Humans’ craving for both novelty and money lead to terrible things for other animals. Our proclivity to stare and apprehend has led historically to some of the most interesting spectacle at the expense of the evolution of our capacity for compassion.
In all the books and articles I have read on Freakshows and carnival (a lot by now), a distinction is made between those freaks who are born with novelty (giants, midgets, dwarves, and other oddities) and those who self create (the tattooed lady, the sword swallower, the contortionist and other oddities). This little girl is the offspring of Iraqi parents and (conjecturally) depleted uranium. She is a man-made freak, only she didn’t decide and neither did her parents. How can we look at this? What does it make us to have made this?
Charles Stratton, famous Barnum actor, as Napoleon. Was he talented or was he a talented dwarf or was he just a dwarf? Why did people want to see him perform? Does it matter?
—The Bear’s Embrace: A true story of surviving a grizzly bear attack, by Patricia Van Tighem, Greystone Books, Douglas & McIntyre Publishing Group, 200, p. 98)
Two things: who is filming this and what are they watching? The caption and the comments suggest the deer is seeking revenge. Is it? To me, it looks playful. How often do we misread the intent of animals (or each other) and so create false narrative? Do we ever create narrative that is not false? Can we know from staring?
Dallas Weins: “Ever breath we take is a gift.” We are offered the opportunity to stare at this man’s disfigured face (well, his face is pretty much entirely effaced) through this video, and where does it bring the starer? I felt these things: pity, revulsion, exaltation, dread, hope, fear, amazement.
Tourists in Argentina cheer the end of the world. This made me wonder whether humans are the only real spectators on the planet. We are the only ones watching and judging and deciding what things are. This may be the very thing that makes us more stupid than any other species. We evaluate, and we think this sets us above.
There are so many layers in this video. There is the actual spectacle of the show and its central premise. There is the spectacle of the judging, and the relationship between the performer and the jury. There is the cultural relationship between the jury and the performer with disability. There is the camera on the audience, as spectacle spectating. And there is the catharsis of spectacle laid bare. I dare anyone to watch this and not cry, even though it is so hokey, staged, and predetermined. Especially, watch the slowed down final hug. The audience is us, outside the space, being manipulated. We are disabled so finely in this clip.
The deaf can see this song but not hear it.
Photographer Cindy Sherman invites the stare. Photography memorializes the moment (whether it happened or not), and offers a frame for staring. Our discomfort may increase because of the static nature of the image. In some cases, the puzzle “What am I looking at?’ never resolves, since the image withholds it. In this way, the photograph remains novel, and exciting.
