1 Discuss how the connection between the human face and personal identity is articulated and/or appropriated in visual culture. For human beings, the visual presentation our faces is one of the most significant ways in which we express our individuality. The face can be a site of freedom, uniqueness and creativity for some, but can also be used as a means of oppression and control, both historically and with the creation of recent technology. I will consider issues of freedom and control in relation to how our identities are presented visually by our faces in today’s Western culture. Visually, our faces are the parts of our body by which we are most often recognised; they are most often visible in public, reasonably unchanging over time, and easy to differentiate between with the naked eye. Writing ‘Data Face’, Sandra Kemp reminds us that “The full face ‘ID’ photograph has become the international method for identifying individuals on passports, driving licences, identity cards and credit cards. It is still the standard symbol for identity in the 21 st century.” 1 The face is established as an integral part of our identities, but to what extent do we have freedom over the presentation of it to others, and to what extent do others use the view of our faces to control us? Firstly, in an exploration of the ways in which people can take control of portraying their own faces, I will consider the concept of ‘body image’, which Featherstone defines as “a mental image of one’s body as it appears to others” (193). Particularly for our faces, is true that any adaptation must be mostly for the benefit of others, as humans naturally would not be able to see their own face – we have to make a conscious effort to see a replica of others’ view of us, for example in a mirror or a photograph. Once we have the idea of others’ view of us in mind, we often adapt and construct our faces in an attempt to construct and control our identities. For example, the beauty industry (“a $160 billion-a-year global industry” 2 ) reflects modern people’s desire to improve and perfect the visual appearance of the face. In fact, “Americans spend more each year on beauty than they do on education” 3 – reminding us of the importance that modern society places on visual 1 Kemp,S. 'Data Face'. Future Face: Image, Identity, Innovation (London: Profile Books, 2004), pp. 100-43 2 “The Beauty Business: Pots of Promise | The Economist.” Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.economist.com/node/1795852. 3 “The Beauty Business: Pots of Promise | The Economist.” Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.economist.com/node/1795852.
Transcript
1
Discuss how the connection between the human face and personal identity is articulated and/or appropriated in visual culture. For human beings, the visual presentation our faces is one of the most significant ways in which we express
our individuality. The face can be a site of freedom, uniqueness and creativity for some, but can also be used
as a means of oppression and control, both historically and with the creation of recent technology. I will
consider issues of freedom and control in relation to how our identities are presented visually by our faces in
today’s Western culture.
Visually, our faces are the parts of our body by which we are most often recognised; they are most
often visible in public, reasonably unchanging over time, and easy to differentiate between with the naked eye.
Writing ‘Data Face’, Sandra Kemp reminds us that “The full face ‘ID’ photograph has become the international
method for identifying individuals on passports, driving licences, identity cards and credit cards. It is still the
standard symbol for identity in the 21st century.”1 The face is established as an integral part of our identities,
but to what extent do we have freedom over the presentation of it to others, and to what extent do others use
the view of our faces to control us?
Firstly, in an exploration of the ways in which people can take control of portraying their own faces, I will
consider the concept of ‘body image’, which Featherstone defines as “a mental image of one’s body as it
appears to others” (193). Particularly for our faces, is true that any adaptation must be mostly for the benefit of
others, as humans naturally would not be able to see their own face – we have to make a conscious effort to
see a replica of others’ view of us, for example in a mirror or a photograph. Once we have the idea of others’
view of us in mind, we often adapt and construct our faces in an attempt to construct and control our
identities. For example, the beauty industry (“a $160 billion-a-year global industry” 2) reflects modern people’s
desire to improve and perfect the visual appearance of the face. In fact, “Americans spend more each year
on beauty than they do on education”3 – reminding us of the importance that modern society places on visual
1 Kemp,S. 'Data Face'. Future Face: Image, Identity, Innovation (London: Profile Books, 2004), pp. 100-43 2 “The Beauty Business: Pots of Promise | The Economist.” Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.economist.com/node/1795852. 3 “The Beauty Business: Pots of Promise | The Economist.” Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.economist.com/node/1795852.
