ABSTRACT Title of Document: VISUALIZING ACTIVE BODIES: KNOWLEDGE-MAKING IN VISUAL PHYSICAL CULTURE Jennifer Jill Sterling, Doctor of Philosophy, 2013 Directed By: Professor David L. Andrews Department of Kinesiology Within a ?world replete with images and representations? (Haraway, 1997, p. 202), visual discourses play significant roles in the ways that bodies, and in particular active bodies, are organized, represented, and experienced in society. In physical culture, visualizing practices shape ways of seeing, and being seen, through the display, and interpretation of, active bodies in a wide variety of settings. Consequently, visual discourse in physical culture takes place, and makes meaning, through a range of visual events, texts, and technologies. To explore these sources and sites for their (re)production of differentiated social positions, I examine the visualization of (im)proper, (un)healthy, and physically (in)active bodies across multiple locations. These include: 1) the exhibition of heroic sporting portraiture in Champions at the National Portrait Gallery (Washington, DC); 2) the gross anatomy lessons of plastinated cadavers in the Body Worlds exhibition at the Maryland Science Center (Baltimore, MD); and, 3) my commemorative, yet critical, construction of Champions All as part of the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project at the University of Maryland (College Park, MD). Broadly located within the theoretically fluid, interdisciplinary, and multi- method project that is physical cultural studies, I utilize visual discourse analysis and (auto)ethnographic methods to examine the role of visual discourse in physical culture. In particular, I examine each of the above visual events, and their visual and interpretive texts, for their ?key themes, claims to truth, their complexities, and their silences? (Rose, 2007, p. 187). In understanding what positions are being constructed, and how they are advanced, challenged, or denied, my research reveals who is rendered (in)visible, and the consequences of such (in)visibilities. Extending empirical definitions of both the visual and the physical, this research illustrates the breadth of visual physical culture and its impacts; the productive nature of visual displays and their practices; and the knowledge-making, and thus world-making, contributions of the visualization of active bodies. VISUALIZING ACTIVE BODIES: KNOWLEDGE-MAKING IN VISUAL PHYSICAL CULTURE By Jennifer Jill Sterling Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2013 Advisory Committee: Professor David L. Andrews, Chair Professor Damion Thomas Professor Shannon Jette Professor Michael Friedman Professor Robin Sawyer ? Copyright by Jennifer Jill Sterling 2013 ii Dedication To my mom, Becky ? for her endless supply of optimism, encouragement, understanding, and support. iii Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge, and thank, the following in appreciation of their many, and influential, contributions to my dissertation project: ? Dr. David L. Andrews, my advisor, for his patient guidance and mentorship throughout my PhD and dissertation. ? Dr. Damion Thomas, Dr. Shannon Jette, Dr. Michael Friedman, and Dr. Robin Sawyer, my committee members, who have lent their time and expertise to the development and completion of my dissertation project. ? The staff at the National Portrait Gallery, Maryland Science Center, and the University of Maryland Archives; a special thanks as well to the people who contributed to the creation of Champions All. ? Professors, Dr. Michael Silk, Dr. Jaime Schultz, Dr. Laura Mamo, and Dr. Mary Corbin-Sies, who have heavily influenced the direction of my dissertation, research interests, and career, through their professorial, professional, and personal guidance. ? Dr. Katherine Jamieson, for proposing the NASSS panel that led to my dissertation topic, and encouraging creative exploration within academe. ? Ellen Rooney Hughes, and the staff at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, for their guidance and mentorship. ? The Department of Kinesiology administration and staff who have assisted in my Ph.D. progress; a special thanks to Dr. Sally Phillips, Dr. Jane Clark, Dr. Brad Hatfield, Dr. Stephen Roth, Dr. Marc Rogers, Debbie Jones, Joseph Mahan, Polly Sebastian, Regina Clary, and Joanna Han. ? My extended Physical Cultural Studies cohort at the University of Maryland who have sent me links, shared articles, attended my conference presentations, and provided stimulating conversations in, and out of, the classroom. ? My Loughborough colleagues and friends: especially Dr. Laura Donohoe and Dr. Jessica Lee who have supported me professionally and personally; also in loving memory of my Foucauldian friend and colleague, Dr. Louisa Webb. ? Peter Leonard Krebs, my husband, for his innumerable (and often intangible) contributions to the research and writing of my dissertation. ? My family: including my mother whom I?ve dedicated this dissertation to; my sisters Nichole and Kara who both tackled PhDs before I did; my Grandpa Rex and my Grandma Bernice who have supported and encouraged my education, travel, and generally winding path through life; and my mother- and father-in-law who have provided their patient endorsement of my PhD and academic career. ! "#! Table of Contents Dedication ........................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1 ? Introduction: Visualizing Active Bodies .................................................... 1 Theorizing Technologies, Interpreting (In)visibilities .................................................... 5 Chapter Outlines: Imag(in)ing a Visual Physical Cultural Studies ................................ 8 Chapter 2 ? Review of literature: Locating the visual in Physical Cultural Studies ... 9 Chapter 3 ? Methods: Researching (with) the visual in Physical Cultural Studies .. 11 Chapter 4 ? Exhibiting Champions at the National Portrait Gallery ........................ 13 Chapter 5 ? Displaying Body Worlds at the Maryland Science Center .................... 14 Chapter 6 ? Creating Champions All at the University of Maryland ........................ 15 Chapter 2 ? Review of Literature: Locating the Visual in Physical Cultural Studies ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Locating Physical Cultural Studies ............................................................................. 18 Neoliberal narratives in visual physical culture ........................................................ 23 Ways of Seeing Active Bodies: Interpretive Communities and (Inter)disciplinary Adventures .................................................................................................................... 29 Visual (culture) studies ............................................................................................. 30 Visual sources and methods in the study of sport and physical culture .................... 36 Chapter 3 ? Methods: Researching (with) the Visual in Physical Cultural Studies . 47 Critical Visual Methodology and the PCS Imperative ................................................. 48 Taking images seriously ........................................................................................... 50 Visual(izing) effects .................................................................................................. 52 Reflexivity ................................................................................................................. 53 Practicing (Visual) Discourse Analysis ........................................................................ 55 Discourse analysis I and II: Multi-methods, -materials, -sites, and ?modalities ...... 59 Discourse analysis II: Apparatuses and technologies ............................................... 66 Discourse analysis I: Text, intertextuality, context [and reflexivity] ........................ 71 Doing (Auto)Ethnography, Observing Audiencing, and Making Interpretations ........ 77 In the field: (Photo)documenting displays ................................................................ 78 Interpreting intertextualities, evaluating effect(s) .................................................... 84! Chapter 4 ? Exhibiting Champions at the National Portrait Gallery ........................ 90 Visiting Champions .................................................................................................. 90 Introducing Champions ............................................................................................. 91 Researching Champions ............................................................................................ 92 Locating Champions: Policy and Practice at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery ....................................................................................................................................... 94! (Sporting) portraiture: What counts ........................................................................ 100 Exhibiting ?remarkable? Americans: Collecting and curating ?champions? ......... 109 ! #! Exhibiting Champions ................................................................................................ 117 Champions?s exhibition technologies and effects of truth ...................................... 119 Sporting sitters, commissioned champions, and spaces behind .............................. 122 Producing Champions at the National Portrait Gallery .............................................. 131 Interpreting text, constructing key themes, and looking for invisibilities .............. 132 Cultivating complexities in the American search for justice .................................. 152! Chapter 5 ? Displaying Body Worlds at the Maryland Science Center .................... 154 Attending Body Worlds ........................................................................................... 154 Introducing Gunther von Hagens? Body Worlds, The Original Exhibition of Real Human Bodies ........................................................................................................ 155 Researching Body Worlds ....................................................................................... 156 Locating Body Worlds: Mapping the Civic and Institutional Context ....................... 159! Touch wonder: Interacting with your body at the Maryland Science Center ......... 