I’ve been using Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism for the past decade, first in studying and writing the novel, and then in studying and making film. Although Bakhtin’s work began in theorising the visual arts, his mature work focusses on literature (Bakhtin, 1984). As film is to a large extent a predominantly narrative form, dialogism can be transferred with only a small amount of adaptation. Using his theories to research visual art, however, can present obstacles where the work is not explicitly narrative in nature. Works do exist (e.g. Haynes, 2009), and I will make use of these in due course. 

What appeals to me about Bakhtin is that he locates the artist as embedded socially, influenced by and in turn influencing the discourses, particularly those carried in language, in which they are immersed. Specifically, Bakhtin grants the artist, and indeed all people, agency in evaluating, responding to and articulating discourse; he considers this the fundamental activity in the creation of identity. This agency permits a more fluid, complex and subtle application of ways in which discourse constitutes socially and has been influential in shaping periods of post-colonial and feminist thought. However, while both lexical and symbolic language is constituted through photography, as articulated thoroughly through theoretical focus on semiotics, I am presently more interested in how aesthetic style is socially embedded rather than simply individualistic. By this, I mean not simply the historic artistic pedigree of style, but how style engages with and is shaped by society in a wider sense. 

I was thus enthused to come across the work of Ranciere in the context of photography. Ranciere’s theories of artistic regimes – distinct but overlapping historical movements that shape but create problems for artists – connects aesthetics to politics, philosophy and community (Deranty, 2010). Like Bakhtin, Ranciere argues that the artist struggles with the influences of their regimes, especially where different elements appear contradictory, and their art is an attempt at reconciliation. He also refutes different artistic media as discrete and hermetic worlds but sees them as different iterations of and responses to these regimes, something that chimes with my own outlook having practiced in several different art forms and my wish to combine these in my work. Ranciere’s theorising of montage is also going to be relevant here and worthy of further study. 

Ranciere argues that, in the wake of the c.18^threvolutions and Romanticism, which he links, the present regime is that of the aesthetic, whereby the expressivity of language in its own right becomes the dominant focus of artistic activity, rather than as simply a vehicle for representation. It’s important to note that Ranciere does not argue in absolute binary terms, and that different regimes co-exist and cross-fertilise; the representative regime is still a major influence on art made up to the present. This way of understanding my own practice begins to answer my problems with the gaze, which appears to me to be too ideologically limited a definition of the practice of photography. 

Like Bakhtin’s identification of polyphony in the novels of Dostoevsky, Ranciere argues that the aesthetic regime makes possible a radical equality of voices whereby no subject matter or means of expression is invalid in the creation of art, and he traces c.20^thexpressions of this such as pop art and postmodernism back to Romanticism. Of particular interest to my practice is Ranciere’s identification of the aesthetic regime as making possible direct artistic ‘expressivity’ of the world’s raw material, rather than or in addition to, as with the representational regime, the world as a symbol. I’m very much interested in expressing palpable, experienced presence through my photography – and film – while being mindful of symbolic meaning. This is a very good starting point for me to begin to reconcile these seemingly paradoxical elements; indeed, Ranciere specifically considers, critiques and develops Barthes’ model of the punctum and stadium (1993) which articulates a related binary in a quite distinct way. 

Having only recently read Ranciere, I am still digesting it. However, I will report back at a later date how this is becoming relevant to my practice. 

Bakhtin, M. M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 

Barthes, R. Camera Lucida. 1993. London: Vintage Classics. 

Deranty, J. (ed.) 2010. Jacques Ranciere: Key Concepts. London: Routlege.  

Haynes, D. J. 2009. Bakhtin and the Visual Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.