Stripping Sight Bare : Alison Jones’ ‘Portraits by Proxy’

In this paper I analyse UK artist Alison Jones’ sonic interventions Portrait of the Artist by Proxy (2008), Voyeurism by Proxy (2008) and Art, Lies and Audio Tapes (2009). In Portrait of the Artist by Proxy, Jones – who, due to deteriorating vision, has not seen her reflection in a mirror in years – asks and trusts participants to audio-describe her own image back to her. In Voyeurism by Proxy, Jones asks participants to audio-describe erotic drawings by Gustav Klimt. In Art, Lies and Audio Tapes, Jones asks participants to audio-describe other artworks, such as W.F. Yeames’ And When Did You Last see Your Father?. In these portraits by proxy, Jones opens her image, and other images, to interpretation. In doing so, Jones draws attention to the way sight is privileged as a mode of access to fixed, fundamental truths in Western culture – a mode assumed to be untainted by filters that skew perception of the object. “In a culture where vision is by far the dominant sense,” Jones says, “and as a visual artist with a visual impairment, I am reliant on audio-description …Inevitably, there are limitations imposed by language, time and the interpreter’s background knowledge of the subject viewed, as well as their personal bias of what is deemed important to impart in their description” . In these works, Jones strips these background knowledges, biases and assumptions bare. She reveals different perceptions, as well as tendencies or censor, edit or exaggerate descriptions. In this paper, I investigate how, by revealing unconscious biases, Jones’ works renders herself and her participants vulnerable to a change of perception. I also examine how Jones’ later editing of the audio-descriptions allows her to show the instabilities of sight, and, in Portrait of the Artist by Proxy, to reclaim authorship of her own image.

Have we misinterpreted the study of Hoogerheide et al. (1971)?

In 1971, Rempt et al. reported peripheral refraction patterns (skiagrams) along the horizontal visual field in 442 people. Later in the same year, Hoogerheide et al. used skiagrams in combination with medical records to relate skiagrams in emmetropes and hyperopes to progression of myopia in young adults. The two articles have spurred interest in peripheral refraction in the past decade. We challenge the understanding that their articles provide evidence that the peripheral refraction pattern along the horizontal visual field is predictive of whether or not a person develops myopia. First, although it has been generally assumed that the skiagrams were measured before the changes in refraction were monitored, Hoogerheide et al. did not state that this was the case. Second, if the skiagrams were obtained at an initial examination and given the likely rates of recruitment and successful completion of training, the study must have taken place during a period of 10 to 15 years; it is much more likely that Hoogerheide et al. measured the skiagrams in a shorter period. Third, despite there being many more emmetropes and hyperopes in the Rempt et al. article than there are in the Hoogerheide et al. article, the number of people in two types of “at risk” skiagrams is greater in the latter; this is consistent with the central refraction status being reported from an earlier time by Hoogerheide et al. than by Rempt et al. In summary, we believe that the skiagrams reported by Hoogerheide et al. were taken at a later examination, after myopia did or did not occur, and that the refraction data from the initial examination were retrieved from the medical archives. Thus, this work does not provide evidence that peripheral refraction pattern is indicative of the likely development of myopia.