165 Real human bodies: Suspending decay and animating cadavers at the Institute for Plastination .............................................................................................................. 183 Displaying Body Worlds 2 .......................................................................................... 192 Body Worlds 2?s exhibition technologies and effects of truth ................................ 196 Displaying Health(ism) at the Maryland Science Center ........................................... 210 Interpreting text, constructing key themes, and looking for invisibilities .............. 211 Limited engagements: Complicating invisible complexities .................................. 230! Chapter 6 ? Creating Champions All at the University of Maryland ...................... 235 Meeting Champions All .......................................................................................... 235 Introducing researching (with) Champions All ....................................................... 236 Making Maryland I: Celebrating 150 Years ............................................................... 238! Cheering the turtle: Anniversary antics and animal parades .................................. 239 Answering the call: Proposing Champions All ....................................................... 241 Signing on: Contract negotiations and sponsorship ................................................ 246 Making Maryland II: Creating and Circulating Champions All ................................. 249 Curating images, constructing collage, and making connections ........................... 250 ?50 Nifty Turtles?: Promoting the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project .................... 256 Champions All Redux: Bringing It All Back Home ................................................... 268 On the auction block ............................................................................................... 269 (Re)contextualizing champions at the University of Maryland .............................. 271! Chapter 7 ? Conclusion: Adventurous Settlers: The Role of the Visual in Dodging Meteors and Asking Like a Cat in Physical Cultural Studies .................................. 275 Redecorating: Blue prints for creative futures ............................................................ 275 ! Appendix A ? Champions ............................................................................................... 278 Appendix B ? Body Worlds ............................................................................................ 279 Appendix C ? Champions All ......................................................................................... 281 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 283 ! ! ! ! vi List of Tables Table 3.1. Intersections of sites and modalities 60 Table 3.2. Chapter sites of production and audiencing 63 Table 3.3. Chapter apparatuses and technologies 67 vii List of Figures Figure 3.1. Body Worlds field note sketches 84 Figure 4.1. Visiting Champions 90 Figure 4.2. Locating Champions 94 Figure 4.3. Visitor?s Guide and Map ? Smithsonian Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture 109 Figure 4.4. Champions layout 117 Figure 4.5. Champions exhibition 118 Figure 5.1. Attending Body Worlds 154 Figure 5.2. Locating Body Worlds 159 Figure 5.3. Maryland Science Center floor plans 165 Figure 5.4. Your Body: The Inside Story 170 Figure 5.5. BodyLink and Wet Lab 177 Figure 5.6. Body Worlds exhibition collateral 187 Figure 5.7. Body Worlds layout ? Room 1 192 Figure 5.8. Body Worlds layout ? Room 2 193 Figure 5.9. Body Worlds layout ? Room 3 194 Figure 5.10. Thematic organization of Body Worlds 2 at the Maryland Science Center 196 Figure 6.1. Turtle Artist name tag 235 Figure 6.2. 150th Anniversary collateral 239 Figure 6.3. Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project proposal process 244 Figure 6.4. Champions All in process 250 viii Figure 6.5. Delimitation of images for Champions All (front) 253 Figure 6.6. Delimitation of images for Champions All (back) 254 Figure 6.7. Image recontextualization 255 Figure 6.8. Champions All certificate 256 Figure 6.9. Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project ?locator map? 258 Figure 6.10. Fear the Turtle Sculpture Scavenger Hunt 265 Figure 6.11. Bidders? reception and auction guide 270 Figure 6.12. Bid paddle 271 Figure 6.13. Champions All at the University of Maryland Archives 271 Figure 6.14. Champions All guide (front) 273 Figure 6.15. Champions All guide (back) 274 1 Chapter 1 ? Introduction: Visualizing Active Bodies In a world replete with images and representations, whom can we not see or grasp, and what are the consequences of such selective blindness?...How is visibility possible? For whom, by whom, and of whom? What remains invisible, to whom, and why? For those peoples who are excluded from the visualizing apparatuses of the disciplinary regimes of modern power- knowledge networks, the averted gaze can be as deadly as the all-seeing panopticon that surveys the subjects of the biopolitical state. (Haraway, 1997, p. 202) Sport, physical activity, health, and the various movement practices that make up the empirical and disciplinary sites of physical culture are indeed worlds ?replete with images and representations? (Haraway, 1997, p. 202). As Hargreaves and Vertinsky (2007) assert, ?understandings of the body have been continually mapped, imagined, contested, and transformed though imaging techniques in medicine, art, and visual culture? (p. 19). From sports media (e.g. Rowe, 2004) and health magazines (e.g. Duncan, 1994; Markula, 2001), to Olympic visual culture (e.g. Hughson, 2010; O?Mahony, 2012), sporting art and photography (e.g. Bale, 1998; Guttmann, 2011; Osmond, 2010; Schwartz, 1998), commemorative sporting sculptures (e.g. Schultz, 2011; Smith, 2009, 2011), and anatomical illustrations, cellular snapshots, and radiologic representations (e.g. Prasad, 2005; Joyce, 2006, 2008; Cartwright, 1995; Stabile, 1998; Waldby, 2000), there are a range of visual texts and technologies in physical culture that envision active bodies in particular 2 ways. Additionally, active bodies are made visible by institutions and individuals both in , and outside, of traditional physical culture settings in ways that reproduce, modify, complicate, or resist existing discursive understandings. Thus, active bodies are, and can be, visualized across myriad sites in a variety of ways ? and the ways in which they are, are of consequence , deserving: an approach that thinks about the visual in terms of the cultural significance, social practices and power relations in which it is embedded; and that means thinking about the power relations that produce, are articulated through and can be challenged by, ways of seeing and imaging. (Rose, 2007, p. xv) Situated within a physical cultural studies approach that is ?dedicated to the contextually based understanding of the corporeal practices, discourses, and subjectivities through which active bodies become organized, represented, and experienced in relation to the operations of social power? (Andrews, 2008, p. 54 ; cf. Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 9 ), researching (with) the visual in physical cultural studies demands that scholars take the visualization of active bodies seriously (Rose, 2007). In doing so, a visual physical cultural studies approach embodies the visual as an empirical site of research, a theoretical possibility, a methodological tool, and an expressive practice and interventionist process. My research cuts across each of these possibilities : researching visual forms and representations of active bodies and their display; in terrogating the visualizing technologies and visualities at work in the production of (in)visibilities; researching with the visual as a method of collection and discourse analysis; and creating public art as a form of arts-based research and ?writing? (Ri chardson, 2000b; Richardson, 2000 c). 3 Working towards the physical cultural studies guidelines suggested by Silk and Andrews (2011), this research extends empirical definitions of the visual and the physical through an identification of the breadth of visual physical culture and its impacts; examines the productive nature of visual displays and their practices; and analyzes the knowledge-making, and thus world-making (Haraway, 1997), contributions of visual and physical articulations occurring through the creative production and display of active bodies. Following Vertinsky?s (as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011) understanding of physical culture, where ?cultural practices in which the physical body ? the way it moves, is represented, has meanings assigned to it, and is imbued with power ? is central? (p. 6), my research, and its findings, contribute to understandings of the operations of social power through an illumination of the imag(in)ing and organization of active bodies that occur through visual events, artifacts, and technologies. My research, therefore, includes a wide variety of visual physical culture to provide an in-depth understanding of the social effects and ?mini-discourses? (Rose, 2007) at work in the visualization, display, and interpretation of active bodies. In particular, I explore the visualizing technologies and knowledge-making practices active in the public display of sporting, (un)healthy, and physically (in)active bodies at the National Portrait Gallery (DC), Maryland Science Center (Baltimore), and University of Maryland (College Park). Through a focus on production and audiencing, rather than the image itself (Rose, 2007), I examine institutionally organized apparatuses and technologies, texts, and intertexualities to understand how, and what, subjectivities are constructed, advanced, challenged, or denied ? or who 4 and what is rendered (in)visible. The purpose of my dissertation, then, is to explore how particular knowledge(s) and subjectivities are constructed through the visualization of active bodies. In understanding the ways in which physical culture and active bodies are visualized and put to work, in particular ways, by particular individuals or institutions, and within particular discourses, and the relation of these sighted and sited particularities in reproducing, challenging, and negotiating ?particular ability, class, ethnic, gender, generational, national, and/or sexual norms and differences? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 10; Andrews, 2008, p. 54), my research asks the following questions: ? What is the visual culture, or visual discourse, of physical culture (and studies of it)? ? How do physical and visual culture articulate to produce knowledge(s) about, and through, active bodies? o Where do (and can) visual and physical culture intersect? How do their (conjunctural, physical, institutional, discursive) location(s) shape their interpretations and understanding(s)? o What practices or visualizing technologies are utilized in the production of these knowledge(s)? Who utilizes (or is able to utilize) these technologies? In what ways are they utilized and for what purpose? ? How are social subjectivities and power relations (re)produced through the creation, display, and audiencing of visual physical culture? Who or what is rendered (in)visible? Who is allowed to see and in what ways? 5 Theorizing Technologies, Interpreting (In)visibilities The concepts of (in)visibility and technologies are key to the purpose of my dissertation, my research questions, and the analysis and interpretation of the visual ?events? (Mirzoeff, 1999), which make up the visual discourse of physical culture and are the empirical focus of my research. Additionally, my research is guided by: poststructuralist, postmodern, and feminist epistemologies; and, the disciplines of physical cultural studies, visual studies, museum studies, and science and technology studies. Thus informed, my understanding of (in)visibility encompasses: the visual in their material form (i.e. visual objects, artifacts, and events); visualities ? or ways of seeing and looking (Berger, 1972); and, social (in)visibilities ? or the consequences of Haraway?s (1997) ?for whom, by whom, and of whom?? (p. 202). Applied to my research this includes: ? the visual events (i.e. exhibitions) and texts (i.e. portraits, plastinates, and public sculptures) examined; ? the discursive locations and settings, or sites of audiencing (Rose, 2007) (i.e. National Portrait Gallery, Maryland Science Center, and University of Maryland), where (representations of) active bodies are made visible and viewed in ways that shape seeing and knowing; ? and, the inclusion and exclusion of particular subjectivities (i.e. class, ethnic, gender, generational, national, and/or sexual norms and differences) within particular visual texts, events, and institutions. 6 Technologies are the ways in which (in)visibility is made possible (Haraway, 1997). Difficult to identify, Foucault (as cited in Rose, 2007, p. 175) offers institutional technologies as ?diffuse, rarely formulated in continuous, systematic discourse?often made up of bits and pieces?a disparate set of tools and methods? (p. 26). As a modality that contributes to Rose?s (2007) ?critical understanding of images? (p. 13), these technologies are the visualizing practices embedded in, and engaged by particular institutional apparatuses to stage visual events. Understood through Mirzoeff?s (as cited in Rose, 2007) definition of visual technologies as forms ?designed either to be looked at or to enhance natural vision, from oil painting to television to the Internet? (p. 13), Rose?s (and my) understanding of technologies, importantly, includes the visualizing practices behind the production of visual texts, which provide the interface for the texts, and their events, to be consumed for information, meaning, or pleasure (Mirzoeff, 1999). Applied to the discursive analysis of the visual events included in my research, technologies are at work on many levels. First, the exhibitions (Champions, Body Worlds, Fear the Turtle Sculpture) are visualizing technologies themselves, working to organize and connect various individual visual texts. Additionally, individual visual texts are constructed through their own particular technologies (painting, plastination, public sculpture, and collage). Finally, through careful juxtaposition and narration, active bodies are arranged, ways of seeing are influenced, and knowledge is constructed through display, tactile, and interpretive technologies (e.g. text labels and panels) (Rose, 2007). Ultimately, representations of active bodies and physical culture are 7 visualizing technologies themselves ? purposefully created and placed on display to make visible particular, and preferred, understandings. Thus, visual physical culture engages with, and is engaged in, multiple visualizing technologies that participate in power-relating and knowledge-making to produce ways of seeing, looking, and knowing about the active body. Together, (in)visibility and technologies also inform my understanding of the ability of producers and the production of visual texts and events (e.g. their visualizing technologies and the ways in which these technologies are productive) to remain invisible, and the effect of such ?matters of fact? (Haraway, 1997; cf. Latour, 2004) on the ability of the visual to provide interpretive flexibility (Rose, 2007). Interrogating the partiality of such perspectives, as well as my own, is therefore a political endeavor that does not hide behind the pretense of an ?invisible? author (Ferguson et al., as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 21); instead ?open[ing] up (often ?innocent? physical) texts?to reveal relations of power as we read of, and for, dominance? (Johnson et al., as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 19). Cultivating a reflexive and performative project, and ?unembarrassed by the label political? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 11), I am influenced, encouraged, invigorated, and guided by Haraway (1997), when she states that: The point is to make a difference in the world, to cast our lot for some ways of life and not others. To do that, one must be in the action, be finite and dirty, not transcendent and clean. Knowledge-making technologies, including crafting subject positions and ways of inhabiting such positions, must be made relentlessly visible and open to critical intervention. (p. 36) 8 Each of my empirical sites will, thus, be examined for their ?key themes, claims to truth their complexities and their silences? (Rose, 2007, p. 187). In making transparent the subjects (e.g. visitors, curators, scientists, and my researcher-artist self), technologies (e.g. exhibitions, text labels, plastination, and collage), and inconsistencies involved in the production and audiencing of visual physical culture, the ways that active bodies are imag(in)ed and put to work in the ?visualizing apparatuses of the disciplinary regimes of modern power-knowledge networks? (Haraway, 1997, p. 202) can be more fully understood. Chapter Outlines: Imag(in)ing a Visual Physical Cultural Studies The focus of this dissertation is on three unique but connected empirical chapters, each of which ?take images [in physical culture] seriously? (Rose, 2007, p. 12) to: unpack the process and products of visualizing technologies; and, make differentiation visible. However, prior to these chapters, I will outline the theoretical and disciplinary paradigms that underpin my selection of empirical sites, influence my methodological choices, and frame my analysis and conclusions. The review of literature and methodological chapters that follow the introduction will further position my project within a physical cultural studies imperative, and within particular ?interpretive? (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a) and disciplinary communities. As I am exploring the empirical breadth and ontological complexity of a ?whole gamut of physical culture? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 8) through a critical analysis of a diverse range of sites, physicalities, experiences, motivations, and practices, my project is necessarily interdisciplinary and multi-methodological. Revolving around a radically contextual understanding of physical culture and its research, and a 9 recognition of the fluidity, complexity, and (in)determinate nature of cultural couplings, my theoretical, disciplinary, methodological, and empirical selections: ? adhere to Rose?s (2007) premise ?that we need to learn to interpret visual images because they are an important means through which social life happens? (p. xiii); ? acknowledge articulations of visual and physical culture as productive in regards to social differentiation, and embedded in operations of social power (Andrews, 2008; Silk & Andrews, 2011); ? and, fulfill Rose?s (2007) criteria for a critical visual methodology, which ?takes images seriously?thinks about the social conditions and effects of visual objects?[and] considers [my] own way of looking at images? (p. 12). Chapter 2 ? Review of literature: Locating the visual in Physical Cultural Studies. To wholly appreciate the complexities of visual physical culture, and enable the deconstruction of their productive possibilities, I take on board Richardson?s (2000b) suggestion for ?working within theoretical schema?that challenge grounds of authority? (p. 16) through the consistent guidance of postmodernist, poststructuralist, and feminist theorizing. Equally necessary in understandings of my disparate, but interconnected visual sites, is physical cultural studies?s approach to interdisciplinarity; its requirement to eschew ?any pretense of disciplinarity? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 16). Accordingly, the disciplines of visual (culture) studies, 10 museum studies, and science and technology studies also heavily inform my approach to researching physical visual culture.1 Far from being disciplinarily isolationist, offering static theoretical vocabularies, behaving apolitically, or remaining detached from contemporary cultural contexts, the aforementioned disciplines reflect many of physical cultural studies? core tenants: they are interdisciplinary, theoretically fluid, politically engaged, and radically contextualized (Silk & Andrews, 2011). Indeed, similar to physical cultural studies? emergence from the sociology of sport, cultural studies, and body and society traditions, visual (culture) studies, new museology (within museum studies), and science and technology studies have been established largely in response to shifting cultural contexts, and perceived absences or constraints, in the traditional disciplines from which they developed. While my inter-disciplines may not each place the active body as central (Silk & Andrews, 2011), research connecting the body to society and social power is a central concern. The review of literature will, thus, aid in answering my first research question ? What is the visual culture or visual discourse of physical culture (and studies of it)? ? by introducing, organizing, and making visible the ways that visual and physical culture intersect within, and across, disciplinary boundaries. In doing so, the review of literature will interrogate disciplinary knowledge-making and highlight the need to surpass ?the limitations of a single method, [and] the discursive strictures of one disciplinary approach? