Sukruti Anah Staneley
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 13
Psalms 139: 13-14
Photographing a Relationship It all began without the face, and without the face there could be no identity. So whom then do I resemble? I cannot remember what I never knew. I can however, imagine; conjure up a face – much like mine but with wrinkles, a few strands of frizzy gray hair, pulled back. Apart from this, I return to the faceless figure, the features gone - no similarity and no resemblance. Does this ‘perceived likeness’ define my personality or me? ‘More penetrating than likeness’, Roland Barthes wrote, ‘the Photograph sometimes makes appear what we never see in a real face: a genetic feature, the fragment of oneself or of a relative which comes from some ancestor.’1 Our ancestors, I assume, were born with two eyes, one nose and one mouth – what is it that distinguishes one person from another? This book begins exactly where this whimsical perception ends. It challenges the idea of familial resemblances, and how it contributes towards defining the image of a ‘family.’ We are not born with the knowledge of which individuals are kin, but familiarity breeds recognition2 – it inculcates within us the psychology of kinship recognition whether biological or ascribed.
Every individual was slowly transformed into a ‘dermatological landscape,’3 their skin twisted and turned around their distinctive facial features. The faces flow out of the pages and into each other, almost in an attempt to merge into one ubiquitous face. Through the translucent leaf the features are transferred from father to son almost literally, to conform to expectations of physical traits. Stasis – characteristic of the photographic medium defines its ability to hold still4, to document every line, every wrinkle and every crease, maybe tracing one’s genetic lineage. ‘In learning how to photograph that which happens,’ John Szarkowski compared, ‘we have forgotten how to photograph that which exists and prevails.’5 The face does exist; it emanates the person’s semblance. It may reveal a few significant characteristics - gender, expression, age and ethnicity but no more than this.6 If physical resemblance can be found even where it is not expected, how crucial is it in defining a ‘family?’
DNA is the genetic code which ensures that daughter cells inherit the same characteristics as the parent cells. The human face reveals certain characteristics like identity, age, gender and ethnicity; in addition every individual’s ‘facial appearance’ is highly variable. The left frontal cortex in the brain is responsible in recognizing familiar faces2. However in comparison to facial recognition software, the human brain cannot cope with the fluctuations and therefore produces less accurate results. ‘Jiwen Lu of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and his colleagues at Capital Normal University in Beijing, China, trained a piece of software to determine whether or not a pair of photos
1 Alvergne, A. et al. (2006) Differential facial resemblance of young children to their parents: who do children look like more? . Evolution and Human Behaviour, 28 p.135.
shows a parent and child.’ The fascinating aspect of this test is that in using photographic samples, the software compares groups of pixels, without exhibiting any information about which facial features may be the ‘best indicators of family ties.’ Research in facial resemblance software shows that the most predictive features to identify physical resemblances were the darkness and colour of the eyes, the darkness and colour of the skin, and the distances between the nose and mouth and the eyes and nose.2 These six different kinship recognition cues focus on the face; read it like a map.
2 Newscientist.com (2011) Science in Society - News. [online] Available at: http://www.newscientist.com.ezproxy. westminster.ac.uk/article/mg21228424.900-facial-recognition-software-spots-family-resemblance.html [Accessed: 15 Aug 2012].
The Harland-Smiths
Anna Harland-Smith, 60
Ryan Harland-Smith, 19
The Phipps & The Whiteheads
Adrian Whitehead, 39
Freddie Whitehead, 10
Charlie Phipps, 15
Ellie Phipps, 18
Alfie Phipps, 19
Rosie Phipps, 21
The Upchurchs
Jane Upchurch, 63
Joy Upchurch, 22
Grace Upchurch, 17
Facing the Curiosity The face is like a map. It becomes a presentation of who we are, intricately carved bone structures that are shaped over time. Like a map, they reveal stories, represent time and reflect growth. Every fingerprint is unique; similarly the face remains distinct, from our friends, from our siblings and even from our parents, with whom we may share DNA. So, resemblance is either Wittgenstein’s philosophy1 or a scientifically proven phenomenon. As children, we may be trained to recognize – the same large forehead or that prominent long nose – they become obvious similarities that breed familiarity2. A photograph, one might say portrays its subject and creates an unmistakable ‘likeness’ that permits you to recognize this person. My ability to recognize these similarities between a parent and child, even search for them, led me to study the concept of ‘resemblance’ in my photographic project. Resemblance or in other words, genetic physiognomy fascinated me; it is almost like being able to see one person during two different stages of their life. Looking at my grandmother would impel me to imagine what my own mother would look like at that age. My father’s hands are precisely like my grandfather’s – you can see the veins that tell of time and carry the blood that holds the biological blueprint.