2
identity and how it can sometimes be given more importance than the improving of non-visual characteristics
and the mind.
However, the importance people place on appearance should not be disregarded as purely
superficial; “Such spending is not mere vanity. Being pretty—or just not ugly—confers enormous genetic and
social advantages.” 4 It is true that “Basic instinct keeps the beauty industry powerful” 5and Charles Darwin in
his autobiography commented on the ““universal passion for adornment”6 which he had noticed across all
species and cultures. The knowledge of people’s desire for beauty was even prevalent amongst ancient
Greek philosophers; “Asked why people desire physical beauty, Aristotle said, "No one that is not blind could
ask that question."”7 Physical appearance has always been instinctively important for many animals to achieve
their primal goal of attracting a mate; and in current Western society we are now adapting and altering our
faces more than ever, both in ‘real life’, and with technology.
The way in which people take, modify and display photographs of themselves is fascinating when
thinking about visual ‘beauty’, and since the recent rise of digital and social media, photographs of people are
now so prolific that they saturate most online profiles and infiltrate daily life. The images which people choose
to illustrate their ‘profile’ are a conscious construction of their desired social identity, and a prominent display of
themselves both to strangers and to close friends and family.
The very purpose of these social media pages is to allow users to construct a certain identity for
themselves, for others to view and judge them by. The ‘profile photo’ which heads up most profiles has been
the subject of recent studies as psychologists have noticed the way that "Facebook is becoming one of the
de facto ways that we present ourselves to friends and family," "This photo has become the new calling card,
the first point of contact, so (it) is important for understanding what it is we want to show off to each other
4“The Beauty Business: Pots of Promise | The Economist.” Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.economist.com/node/1795852. 5 “The Beauty Business: Pots of Promise | The Economist.” Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.economist.com/node/1795852. 6 Darwin, C. The life and letters of Charles Darwin. John Murray, London, 1887. 7 Etcoff, N. Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. (Anchor Books ,2000)
3
online." 8 They recognise the similarities between the photo ‘ID’ card of traditional passports and driving
licences, and the self-constructed ‘profile photos’ seen on social media.
The study by drew findings such as “men were 50% more likely to have retouched their photo than
women, and 20% less likely to be smiling in it” and “Respondents under age 30 were twice as likely to have a
profile picture showing them at a party, while those over 30 and those in a couple were far more likely to have
a child's photo as their profile picture.”9 Using one image to ‘summarise’ or represent your identity is difficult,
and it is interesting how and what people choose. Many have close up ‘selfies’, others use group photos with
partners, family or friends; some have an image of their pet or child, and some may just choose an image
they like, which does not depict their face at all. From one singular image we all automatically make some kind
of judgement about the person’s character, because of their choice of photograph.
However, the automatic judgement of a person by the way the look is by no means restricted to either
the Internet or our current time period; the historical ‘pseudo-science’ of physiognomy “refers to discerning the
characteristic of a person from their facial features or body parts” (DeMello, 108)10 and originated among
ancient Greek philosophers. In the nineteenth
century, Johann Caspar Lavater wrote on the
subject in his Essays on Physiognomy; “there is
not a man to be found who is not daily
influenced by Physiognamy…not a man who
does not more or less, the first time he
encounters a stranger, compare, estimate,
observe and judge him, according to
appearances”11. It is difficult to disagree with this
statement, as we all do make judgments based
8”What your social network profile picture really says” Accessed April 19, 2015. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11249966 9 “What your social network profile picture really says”,Accessed April 19, 2015. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11249966 10 DeMello, M., “Racialised and Colonised Bodies.” Body Studies: An Introduction. (Routledge, 2013) 11 Lavater, Johann Caspar. Essays on Physiognomy, (Germany, 1772)
Figure 1
4
on appearance, whether consciously or otherwise, and whether we believe it is right to do so or not.