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 16). 1 Though often used interchangeably, there are key differences between visual studies and visual culture studies that will be discussed in my Review of Literature (Chapter 2). 11 Chapter 3 ? Methods: Researching (with) the visual in Physical Cultural Studies. Following the review of literature, Gillian Rose?s (2007) critical visual methodology provides the framework for my approach to researching (with) the visual. Situated in cultural theory, Rose?s methodological approach informs my use of visual discourse analysis to realize a physical cultural studies commitment to articulation; ?starting with the particular, the detail, the scrap of ordinary or banal existence, and then working to unpack the density of relations and of intersecting social domains that inform it? (Frow & Morris, as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 16). In particular, the combination of Rose?s (2007) discourse analysis I and II, which privilege institutional production and intertextual interpretation respectively, allow for ?reading with great care for detail? (p. 165) without isolating visual aspects, or analyzing them out of context. Together, a visual discourse analysis, ?explores how those specific views or accounts are constructed as real or truthful or natural through particular regimes of truth? (Rose, 2007, p. 146). Situating image-based research at the intersections of sites (production, image, and audiencing), and modalities (technological, compositional, and social), Rose (2007) aligns particular theoretical and methodological approaches with empirical sites and materials; underscoring the complexity of producing and researching visual physical culture. Although images or visual events could be examined at the intersection of any site and modality, my research focuses on the social modality at the site of production and audiencing, as I am most concerned with: ?the range of social, economic, and political relations, institutions and practices that surround an 12 image and through which it is seen and used? (Rose, 2007, p. 13) prioritized at the social modality; the circumstances of production and the social effects of these circumstances accessible at the site of production; and the ?process by which a visual image has its meanings renegotiated, or even rejected, by particular audiences watching in specific circumstances? visible at the site of audiencing (Rose, 2007, p. 22). The empirical chapters, then, each offer an opportunity to ?unpack? the breadth, depth, and density of visual and physical events ? ?moments at which social divisions are imposed, experienced and at times contested? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 10; cf. Mirzoeff, 1999) ? through an interrogation of their production, their effects, and their complexities. Following Silk & Andrews (2011): If PCS is concerned then with radically contextualizing the physical, the empirical core of the practice of PCS is the litany of physical events or practices; the negotiated engagement with which contribute to the formation of individual subjectivities. From this point of relative abstraction, it is necessary to map the various dimensions and directions of determinacy, acknowledging that, in each case, these are largely ? no wholly ? arbitrary, connections. (p. 15) Accordingly, Rose?s (2007) visual discourse analysis is utilized to map the fluid, multidimensional, multisi(gh)ted, and intertextual representation and production of active bodies, as discourse ?never consists of one statement, one text, one action or one source? (Foucault as cited in Hall, 1997, p. 44). Working from the institutional to the individual, the traditional to the unconventional, and the complicit to the interventionist, my research examines 13 multiple sites and will be presented through three empirical chapters: 1) the exhibition of Champions at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC; 2) the display of Body Worlds at the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore, Maryland; and 3) the creation of Champions All for the Fear the Turtle Sculpture project as part of the University of Maryland?s 150th Anniversary celebration. The main focus of each of the empirical chapters are exhibitions or events where active bodies and physicalities are made (in)visible through various institutional and individual practices. Each of the chapters emerge from complex visual sites, where visual events (i.e. exhibitions) are constructed by individuals and institutions through a variety of visual texts (i.e. portraits, plastinates, and turtle sculptures) and technologies (i.e. portraiture, plastination, and collage) that work to visualize active bodies in particular ways. Though disparate, the chapters individually and collectively demonstrate the complexity and significance of visual physical culture and illustrate the ways it renders social subjectivities (in)visible. Chapter 4 ? Exhibiting Champions at the National Portrait Gallery. Although sport art can also be consumed in a number of ways, it is often displayed, and legitimized, in exhibition spaces, such as museums and galleries. Accepted conventions of ?looking? grant museums interpretive authority that is extended through the type, location, and even architecture of the museum, the museum?s mission, policies, and practices (e.g. collection and acquisition of artwork) as well as a work?s manner of display in permanent and special exhibitions. Therefore, museums shape the kind of knowledge(s) produced, the way they are produced, and who can produce and consume them. 14 This chapter focuses on the National Portrait Gallery?s Champions exhibition of sporting portraiture and its advancement of athletic bodies and high performance sport as ?remarkable?, while exploring the potential of sport art and the exhibition of it to reinforce and extend, or contradict and complicate, understandings of active bodies. To explore the role of museums, and in particular the National Portrait Gallery, in creating sporting heroes, rugged individuals, and exceptional(ist) American champions, this chapter will utilize a discourse analysis of the Champions exhibition (e.g. the works on display, text labels, and supplementary visual and audio media), field notes from (participant) observations (including naturally occurring talk with museum staff), and institutional documents and collateral (e.g. mission statements, object files, exhibition catalogues). Chapter 5 ? Displaying Body Worlds at the Maryland Science Center. Gunther von Hagens? Body Worlds, The Original Exhibition is a multi-show traveling exhibition, inspiring controversy and acclaim since 1995. Touting its use of ?authentic? and ?real? human specimens, it exhibits whole body plastinates, individual organs, and transparent body slices preserved through a plastination technique. Developed by scientist and Body Worlds creator Gunther von Hagens in the late 1970s, plastination injects corpses with resin in order to preserve and playfully position cadavers. In doing so, the plastinates are aesthetically rendered and transformed into didactic works of scientific art. While it global circulation is increasing, Body Worlds?s popularity in the United States has soared since its first display in 2004, touring its multiple exhibitions to 31 cities in the past 7 years. Exhibited at the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore in 2008, Body Worlds 15 2 (Body Worlds & The Brain ? Our Three Pound Gem) is the focus of the second empirical chapter. Located in science museums, and visualized through plastination techniques, the exhibition establishes itself as an authority on the body, and science as the way to ?know? (about) your body through its exhibition of whole body plastinates, glass-encased displays of plastinated specimens, and their interpretive technologies (i.e. text panels, labels, and audio guides). Furthermore, Body Worlds engages textual and visual narratives of sports, physical activity, and health to engage its visitors, and pursue its mission to ?educate the public about the inner workings of the human body and show the effects of poor health, good health and lifestyle choices? (Institute for Plastination, 2012c). A discourse analysis of Body Worlds will emphasize the visualizing technologies at work in the creation and display of plastinated cadavers, and situate them in their paired sites of production (Institute for Plastination) and audiencing (Maryland Science Center), to gain an understanding of the complex practices involved in the ?healthified? (Fusco, 2006, 2012) narratives manufactured by the exhibition, and destabilize their ?matters of fact? (Haraway, 1997; cf. Latour, 2004). Chapter 6 ? Creating Champions All at the University of Maryland. Between October 2005 and October 2006, I took part in the University of Maryland?s 150th Anniversary Fear the Turtle Sculpture campaign as a ?turtle artist?. My sculpture, Champions All, is an attempt to visually (re)construct and (re)contextualize the University?s historical and contemporary sporting contexts, and encourage a broader, critical, and public look at the dialectic relationship between sport and society. Utilizing archival and community-contributed images, Champions 16 All connects important political, economic, cultural, social, and technological advancements with developments at the University of Maryland and within Maryland?s sporting community ? broadly defined through its athletes, coaches, administrators, alumni, fans, club teams, cheerleaders, dance teams, and marching bands. Employing collage as a visualizing technology, I juxtapose visual representations of people, places, and events that prompt viewers to make critical connections, and better understand the role of sport in contemporary society, and, in particular, at the University of Maryland. While still incorporating a visual discourse analysis to guide my selection and inclusion of images, this chapter will primarily rely on an autoethnography to interrogate and make visible my own imag(in)ing of active bodies. In addition, I incorporate arts-based research techniques in the creation of Champions All to explore the possibilities of public art, creative expressive practices, and the academic-artist in the quest of a performative physical cultural pedagogy (Silk & Andrews, 2011). My autoethnography of the creation of Champions All follows the process of its production and audiencing, from its proposal and acceptance; to contract ?negotiations? and donor assignment; from archival research to image and material collection and selection; and from its completion and ?parading? at the University Golf Course to its purchase by, and display at, the University of Maryland Archives. After examining the production of exhibitions and performances in the previous chapters, exploring my own efforts (and struggles) as a creative cultural worker provides further insight into the practices and pitfalls of visualizing active bodies, and into the role and potential of the visual in physical cultural studies. 