Duane Michals’s “True Identity of Man,” is very interesting to me, because it can be interpreted in several different ways and its meaning is not obviously apparent at first glance. I believe this is due to the way that the different frames are sequenced. If each single frame were shown alone with the title, “The True Identity of a Man,” it would be easier to interpret. But instead, the viewer in forced to take all four panels into consideration when understanding the message that Michals is trying to convey.
The first frame of this piece shows a naked man. By itself, this indicates to me that man’s true self is free from material possessions (clothes). The second frame is an, again naked, man with a bright white light covering nearly his whole body. The body can scarcely be seen, but the face is still recognizable. This frame was more difficult for me to interpret. I agree with the reading’s interpretation that the bright light is non-human and somewhat paranormal in nature. The third frame shows a black smoke-like substance where the man once sat. This is, like the second panel, somewhat paranormal and ghost-like. It appears as though the man never existed to begin with, which might indicate that the true identity of a man is unknown. The last frame shows a clothed man sitting in a chair, but his image is slightly transparent, while the objects around him are completely opaque. This might mean that outsiders cannot see the true identity of a man, as it is immaterial and not easily defined.
All together, these images make several statements about the identity of man, but the overarching theme seems to be that the true identity of a man cannot be easily seen by others.
The image I chose was called “Transparent Man,” and it was also photographed by Duane Michals. I found this to be interesting, beause in a way it is opposite to the panel in “True Identity of Man.” In this photo, the bright light is covering the man’s face and not his body, where is in “The Identity of Man,” the body is covered in bright light and not the face.
I like your idea about the ideas about Michals' series about the man, and I agree with that interpretation, that the identity of man is truly unknown. But I also think, as the series progresses and the man becomes more transparent from the original frame of an opaque naked man, that the genuine nature of humanity is masked by its institutions of civilization, society, politics, economics, and culture. Man's true and natural identity becomes ambiguous. Are humans one with other life forms on Earth, or are they facilitators and manipulators of it?
ReplyDeleteWhat I did like about Michaels was how each image show had a precise reason and meaning for the series that it was a part of. Each one had intention and a slight variation from the last. That's why I think it's interesting that you pointed out looking at each image separately. It completely changes the meaning of his pieces when they are taken apart individually.
ReplyDeleteI also really only looked at the images as a whole. But, after reading this I went back and looked at each individual image. It's weird, until you mentioned it, I hadn't even realized the man was naked. It's crazy what you can notice about "the big picture" when you focus on smaller parts for individual meaning
ReplyDelete