However, Lavater took the ‘science’ further, and tried to decode some of the cues by which we interpret
personality form facial features, as seen in Figure 112 from Essays on Physiognomy. Corresponding to the
numbered images of faces, part of the text reads “4. The nose speaks taste and knowledge, the eye
penetration…5. Is, to general sensation, the profile of a benevolent, but weak and ordinary man. The seat of
weakness will be seen, by the physiognomist, in the forehead, eye, and mouth.”13 This detailed decoding of
human faces is followed by the analysis of animals’ visual characteristics (Figure 214). “The more violent
qualities of the elephant are discoverable in the number and size of his bones; his intelligence in the
roundness of their form, and his docility in the
massiveness of his muscles; his art and discretion in
the flexibility of his trunk; his retentetive memory in the
size and arching of his forehead”. Here we see
physiognomy losing some of its credibility and
becoming an outdated ‘pseudo-science’.
However, there is undeniably truth to some
extent that we ake judgements about character by faces. Discussing physiognomy in relation to racialised
faces in Body Studies: An Introduction, DeMello says “A recent study suggested that successful African-
American businessmen tend to have ‘baby-faces’, or faces with smaller features than other African-
Americans, and that those features made their wearer seem warmer and less threatening, and it is only when
their features are ‘less African’ that they can be successful”15 (100). Historically physiognomy has been
incredibly problematic in relation to racism, and these findings imply that people do still make judgments about
personality based on facial features, whether intentionally or not.
Whilst physiognomy has a history of categorising people into large groups because of racial
characteristics, it is also a means of decoding and creating separate identities for individuals. The face as a
12 Lavater, Johann Caspar. Essays on Physiognomy, (Germany, 1772) 13Lavater, Johann Caspar. Essays on Physiognomy, (Germany, 1772) 14 Lavater, Johann Caspar. Essays on Physiognomy, (Germany, 1772)) 15 DeMello, M., “Racialised and Colonised Bodies.” Body Studies: An Introduction. (Routledge, 2013)
Figure 2
5
unique ‘identity tag’ is a concept which has become more and more prevalent in modern scientific advances,
with the creation of new ‘face-recognition technology’. In Our Biometric Future, Kelly Gates summarises;
“Since the 1960s, a significant effort has been underway to program computers to “see” the human face—to
develop automated systems for identifying faces and distinguishing them from one another—commonly
known as Facial Recognition Technology.” but she criticises the development as “a prime example of the
failed technocratic approach to governance, where new technologies are pursued as shortsighted solutions
to complex social problems.” 16
The notion of FRT as a government solution to a social problem is interesting when thinking about the
face and identity in relation to power and control. There are many varied opinions on the ethics and morality of
facial recognition technology, but I am interested in whether it is an example of freedom or of oppression for
the individual. Essentially, FRT is the controlling power’s ability to keep track of where individuals are and what
they are doing – for those doing as the ‘watchers’ want them to do, this should be no problem and arguably
keeps communities safer in the knowledge that they are being watched. However, many feel that being
watched and monitored is oppressive and restrictive, and so they attempt to conceal their identity when in the
presence of cameras, by hiding their face.
This unusual website (URME surveillance) 17 has identified the problem with having an obviously
covered face; “wearing a ski mask in public makes you a pretty easy target” and so is trying to sell realistic-
looking ‘prosthetic faces’ to people who want to avoid surveillance: “URME Surveillance has developed a state
of the art identity replacement tech in the Personal Surveillance Identity Prosthetic. The basic gist is that rather
than hide from cameras, simply give them a face other than
your own to track without drawing attention to yourself”. An
example of the mask in real life and how it will show up on
CCTV can be seen in Figure 3, taken from the website. This
concept apparently came from artistic backgrounds; “As an
16 Gates, Kelly A., Our Biometric Future: Facial Recognition Technology and the Culture of Surveillance (NY: NYU Press, 2011). 17“URME Surveillance.” Accessed April 19, 2015. http://www.urmesurveillance.com/urme-prosthetic
Figure 3
6
artist Leo has been interested in identity and how it can be thought of as data: highly manipulable, editable,
and corruptible.” 18
Although I think the idea is strange and implausible, it does provoke interesting questions. Whose face
would you put on the mask? Are other people in society comfortable with someone wearing a mask? Is it
suspicious? Why? Why do we want to see people’s faces? Is it so that they can be held accountable for their
actions in public places? Here arise issues of identity and social responsibility – is the uniqueness of a face
actually a way of oppressing and controlling people through constant identification? Michel Foucault had a
theory that people’s individuality threatens prevailing power systems, but in this case the power systems need
people to be individually identifiable so that they can track, record and hold people accountable for their
individual actions. If people are allowed to act with free will and individual motivations, then they need to be
visible to instill social responsibility as a form of control.