17 Chapter 2 ? Review of Literature: Locating the Visual in Physical Cultural Studies Focusing on the first of my research questions ? What is the visual culture or visual discourse of physical culture (and studies of it)? ? this chapter situates my research of visual physical culture within contemporary cultural politics, and specific interpretive communities (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). In an effort to best understand the ways that ?active bodies become [visually] organized, represented, and experienced in relation to the operations of social power? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 9), I have engaged in disciplinary exchanges with visual (culture) studies, museum studies, and science and technologies studies; in addition to my disciplinary home within Physical Cultural Studies [PCS], and wider sport studies disciplines. Recognizing the empirical breadth of my research sites and the inadequacy of any singular disciplinary approach (Silk & Andrews, 2011) to properly engage with the complexities of their visual production(s), this diverse disciplinary approach is both in line with PCS, and necessary for taking visual physical culture seriously (Rose, 2007). To ?locate? the visual in PCS, I will first situate PCS, and my research, within current political and economic climates. Next, I will locate visual (cultural) studies, museum studies, and science and technology studies within similar theoretical and conjunctural moments; and, discuss how they have influenced my research, and how they have, or could be, integrated into sport, and physical cultural, studies to research visual sites and ways of seeing. Finally, I will discuss the visual methodological turn in qualitative research and sport studies, before discussing my own methodological approaches in the following methods chapter. 18 Locating Physical Cultural Studies As a newly formed ?intellectual project? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 4), PCS builds upon critical and feminist traditions of studying sport and the active body ? seeking to promote social justice by tackling ?the most pressing social issues?of our time? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 18).2 Necessarily ?without guarantees? (Andrews & Giardina, 2008; cf. Hall, 1996), PCS scholarship adopts fluid theoretical, disciplinary, and methodological vocabularies to identify, research, and intervene into ?the complexities, experiences, and injustices of the physical cultural context it confronts (particularly with regard to the relations, operations, and effects of power)? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 10). A necessary step in ?mak[ing] our practices ?count?? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 29), however, is understanding the contextual moment that is ?our time?, and the ways in which physical culture shapes, and is shaped by, ?our most pressing issues?. As a primary ideology in present-day US economics, politics, and culture, and a key rhetorical strategy emerging from each of my empirical sites, neoliberalism plays an important role in my dissertation research, and PCS scholarship generally. In particular, scholars David Andrews and Michael Silk have led recent explorations of the sport and neoliberalism relationship. Though relegated to a footnote in their introduction to the PCS special issue of the Sociology of Sport Journal, Silk & Andrews (2011), nonetheless, situate the need 2 Silk & Andrews (2011) suggest the most pressing social issues of our time include: ?health and healing, human rights and cultural survival, environmentalism, violence, war, genocide, immigration, poverty, racism, equality, justice and peace? (p. 18). 19 for PCS within a ?pernicious present? (p. 10), where neoliberalism is joined by neoconservatism, neoimperialism, and neoscientism to: provide a context for locating the physical in a world in which violence is everywhere, democracy is under attack, the United States appear to be asserting an imperialist, empire building, project, a permanent war on the world based on a tyrannical (govern)mentality of conservative rhetoric centered on a peculiar or juridical concept of ?right? (Baudrillard, 2001; Johnson, 2002; McClaren, 2002), that has manifestations and entanglements in multiple parts of the world and has an attendant racist and repressive agenda, in which there is a growing culture of surveillance, inequality and cynicism, and, a world in which there is an increase in the ?moral? regulation and management of populations by those who act on our behalf (see Denzin, 2004a; Giroux, 2004, Hardt & Negri, 2000; Harvey, 2003). (p. 29) The scholars? most recent edited effort, however, places neoliberalism squarely in the center of its contributors? analyses. Or rather, the writing included in Sport and Neoliberalism: Politics, Consumption, and Culture (Andrews & Silk, 2012) locates sport and physical culture within our contested neoliberal present. Seemingly continuing their definition of a ?pernicious present?, Silk and Andrews (2012) begin their introduction to the book by ?locating [their] writing in what are very interesting times?: We are but a stone's throw into the new millennium, yet we are in a moment dominated by perpetual war; financial crises; enhanced security; terror threats; the seeming ubiquitous celebration of the free market; an increased emphasis on 20 individual responsibility for all facets of everyday life; a rampant media and culture industry that entertains us and educates us in how to act, behave, and live; higher education systems that increasingly act as handmaidens for government and corporations; and the downgrading and diminished import of any public and social services (health services, education, transportation, and so on). (p. 1). Further situating the need for PCS scholarship within a lack of ?adequate critical explication?, Silk & Andrews (2012) again stress the importance of pursuing research that is both contextual and social-justice seeking; explaining how ?the ramifications of the cultural tentacles of these overlapping discourses [of neoliberalism, neoconservatism, neoimperialism, and neoscientism] needs to be interrogated; [as] any semblance of progressive change can take place only once the moment has been understood?? (p. 5). In p articular, they lament the ?relative dearth of work that has critically engaged [the sport and neoliberalism] relationship? ( Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 11), and promote the contributors and contributions to Sport and Neoliberalism as scholars and scholarship that ?begin[s] to fill the void in our understandings of the articulations between the heterogeneous complexities of neoliberal ideology, political praxis, pedagogy, and sport? (Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 2). Locating neoliberalism as ?an ascendant orderi ng logic of contemporary societies? (p. 2) and ?a new political consensus? (p. 7), Silk & Andrews (2012) describe its ?basic prescription? as follows: purge the system of obstacles to the functioning of free markets; celebrate the virtues of individualism (recast social problems as individual problems, such as 21 drug use, obesity, or inadequate health insurance) and competitiveness; foster economic self-sufficiency; abolish or weaken social programs; include the marginalized (often by this shift in the role of government) or the poor into the labor market, on the market's terms (such as through the workfare scheme); and criminalize the homeless and the urban poor (subject this population to curfew orders, increased surveillance, or "zero-tolerance" policing) (Giroux 2004b; Peck 2003; Rose 1999, 2000b). (p. 7; see also Francombe & Silk, 2012, p. 237) Exploring the relationship between sport and these neoliberal outcomes, as the title of the book would imply, Sport and Neoliberalism?s chapters debate a number questions that ?consider how sport has been appropriated and mobilized within the major institutional arenas in which capital accumulation and regulation occurs? (Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 9). Importantly, many of these prescriptions, questions, and contributions align with the purpose of my research, my research questions, and the persistent neoliberal narratives, which headlined my analysis of visual physical cultural sites. Indicative of the long reach of the ?tentacles of [neoliberal] economic and political policy? (Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 5), neoliberalism emerged as a key visual and textual theme during the analysis and coding of the visual events and texts that make up each of my research sites. In regards to the ?basic prescriptions? of neoliberalism outlined by Silk & Andrews (2012), the institutions that act as the sites of production and audiencing in each of my chapters, and their productive practices, are affected by neoliberal-led political and economic shifts aimed at ?foster[ing] economic self-sufficiency? and ?abolish[ing] or weaken[ing] social programs? (p. 7). 