Arranging bodies for photographs: Professional touch in the photography studio
This paper describes a particular form of professional touch, through which photographers taking photographs of their clients/models arrange their bodies and orchestrate their poses. Our analysis demonstrates that photographers adopt a professional touch-cum-vision, which combines professional vision and professional touch. The former is achieved by the photographers adopting a specific perspectival posture, allowing them to see the photographed persons from a distance, in a way that is analogous to the perspective of the photographic eye, that is, to the perspective of seeing through a camera. The latter involves a specific form and trajectory of arms and hands, accountably shaped in a way that enables a touch that is both precise, targeting specific details of the body, and delicate, orienting to the normativity of touching the other’s body. The clients/models can docilely align with the photographers’ touch but can also display more agency, initiating and preempting the arrangement of details of the pose, as well as some resistance, prompting the photographers to minimize their touching interventions and to ask for permission, apologize, and thank.
Data are video recordings of photography sessions in professional studios, in which participants speak (Swiss) German and Turkish.
Cekaite, A. (2015). Coordination of talk and touch in adult-child directives. Touch and social control. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48, 152-175.
Cekaite, A. (2016). Touch as social control: Haptic organization of attention in adult-child interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 30-42.
Cekaite, A. (in press). Touch as embodied compassion in responses to pain and distress. In A. Cekaite & L. Mondada (Eds.), Touch in social interaction: Touch, Language and Body. London: Routledge.
Cekaite, A., & Holm Kvist, M. (2017). The comforting touch: Tactile intimacy and talk in managing children’s distress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 109-127.
Deppermann, A. (2018). Instruction practices in German driving lessons: Differential uses of declaratives and imperatives. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 265-282.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237-274.
Goodwin, C. (1997). The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 111-140). New York: Springer.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1-2), 19.36).
Goodwin, M. H. (2017). Haptic sociality: The embodied interactive construction of intimacy through touch. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & S. Jordan (Eds.), Intercorporeality (pp. 73-102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, M. H. (in press). The interactive construction of a hug sequence. In A. Cekaite & L. Mondada (Eds.), Touch in social interaction: Touch, Language and Body. London: Routledge.
Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A. (2018): Embodied family choreography: Practices of control, care and mundane creativity. London: Routledge.
Heath, C. (1986). Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, C. (2006). Body work: The collaborative production of the clinical object. In J. Heritage & D. W. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in Medical Cate: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients (pp. 185-213). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lynch, M. (2018). Professional and transparent vision. In D. Favareau (Ed.), Co-operative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in honor of Charles Goodwin (pp. 241-246). Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Marstrand, A. K., & Svennevig, J. (2018). A preference for non-invasive touch in caregiving contexts. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 1(2). doi:10.7146/si.v1i2.110019
Merlino, S. (in press). Professional touch in speech and language therapy for the treatment of post-stroke aphasia. In A. Cekaite & L. Mondada (Eds.), Touch in social interaction: Touch, Language and Body. London: Routledge.
Meyer, C., Streeck, J., & Jordan, S. (2017). Intercorporeality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mondada, L. (2014). Instructions in the operating room: How the surgeon directs their assistant’s hands. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 131-161.
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85-106.
Mondada, L. (in press). Sensorial explorations of food: How professionals and amateurs touch cheese in gourmet shops. In A. Cekaite & L. Mondada (Eds.), Touch in social interaction: Touch, Language and Body. London: Routledge.
Mondada, L., Monteiro, D., & Tekin, B. S. (in press). The tactility and visibility of kissing: Tactile configurations of kissing bodies in family photography sessions. In A. Cekaite & L. Mondada (Eds.), Touch in social interaction: Touch, Language and Body. London: Routledge.
Nishizaka, A. (2007). Hand touching hand: Referential practice at a Japanese midwife house. Human Studies, 30(3), 199-217.
Nishizaka, A. (2010). The embodied organization of a real-time fetus: The visible and invisible in prenatal ultrasound examinations. Social Studies of Science, 41(3), 309-336.
Nishizaka, A. (2011). Touch without vision: Referential practice in a non-technological environment. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 504-520.
Nishizaka, A. (2016). Syntactical constructions and tactile orientations: Procedural utterances and procedures in massage therapy. Journal of Pragmatics, 98, 18-35.
Tekin, B. S. (2017). The negotiation of poses in photo-making practices: Shifting asymmetries in distinct participation frameworks. In L. Mondada & S. Keel (Eds.), Participation et asymmetries dans l’interaction institutionelle [Participation and asymmetry in institutional interaction] (pp. 285-313). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Webb, H., Heath, C., vom Lehn, D., & Gibson, W. (2013). Engendering response: Professional gesture and the assessment of eyesight in optometry consultations. Symbolic Interaction, 36(2), 137-158.
Copyright (c) 2020 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.