A recent instance of this issue can be seen when looking at the restrictions of full-face religious veils in
various European countries. This BBC article “The Islamic veil across Europe”19 summarises each country’s
reasoning behind their rulings, which as well as religious freedom and female equality include “fears of
terrorism”. Having a completely covered face was in Britain considered to be a “potential security threat”, and
in Barcelona was banned as part of a wider objection to covered faces: “Barcelona's city council said the ban
there targeted any head-wear that impeded
identification, including motorbike helmets and
balaclavas”. In northern Italy, (Figure 420) “old
public order laws against the wearing of masks”
were reinstated to prevent the full covering of
the face. It is interesting that this draws on
18“URME Surveillance.” Accessed April 19, 2015. http://www.urmesurveillance.com/urme-prosthetic 19 “The Islamic Veil across Europe - BBC News.” Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13038095. 20 Screenshot from “The Islamic Veil across Europe - BBC News.” Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13038095.
Figure 4
7
historical tradition of wanting people’s faces to be visible.
It is interesting to my discussion about the power and control of facial identity that the original purpose
of traditional Italian masks was precisely to escape authority; “Masks became popular during Italy's medieval
period when gambling, partying and sexual encounters were not just frowned on but outlawed by the Church
and State combined.21” Italians partaking in forbidden activities wore masks to avoid being identified and
judged. Masks also infiltrated everyday civil life, as “state inquisitors hid behind them in their questioning of
citizens - and citizens could answer truthfully without fear of being identified, or retribution by their neighbours.
No-one would ever know who had given information.” Anonymity in both these instances gives power back to
the individual and not the ruling authority, but whereas the state inquisitors mask themselves to develop a
relationship of trust and protection, the gamblers use their secrecy to escape and deceive the dominant
power system.
Both historically and with modern surveillance technology, it seems that if you are abiding by the rules
of the dominant power system, the face can be a personal site of freedom and self-expression. However, if
you are trying to evade authority, the view of your face reveals your identity and holds you accountable for your
actions. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault said “Visibility is a trap”22, and laid out his theory that the knowledge
of being watched is enough to prevent many people from disobedience, because it ensures that they will be
caught and suffer the consequences of any wrongdoings. This is true for having a visible and distinctive face:
it displays your identity so that you can be praised for doing good and punished for doing wrong.
Anonymity in this case equals complete freedom from authority. However, the general consensus in
our society is that actually, complete freedom for everyone is not what we want because we do not trust
every individual to act in the ‘right’ way all the time. Social conscience and accountability is crucial to our public
safety, and so by identifying – and therefore controlling – everyone by their visible face, individuals feel more
comfortable; proving an alternative type of ‘freedom’, even if it is not absolute.
21 “Italian Masquerade Masks : What They Are and Where to Find Them.” Accessed April 18, 2015. http://www.explore-italian-culture.com/italian-masquerade-masks.html. 22 Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison . (Vintage Books, 1977)
8
Bibliography
Darwin, C. The life and letters of Charles Darwin. John Murray, London, 1887.
DeMello, M., “Racialised and Colonised Bodies.” Body Studies: An Introduction. (Routledge, 2013)
Etcoff, N. Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. (Anchor Books ,2000)
Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison . (Vintage Books, 1977)
Gates, Kelly A., Our Biometric Future: Facial Recognition Technology and the Culture of Surveillance
(NY: NYU Press, 2011).
“Italian Masquerade Masks : What They Are and Where to Find Them.” Accessed April 18, 2015. http://www.explore-italian-culture.com/italian-masquerade-masks.html.