22 Additionally, albeit less tangibly, neoliberal discourse, which ?celebrate[s] the virtues of individualism (recast social problems as individual problems, such as drug use, obesity, or inadequate health insurance)? (Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 7), was a key rhetorical strategy in Champions at the National Portrait Gallery, Body Worlds 2 at the Maryland Science Center, and the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project at the University of Maryland. T he questions posited by the editors of Sport and Neoliberalism, and the approaches offered by its contributors, also align with my research. Examining neoliberalism as part of a PCS dedicated to contextually based understanding[s] of corporeal practices (Andrews, 2008; Silk & Andrews, 2011) is key to answering both Silk & Andrews?s (2012) query ?How has sport been affected by, and indeed affected, the role of the state, the market, or the subject within a neoliberal conjuncture ? ? (p. 9), and my research questions regarding where visual and physical culture intersect, and how their (conjunctural, physical, institutional, discursive) location(s) shape their interpretations and understanding(s). Equally, interrogating ?the place of sport in the multiple manifestations of social inequality? (Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 9), aligns with my goals of understanding: how social subjectivities and power relations are (re)produced through the creation, display, and audiencing of visual physical culture; who or what is rendered (in)visible; and, who is allowed to see and in what ways. Furthermore, my pursuit of a greater understanding of the visualization of active bodies and the knowledge(s), subjectivities, and inequalities constructed thereof (i.e. the purpose of my research), is reflected in the hopeful objectives of Sport and Neoliberalism to expose the ?practices, policies, and 23 processes responsible for the normalization of neoliberal sporting cultures ? processes that are clearly anchored in power relations that serve particular ends and thereby perpetuate structural inequalities? (Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 15). Finally, though all of the chapters carry significant insight into conducting contextual sport research within our contested neoliberal present, there are a number of chapters in Sport and Neoliberalism that correspond with, and support, the institutional contexts and neoliberal narratives key to my research. In particular, Grant Farred?s (2012) discussion of the beginning and ?end? of neoliberalism through swimmers Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps, respectively, resonates with the heroic portraiture and narratives on display in Champions at the National Portrait Gallery. Fusco?s (2012) discussion of the geographies and discourses of healthification, and Francombe and Silk?s (2012) exploration of the (bio)pedagogies of fat at work in reality television, each lend support to my contextualization and analysis of Body Worlds 2 at the Maryland Science Center. Lastly, Samantha King?s (2012) excavation of the ?corporate university? and its practices helps situate the goals of the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project at the University of Maryland within an increasingly privatized public institution. To further locate my research in our neoliberal present, and within recent literature exploring sport and neoliberalism, I will discuss the intersections of neoliberalism and visual physical culture in the following section. Neoliberal narratives in visual physical culture. While my dissertation research was not specifically seeking to explore the relationship between visual physical culture and neoliberalism, the connection between the two, nonetheless, traced a path ? from sites to sights ? across my 24 research. This is perhaps not surprising given neoliberalism?s entrenchment in US politics, economy and culture. However, that neoliberal discourses emerged as key themes through an inductive coding and analysis of the visual events and texts included in my research is significant, and calls attention to how pervasive and seemingly inescapable this ?new political consensus? (Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 7) is. Though my methods chapter will further discuss my analytical approach, and my empirical chapters will further discuss their key themes, this section provides a conceptual framework for understanding the neoliberal ideologies at work, and on display in visual physical culture. Exhibiting American exceptionalism and (rugged) individualism, Champions at the National Portrait Gallery (Chapter 4) is implicated in ?celebrat[ing] the [neoliberal] virtues of individualism? (Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 7). Here, Farred?s (2012) reading of Michael Phelps?s record eight gold medals in a single Olympic Games is useful in understanding Champions?s neoliberal leanings. Embracing a ?nothing is impossible/anything is possible? sporting mantra, Phelps?s pursuit and subsequent capture of Mark Spitz?s previous standard ?reveals an insight into the complex intersection between sport and the discourse of neoliberalism? (Farred, 2012, p. 111). As Farred (2012) explains, ?the logic of all sport, especially professional sport, coincides with the competitive thrust of neoliberalism?, where ?only the free market can produce the kind of competition that enables individuals in all walks of life to achieve their full potential ? individuals released from all unnecessary constraints imposed by the state, the Keynesian welfare state in particular? (p. 111). In addition to celebrating Phelps?s neoliberal individualism ? his 25 ability to achieve his full (physical) potential ? Farred (2012) also suggests that ?sport and the neoconservative proclivities?of neoliberalism are bound up in each other? (p. 112). As one of the overlapping discourses of our contested present, neoconservatism is ?entirely consistent with the neoliberal agen da of elite governance, mistrust of democracy, and the maintenance of market freedoms? (Harvey as cited in Farred, 2012, p. 113). Here, Phelps embodies both American exceptionalism and the exceptional American) individual, when he ?represents himself as the Olympic athlete (the bearer of a ?gut patriotism?) who, through exemplary, record -breaking, history-making performance, can restore the nation to its ?rightful? place: the exceptional, hegemonic United States? (p. 114). Indeed, Farred (2012) presents Phelps as ?an odd product? of neoliberalism: He is the beneficiary of deregulation, the child prodigy who overcomes ADD and adapts his inherited blue-collar work ethic of western Maryland to the opportunities offered by white suburbia. Most importantly, he is the face of extreme individuality that is able to make itself ideologically tenable as the representative of a nation's resurgence. (p. 122) Added to their collection of sporting portraiture in 2005, prior to his record-breaking performance in Beijing, the inclusion of Phelps and his fellow sporting champions within, and on, the walls of the National Portrait Gallery and the Champions exhibition equally ?reveals an insight into the complex intersection between sport and the discourse of neoliberalism? (F arred, 2012, p. 111). Body Worlds at the Maryland Science Center (Chapter 5) also ?celebrate[s] the [neoliberal] virtues of individualis m? (Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 7). However, 26 individualism is observed differently in Body Worlds and its host institution(s). Rather than elevating exceptional(ist) Americans, Body Worlds and the Maryland Science Center ?recasts? (ill) health as an individual problem (Silk & Andrews, 2012), and promotes personal responsibility. Invoking Fou cault?s concept of governmentality, and Rail?s understanding of biopedagogies, Francombe and Silk?s (2012) analysis of the reality television show The Biggest Loser as a ?powerful public pedagogy? (Giroux as cited in Francombe & Silk, 2012, p. 228) offers a helpful framework for analyzing the neoliberal discourses at work in Body Worlds and the Maryland Science Center. Here, governmentality is understood as: the processes through which individuals shape and guide their own conduct (and that of others) and are instilled with a willing acquiescence to surveillance and self- monitoring, and in which capillary- like institutions?do the work of government agencies in encouraging a focus on issues of responsibilization and self- discipline? (p. 225- 226). Extended to governing obesity, biopedagogi es ?act to regulate life and bodily practices, focus on controlling bodies to reduce obesity, and work to protect everyone from the risks of obesity ? a discourse that places individuals under constant surveillance and presses them toward monitoring themselves? (Francombe & Silk, 2012, p. 231). While Francombe and Silk (2012) locate the media as the ?capillary- like institutions? of their focus, this distinction and its attendant ?techniques of govenmentality? can certainly be extended to encompass the cultural institutions featured in my research, including the Maryland Science Center, and science centers generally. Similar to The Biggest Loser, Body Worlds ?centers on ?correcting? the 27 obesity ?disease?? (Francombe & Silk, 2012, p. 231), and is ?emblematic of the individualization of obesity discourse; it suggests that individual choices ? or, more accurately, wrong choices ? must be solved through an ethic of responsibilization and subject self-sufficiency? (Francombe & Silk, 2012, p. 230). Fusco (2012) as well, highlights how neoliberal regimes of health, healthism, and healthification ??encourage? individuals to take responsibility for their own health and well-being? (p. 143). Furthermore, both Fusco (2012) and Francombe and Silk (2012) discuss the active pathologizing of ?those who do not participate? (Fusco, 2012, p. 145) ? where obese and unhealthy bodies represent ?the failure of will in a [neoliberal] culture in which self-direction and choice are paramount? (Francombe & Silk, 2012, p. 232). As personal responsibility for (ill) health, and the maintenance or rectification of it, is an important strategy functioning in Body Worlds, and Body Worlds and science museum exhibitions offer ?alternative technologies of