Chi Omega (3 citations required)
In the Chi Omega situation outlined below, to what extent do you believe the participants who posed for the photo shared the responsibility of its authorship? Was this primarily a picture made of them or made by them?
An example of this is a photo made by some Penn State students that received critical international media attention in December of 2012. The photo, made around Halloween, depicted a group of 26 college age women who posed for a snapshot. Many wore fake moustaches and were dressed in stereotypical Mexican sombreros and ponchos. Two women were carefully positioned together centrally in the front of the group where they each held signs which read, “Will Mow Lawn For Weed + Beer” and “I Don’t Cut Grass, I Smoke It.” Technically, the photo was an awkwardly made snapshot, slightly out of focus, with a bright light glaring in the upper part of the picture. Its purpose is unclear, but perhaps it the photographer and participants intended it as a memento to be placed in a scrapbook or Facebook page. The media attention focused on the stereotypical representation of Mexican people by a group of predominantly white college-age sorority women.
Onward State, which describes itself as an alternative Penn State blog, first published the picture and an editorial article about it on December 4. The article explained, “The connection between Chi Omega and the racist image was discovered when examining the names of the girls pictured. This proved to be easy as those featured in the image were tagged on Facebook.” It went on to describe the event as a, “bigotry fiesta.”
The (Daily) Mail Online also published the picture and a story. The Daily Mail is a UK based newspaper with a 4 million reader international audience. CBS news and the Huffington Post ran the photos and stories as well. Huffington is the 11th most visited website in the U.S. and they used the article byline, “Racist Party Picture Lands Penn State Chi Omega Sorority In Hot Water.” Regardless of Huffington’s declaration of racism, we know very little about the photo from the media articles, beyond what we can see in it for ourselves.
It is clear that many people interpreted the intentions of the women depicted in the photo (and perhaps even the photo itself) as having racist overtones. So much so that the local sorority leadership felt obliged to issue a public apology and a statement, “ The picture in question does not support any of Chi Omega’s values or reflect what the organization aspires to be.” That leaves us to ponder, what the picture does reflect and why?
Despite the media characterizations of the photo and participants as being racist, the blog responses to the news articles by the audience of readers indicated split opinions; where some responders regarded the photo as overtly racist, others felt that there was no racism apparent and these were merely young women having fun. Others still felt it was only the inclusion of the signs, which made the pictures read as having a racist meaning.
It is unlikely that the women intended to send a message that would brand them as racists to any audience. They most probably failed to understand that the interpretation of their message would be substantially different than they thought it would be. Nor did they take into account that photography is a substantially different medium than it was a generation ago when film and prints ruled. Now, photography is very much a medium of collective digital communications, which means we can share any photo with millions instantaneously.
Perhaps with the spotlight on Penn State after the Sandusky scandal there existed a potential world audience for the photo who had a heightened appetite for critical analysis of anything coming out of the Penn State community. In this climate, the homogeneous culture of the sorority house collided with the diversity of cultures beyond its walls. Regardless of the women’s intent or personal motives, it is clear they discovered that they live in a world where photography is a tool for communal experience, not just within their small clique, but with the world at-large and the picture they posted to Facebook directly communicated complex messages about them to large diverse audiences.
This picture provides an example of where it is useful to take a critically rhetorical approach to understanding and discussing photographs and photography in the Internet age. With rhetorical criticism, we are primarily concerned with how the medium works as a tool of communication as opposed to simply focusing on aesthetics or content. Even a crudely made snapshot can convey powerful meanings. A rhetorical examination of a photograph scrutinizes the relationship between the photo, the photographer, and the audience.
With venues for photos as popular and audience-friendly as Facebook, it is more important than ever that photographers consider the relationships they form with their audience through their photographs. Audiences may interpret photos in a variety of ways, which may have little to do with the original intent of the photographer or photo participants. Nonetheless, as the author of the photo, the photographer is ultimately responsible for its meaning. However, authorship may not be the sole responsibility of the person pushing the button. With the Chi Omega photo, we can make a case that each of those women ultimately shared responsibility for its authorship with the camera operator through their active participation in its production.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!