As a child I never saw any recognizable physical similarities between my parents and I. Those around me, however, pointed out a likeness. In theory, adopted children cannot resemble their adoptive parents, but gradually I began to see this ‘resemblance’. I am not sure how this perception was formed, but the fact that I began to see an ascribed resemblance intrigued me. This soon became my point of focus, I wanted to look, almost gaze at other adopted parent-child relations and unexpectedly search their faces for signs of similarities. It is challenging to define a visual link of ‘resemblance’ between non-biologically related families. Through my research I was introduced to the notion of familial resemblance according to science. Kinship recognition can extend from physical similarities to similar personality traits; these cues can define how a family may perceive itself.3 Objective similarity between two people does not constitute the perception of similarity between them.4 Photography distinguishes between seeing and visualizing. The camera will only photograph what is placed in front of it, the brain however can ascribe certain features and a resemblance may be cognitively developed. The human
mind may find it easier to perceive this ‘resemblance’ and attach a certain meaning to it; the left frontal cortex of the brain is specifically associated with recognizing familiar faces.5 The most predictive features were the darkness and colour of the eyes, the darkness and colour of the skin, and the distances between the nose and mouth and the eyes and nose.6 These six individual kinship recognition cues influenced me to focus on the face; to read it like a map, trace its curves and bends. The face is a part of one’s identity; it can represent an individual’s physiognomy and even their personality. Research shows that during adolescence ‘identity formation is a part of achieving a cohesive definition of the self while individuating from parents or family.’7 Even though most adolescents develop a universal sense of identity, adoption becomes an added element to integrate into their ‘self.’ The search becomes an unconscious yet significant part of their daily life. The identity exploration begins with themselves, their perception of family and the curiosity that comes along with it. Studies have drawn a connection between the ‘mismatched appearances’ and the ‘search behaviour.’8 Adoptive parents may experience cognitive dissonance and feel the need to
The Staneleys
ascribe or perceive similarities in appearance. While it is said that such situations may lead to distress or family conflict, it is entirely dependant on the nature of this search; often it may be positive, even beneficial. While this is a personal journey for each individual, our emotions and experiences may coincide. This project has become a part of me. It is a documentation of adopted children and their families questionning the role of resemblance.My own experiences made it possible to enter people’s homes, to ask them questions and to listen to them; ‘the camera is a kind of license,’ Diane Arbus rightly said.9 In some ways, it felt as though I was now part of a private club, where we finished each other’s sentences and laughed about the same things. This is probably the beginning of new relationships, new experiences and new resemblances. Sukruti Anah Staneley 2012
Notes and References Photographing a Relationship 1
Barthes, R. (1982) Camera Lucida. London: Vintage, p.100-104.
2
Park, J. et al. (2008) Psychology of Human Kin Recognition: Heuristic Cues, Erroneous Inferences and Their Implications. Review of General Psychology, 12 (3), p.215-235.
3
Hug, C. (2009) Thomas Ruff: Surfaces, Depths. USA: Verlag fur moderne Kunst Nurnberg, p.120.
4
Baker, G. (1996) Photography between Narrativity and Stasis: August Sander, Degeneration and the Decay of the Portrait . October, 76 (Spring), p.74-76.
5
Szarkowski, J. (1963) August Sander: The Portrait as Prototype. Infinity, 12 (6), p.23.
6
Lu, J. et al. (n.d.) Neighbourhood Repulsed Metric Learning for Kinship Verification. p.1.
Facing the Curiosity 1
Wittgenstein’s Philosophy: The expression family resemblances as a cognitive metaphor is mostly associated with Ludwig Wittgenstein,a in his work Philosophical Investigation, writtern during the 1930s. ‘I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than “family resemblances”; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way.’a a Renford Bambrough “Universal and Family Resemblances”, in the Philosophy of Wittgenstein
2
Park, J. et al. (2008) Psychology of Human Kin Recognition: Heuristic Cues, Erroneous Inferences and Their Implications. Review of General Psychology, 12 (3), p.215-135.
3
Herman, E. (2001) Families Made by Science: Arnold Gesell and the Technologies of Modern Child Adoption. The History of Science Society, ISIS 92 (4), p.711.
4
Park, J. et al. (2008) Psychology of Human Kin Recognition: Heuristic Cues, Erroneous Inferences and Their Implications. Review of General Psychology, 12 (3), p.225.
5
Alvergne, A. et al. (2006) Differential facial resemblance of young children to their parents: who do children look like more? . Evolution and Human Behaviour, 28 p.135.
6
Newscientist.com (2011) Science in Society - News. [online] Available at: http:// www.newscientist.com.ezproxy.westminster.ac.uk/article/mg21228424.900-facialrecognition-software-spots-family-resemblance.html [Accessed: 15 Aug 2012].
7
Kohler, J. et al. (2002) Adopted Adolescents’ Preoccupation With Adoption: The Impact on Adoptive Family Relationships . Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 p.93.
8
‘Search Behaviour’ is the ‘intense curiosity’ about birthparents to actual search behaviour, such as trying to locate them through the use of internet or local phone directories. Kohler, J. et al. (2002) Adopted Adolescents’ Preoccupation With Adoption: The Impact on Adoptive Family Relationships . Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 p.95.
9
Israel, M. and Arbus, D. (1988) Diane Arbus: An Aperture Monograph. USA: Aperture
Sincere thanks to the Harland-Smiths, the Phipps, the Whiteheads and the Upchurchs for being a part of Resemblance. I greatly value the mentoring sessions with Max Houghton and Ben Edwards that were crucial in the production of this project. Special thanks to Sylvia Scott for her unwearying encouragement. I appreciate the timely assistance provided by Robert Belbin and Marc Broom. And finally, I would like to express deep gratitude to my family without whom this would not have been possible.
Copyright Š 2012 by Sukruti Anah Staneley London, UK Photography and Design by Sukruti Anah Staneley With Special Credit to Marc Broom who photographed Sukruti Anah Staneley Printed by Ex Why Zed 87 The Sycamores Cambridge, UK