governance? (Francombe & Silk, 2012, p. 238), Francombe and Silk (2012) and Fusco (2012), and their focus on healthist and obesity discourses, provide important insights. Finally, Samantha King?s discussion about a generic, but ubiquitous, Nike U, highlights the contradictory relationship between higher education and neoliberalism, and provides a context for my own exploration of the University of Maryland, and its sporting histories, through my construction of Champions All. While my approach in the final of my three empirical chapters is autoethnographic, neoliberalism still plays an important role: creating a contested terrain to negotiate while acting as a public intellectual and university representative; shaping available University and athletic imagery and their uses; and, destabilizing the stated philanthropic objectives of the 28 Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project. Outlining the ?corporate university?, King (2012) explains: While education has never been independent of the market, [the past three decades] has witnessed an intensified encroachment of commercial principles into every aspect of higher learning (Giroux 2007; Hanley 2001; Washburn 2005)?.faculty are increasingly imagined as entrepreneurs, students as consumers, and college campuses as hybrid organizations that wed the revenue- producing goals of the business park with the ubiquitous promotion of brand- name goods more commonly associated with the shopping mall. (p. 75) Influenced by neoliberal prescriptions that ?foster economic self-sufficiency? and ?abolish or weaken social programs? (Silk & Andrews, 2012, p. 7), the University of Maryland joins the National Portrait Gallery and the Maryland Science Center as institutions where the ?undermining of?public goods that are circulated in public spaces through public relationships is both a symptom of and vehicle for the ascent of neoliberal discourse and practice? (King, 2012, p. 76). While I have attempted to situate visual physical culture in neoliberalism, and within recent contributions to sport and neoliberalism research, there has been a distinct lack of discussion regarding the visual in both physical cultural studies, and sport and neoliberalism literature. Rose?s (2007) call for ?an approach that thinks about the visual in terms of?the power relations in which it is embedded [emphasis added]? (p. xv) is partially answered by my discussions of neoliberalism above. However, to fully consider the visual in regards to the ?power relations that produce, are articulated through and can be challenged by, ways of seeing and imaging 29 [emphasis added]? (Rose, 2007, p. xv) I need to turn to disciplines, and literature, that have already turned to the visual. Ways of Seeing Active Bodies: Interpretive Communities and (Inter)disciplinary Adventures From the point of view of a barely imaginable, desperately needed, transnational, intercultural and resolutely situated feminism - a feminism circulating in networks at least as disseminated, differentiated and resilient as those of flexible capitalism's New World Order, Inc. - questions about optics are inescapable. (Haraway, 1997, p. 202).3 ??the postmodern is a visual culture? (Mirzoeff, 1998, p. 4). Operating within the ?pernicious present? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 10), is an increasingly visual, or ocularcentric, world; where ?human experience is now more visual and visualized than ever before from the satellite picture to medical images of the interior of the human body? (Mirzoeff, 1999, p. 1). Accordingly, the visual, and visuality, have emerged as necessary sites of study. Following Elkins (2003), I will begin my consideration of this ?new? field of visual studies with questions like, 3 This quote is the omitted material from the selection of Haraway?s (1997) writing that headlines my introduction: ?In a world replete with images and representations, whom can we not see or grasp, and what are the consequences of such selective blindness?....How is visibility possible? For whom, by whom, and of whom? What remains invisible, to whom, and why? For those peoples who are excluded from the visualizing apparatuses of the disciplinary regimes of modern power-knowledge networks, the averted gaze can be as deadly as the all-seeing panopticon that surveys the subjects of the biopolitical state? (p. 202). 30 ?Where did it get its name? What are its journals?? Where is it taught?? How is it different from its nearest neighbors?? (p.1). After providing an overview (if abbreviated) of the field of visual (culture) studies in its current state, I will discuss the ways visual (culture) studies enhances my research, and the PCS project, through a discussion of the visual turn in science and technology studies, and explore sport and physical cultural studies as disciplines increasingly interested in what the visual has to offer as a site and method of study. Visual (culture) studies. New approaches to the study of the visual have varied widely, have been informed by a number of different disciplinary and cultural trajectories, and have, like (physical) cultural studies often been defined by its indefinition. Its present iterations are diverse in their definitions (i.e. what they study, and how they study it), practitioners (i.e. who studies it), their disciplinary locations (i.e. from where do they study it), and their rhetoric (i.e. what they call what they study). For example, the American Studies Associations? Visual Culture Caucus: provide[s] a network for scholars working in visual studies from diverse disciplinary homes [emphasis added]. Its members include teachers, museum curators, librarians, and others who research a variety [emphasis added] of visual forms and media, such as painting, photography, sculpture, film, television, advertisements, cartoons, visual ethnographies, and the Internet. (American Studies Association, 2013, para. 1) In the field of cultural studies, the Visual Culture division of the Cultural Studies Association: 31 represents the multi- and inter-disciplinary study [ emphasis added] of the visual as a primary site for the production and contestation of meaning. The Division is therefore concerned with visual forms and visuality [ emphasis added] , including images, visual media, image technologies, surveillance, theories of spectatorship, visual experience, and visual literacy. (Cultural Studies Association, 2013, para. 1). While the Visual Culture Caucus of the American Studies Association, and the Visual Culture division of the Cultural Studies Association, offer groups dedicated to the study of the visual within larger disciplinary affiliations, the emergence of organizations primarily dedicated to the study of, and with, the visual has also, and more loudly, announced the arrival of visual (culture) studies as a new disciplinary force. Dedicated visual organizations include the newly organized International Association for Visual Culture (IAVC ; 2010), and the long(er) established International Visual Sociology Association (IVSA ; 1983 ). Like the sub - disciplinary groups above, these dedicated organizations also highlight a diversity of sources, methods, and disciplines in visual research. For example, t he IAVC ?foster[s] communication and exchange among individuals and institutions engaged in critical analysis of and interventions in visual culture?. sponsor[ing] and support[ing] trans- national and trans-disciplinary [ emphasis added] engagements across a wide range [ emphasis added] of communities, organizations, and platforms? (IAVC, 2013, para. 1). Members of the IVSA , equally, represent, ?a wide spectrum of disciplines [ emphasis added] , including sociology, anthropology, education, visual 32 communication, photography, filmmaking, art, and journalism? ( IVSA , 2013, para. 1). Devoted to the ?visual study of society, c ulture, and social relationships? (IVSA, 2013, para. 1) the organization encourages the use and analysis of a wide range of visual materials and technologies, including: ? documentary studies of everyday life in contemporary communities; ? the interpretive analysis of art and popular visual representations of society; ? studies about the social impact of advertising and the commercial use of images; ? the analysis of archival images as sources of data on society and culture; ? and, the study of the purpose and the meaning of image- making practices like recreational and family photography. (IVSA, 2013, para. 2) Additionally, the IVSA?s journal, Visual Studies (known as Visual Sociology from 1986 - 2001), publishes ?visually- oriented articles across a range of disciplines [emphasis added]? including, ?empirical visual research, studies of visual and material culture, the development of visual research methods, and the exploration of visual means of communication about social and cultural worlds? (Visual Studies, 2013a, par a. 1). Thus, the arrival of visual (culture) studies, and the range of its research, has been marked by its professionalization ? through conferences, professional organizations, journals, and, finally , academic programs.4 Given the breadth of definitions, disciplines, and ?name calling? that I have examined so far, it 4 The Journal of Visual Cu lture and October , are other leading journals in the fields of visual culture studies, and art criticism and theory, respectively; and have featured some of the most oft cited debates about the emergence, and location, of visual (culture) studies. Namely, the 1996 October publication of responses to a visual culture questionnaire (Alpers, 1996); and the numerous articles published in response to Mieke Bal?s (2003) challenge of the field in the Journal of Visual Culture. 