify my existence in this world        -not to keep the races separate within me        -not to be responsible for people's discomfort with my physical ambiguity        -not to justify my ethnic legitimacy        I have the right:        -to identify myself differently than strangers expect me to identify        -to identify myself differently than how my parents identify me        -to identify myself differently than my brothers and sisters        -to identify myself different in different situations        I have the right:        -to create a vocabulary to communicate about being multiracial        -to change my identity over my lifetime - and more than once        -to have loyalties and identify with more than one group of people        -to freely choose whom I befriend and love"

-Brandy

[gradientsofidentity]

A Visual Narrative - the story of Gradients of Identity

Mixed race individuals are subject to an objectification within US-ian society that has become discomfortingly commonplace. The exotification of mixed race individuals has been used as a justification for their place in society. In a world that defines identity in binaries - you are either white or a person of color, you are either a man or a woman, etc... - it leaves little room for the exploration of self-identity, limiting those who live outside of the boxes of identity that have been created for us to either attempt to fit into these definitions or to create their own.

         When it comes to race, breaking down constructed binaries becomes especially difficult. From identifying oneself racially on census forms to fending off dehumanizing questions from others who are curious to know “What are you?” as opposed to “Who are you?,” the emphasis on identifying people who are racially ambiguous is a process based on the importance of physical appearance. This should come as no surprise since our racial identities are open as a result of our physical appearances and the external value that is assigned to how we look.

         As such, we decided to tell the stories of ten individuals, including ourselves, who identify as mixed race or as being from mixed ethnic backgrounds as they answer the questions: “How do others identify you?” and “How do you identify yourself?”

         Everything in studio photography is intentional - from the framing, the lighting, the tilt of the head, the direction of the gaze. It is impossible to say that a photograph is constructed without the photographer’s personal biases and opinions of the subjects impacting the image. Although we instructed to the subjects not to smile, for the most part, they were given the freedom to pose as they pleased, creating a space in front of the camera for themselves. So much of portraiture is focused on providing viewers with the means to examine other people in a way that they could not do in public - up close, impersonally, with unwavering stares.

         Society, in their exotification of mixed race and ethnic individuals, enjoys romanticizing and fantasizing about their appearances, objectifying them for their aesthetic qualities and unabashedly taking in only their physical appearances. Assumptions about what occurs below the surface often revolve around this concept of the “tragic mulatto” figure, that because multiracial and multiethnic folk do not fit into the spaces constructed for them, they must be the ones that are lost and confused. Mixed race and ethnic individuals are not often perceived as being truly mixed, but as being halved, divided, confused, and ultimately not whole.

We experienced numerous issues photographing our subjects, especially in regards to lighting. Subjects with medium or darker skin tones were much easier to light and photograph than those with lighter skin tones. There are gaping holes in our education as far as who is included in the photographic narrative. There are no people of color who teach photo classes. We are very rarely shown images created by non-white folk. We are taught if we do not have a light meter, that we can always get an accurate exposure reading based on the skin tone of our hands - but whose skin tone? Whose hand? Who is given permission and privilege to observe, and who is appropriated and objectified for what is often defended as “the sake of art?”

         The images were made with the intention of putting them in black and white, and though we were pleased with the images when they were in color, so much of the pictures’ dimension and vibrancies were lost when that aspect was taken away. We intentionally left them in black and white to show how much more stark the world is in when we place it into a falsely constructed black and white binary, and to represent that this is the world in which so many of our subjects - multifaceted, multi- dimensional, beautiful and dynamic people - are seen in.

         There was a portion of the photo shoot where we tried to shoot in automatic and the skin tones were consistently either blown out, underexposed, or just in general not photographing well. The most successful shots were where we directly controlled more of the camera- ISO, shutter speed, aperture size, focal length, focus, white balance.

         There is little difference between a physical camera lens that allows a machine to see and our personal lenses that allow us to view the world. Walking around on “automatic” is being complacent. By not constantly adjusting our focus, so much of what we could see gets blurred out and lost. If we are not willing to be constantly adjusting our critical lenses, we are being spoon-fed the societal rhetoric of how to identify ourselves and others as shown by tiny bubbles and check marks that can never truly encompass our experiences. The dominant narrative does not represent all people, nor does the dominant method of instruction promote and create a complete and inclusive understanding and viewing ourselves and the world around us.

         It has become socially acceptable to commodify the appearance of mixed race individuals, just as it has become acceptable to try to justify their presence in US-ian society by stating that “mixed race people are the most beautiful,” an obvious and blatant exotification. The assumption with this exotification is that their “beauty” is due to their mixed race heritage; they are never viewed as being beautiful for the mere sake of being beautiful, and the emphasis on them as a part of the other makes them an eternal subject, a voyeuristic view. By viewing mixed race individuals in this way, it disassociates the individual from the way that they are perceived physically, with respective viewers who don’t want to understand or don’t care enough to try to understand.

         Our subjects, however, have fearlessly faced the lens to defy notions of identity crises and exotification, blurring the lines between who is the subject and who is the viewer. The directness of the eye contact between our subjects and their respective viewers presents a challenge to viewers, changing the power dynamic; those who were supposed to be viewed are now the ones viewing and observing. Their facial expressions and body language communicate the defiance of being boxed into binaries. The notion of ideal beauty, as well, was dispelled. The shots are not traditionally beautiful – the lighting is harsh, the color and tones are stark and the expressions speak more of the fierceness of fighting marginalization than of the complacency of privilege, a factor that does not come with many of the spaces that they occupy.

         As you view these photos, we invite and encourage you to actively engage with the subjects. Muse over who they are versus what they are. Acknowledge that they have had to create spaces for themselves in a world of constructed binaries that they do not fit into. Consider their experiences with identity and then, peruse your own.

– C.L. and A.P.