33 is no surprise that university programs of visual (culture) studies are situated in various departments, including of Film & Media Studies, (e.g. Visual Studies at the University of Californi a, Irvine; Media, Communication and Culture at New York University), and Art and Art History (Visual and Cultural Studies at the University of Rochester; Art, Art History and Visual Studies at Duke University). If its current professional organization is a ny indication, visual (culture) studies seemingly embraces an ?anything goes? approach, through the inclusion of a diverse/wide range/spectrum of multi - /trans - /inter - disciplinary homes in: sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, American studies, philosophy, education, aesthetics, art and art history, photography, film, media studies, journalism, and visual communication. Elkins (2003) confirms this interdisciplinarity in his ?skeptical introduction? to the field, explaining how: visual culture draws on nearly two dozen fields in the humanities, including history and art history, art criticism, art practice, art education, feminism and women?s studies, anthropology and visual anthropology, film and media studies archaeology, architecture and urban planning, visual communication, graphic and book design, advertising, and the sociology of art. (p. 25) However, Elkins (2002) take s issue with interdisciplinarity as ?an obstacle to self- definition?, instead suggesting that ?it is helpful to try describing the field in terms of what it studies? (p. 94). However, again according to its profession ?development?, it seems that visual (culture) studies scholars (or artists, teachers, curators, etc) can study (with) a variety of visual forms and approaches including: images, art, painting, sculpture, archives, photography, popular visual representations, visual media, image 34 technologies, spectatorship, film, documentaries, television, the Internet, surveillance, advertisements, cartoons, and visual ethnographies and research methods. To this Elkins (2002) adds that visual studies is, contrarily: predominantly about film, photography, advertising, video and the internet. It is primarily not about painting, sculpture or architecture, and it is rarely about any media before 1950 except early film and photography. Visual culture might seem at first to be the study of popular art, but it also includes recent avant-garde art (Hans Haacke, Barbara Kruger, the Guerrilla Girls) which is not at all popular in the way mass media are. Visual culture can include documents (the visual appearance of passports, bureaucratic forms and tickets) but in general it sticks to art and design ? it does not encompass engineering drawing, scientific illustration or mathematical graphics. (p. 94) While Elkins (2003) may believe that the ?sheer disarray of visual culture is a good sign of its strength and newness? (p. 63) (explained in his chapter ?Ten Ways to Make Visual Studies More Difficult?) the conflicting use, and conflation of ?visual studies?, ?visual culture? and ?visual culture studies? - ?expressions that are sometimes distinguished and other times indifferently mixed? (Elkins, 2003, p. 1) ? seem to be at the heart of confusion and disagreement about the direction of the new discipline. While, I don?t have the space to account for the entire trajectory of visual (culture) studies that led to its emergence in the 1990s, the issues with its terminology are historical legacies of its twinned emergence from media cultural studies (visual culture) and art history (visual studies) during the pictorial turn in cultural studies, art 35 history, and literary theory ? a sequel to the cultural turn that produced cultural studies 35 years earlier (Mirzoeff, 1999) , and has heavily influenced current understandings of physical cultural studies. As the study of (often) visual institutions, museum studies, has also benefited from the pictorial turn?s critical approach to the visual; most evidenced in Vergo ?s (1989) edited text on ?new? museology. Sustained by scholars and practitioners that ?have felt that the new urgency of the visual cannot be fully considered in the established visual disciplines? (Mirzoeff, 1998, p. 6), the ongoing debate over the field?s terminology, and reach, is important for its direction, definition, and continued existence. In his critique of visual culture, Mitchell (2002) distinguishes visual studies and visual culture as ?respectively, the field of study and the object or target of study. Visual studies is the study of visual cult ure? (p. 166). Crimp (1999 ) offers a similar definition, clarifying ?visual culture as the object of study in visual studies , which is a narrower area of cultural studies? (p. 52) . Mirzoeff (1998) on the other hand prefers visual culture, ?rather than visual studies or other such formulation?; in ?retaining the term culture in the foreground, critics and practitioners alike are reminded of the political stakes inherent in what we do? (p. 6). Given the cultural politics of PCS research, and PCS researchers, it is visual culture studies, and its cultural studies theoretical logics, that are more aligned with my research and motivations; and the terminology I will use moving forward in my exploration of similarly-minded approaches to the visual in other disciplines. 36 Scientific, technological, and medical imag(in)ings. Science and technology studies (STS) has also incorporated the study of imaging practices, and their social significance, in a quest to track the role of increasing technological and (bio)medical interactions in shaping global, local, and individual formations (Clarke, Mamo, Fishman, Shim & Fosket, 2003). A subset of the social studies of science, STS scholars have explored the practices and products of scientific and medical imaging technologies such as ultrasound (Stabile, 1998), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ( Joyce, 2006, 2008; Prasad, 2005), and positron emission tomography (PET) (Dumit, 2004) , the effect of technology on visual culture generally, and its concomitant impact on perceptions and lived realities. Drawing on, often feminist, theories of the body the effects of technologically- assisted, and scientifically- legitimated, visual representations of the corporeal are studied in light of their abilities to both (re)produce and disrupt subjectivities, meaning s, and knowledges, through their capacity to objectify, surveil, discipline, modify , and empower. Also of importance to STS, and my own, research , is an emphasis on reflexivity, or ?strong objectivity ? (Harding, 1991) and the partiality of perspective or ?situated knowledges? (Haraway, 1989). This ?anthropological gaze? on the concrete acts undertaken by cultural workers, including researchers themselves, is important to developing an understanding of the productive practices behind mediated visual displays of active bodies; and for opening dialogue and new possibilities for interaction and interpretation. 37 Visual sources and methods in the study of sport and physical culture . Visual methods have long been utilized in quantitative, qualitative, and ethnographic research as objective methods of observation and data collection, and evidentiary visualization and illustration. However, the ?zealously explored? (Dikovitskaya, 2006, p. 47) visual turn in the humanities and social sciences has been accompanied by a methodological focus on new ways of looking at, thinking about, and utilizing the visual in scholarly research as ?visual research methods and interest in visual studies are global phenomena? (Margolis & Pauwels, 2011, p. xix). Situated within a ?postmodernist context of doubt? (Richardson, 2000b, p. 8), and attracting the application of feminist and poststructural epistemologies from a variety of disciplines, these methodologies have moved away from utilizing the visual as evidence and illustration, and a search for singular meaning, and towards the development of a critical visual methodology (Rose, 2007). Particularly evident in interpretive qualitative research, the visual turn has been marked by a flotilla of books, chapters, journals and articles dedicated to critically thinking about the visual and visual methodologies in the past decade. This includes cultural geographer Rose?s (2007) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials whose epistemology-led and contextually- grounded approach to visual methods closely aligns with a PCS project and heavily influences my methodological approaches. Visual methodological guidance has, perhaps, been offered most frequently from anthropology; pioneering its early use (e.g. Collier & Collier, 1986) and recently reinventing its possibilities through more critical, collaborative, ethnographic, multisensory, and interventionist approaches 38 (e.g. Banks & Morphy, 1999; Banks, 2001; Pink, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2009). Visual approaches to research have also been actively engaged by educational researchers, where ?visual studies has come to play a particularly meaningful role? (Prosser, 2007, p. 13), and have been developed as part of collaborative, participatory, and feminist approaches that recognize ?children and young people are capable of providing expert testimony? [and] that it is the right of children and young people to have a say about things that concern them? (Thomson, 2008, p. 1). Rolled out across what Pauwels (2010) characterizes as a ?steady stream of dedicated handbooks and readers? (p. 546), visual research strategies and methods have been tackled by monographs (e.g. Ball & Smith, 1992; Banks, 2007; Emmison & Smith, 2000; Gauntlett, 2007; Mitchell, 2011; Rose, 2007; Spencer, 2011), and multidisciplinary anthologies (e.g. Bauer & Gaskell, 2000; Knowles & Cole, 2007; Knowles & Sweetman, 2004; Leeuwen & Jewitt, 2001; Margolis & Pauwels, 2011; Prosser, 1998; Stanczak, 2007), which profess their suitability to a wide range of fields. These include academics and practitioners in: sociology, anthropology, psychology, communication, journalism, film studies, cultural studies, history, education, youth and social work, health, nursing, criminology, women?s studies, ethnic studies, community studies, global studies, geography, art and design, photography, and more. These texts showcase a breadth of approaches to gathering (e.g. researcher- and participant-created, or ?found, visual data), analysing, and presenting visual data (e.g. photography, video, drawing, iconography, content analysis, semiotics, multisensory, arts-based), in addition to discussing and debating the technological and 39 ethical implications and struggles faced by visual researchers. They are also representative of what Margolis and Pauwels (2011) describe as the ?empirical, theoretical, and methodological diversity typical for this burgeoning field of research? (p. xix), and its ?rapid flux due to technological innovations, the adoption of visual research methods by traditional disciplines, and the rapidly developing transdisciplinary research groups? (p. xxi). The growth of the utilization and acceptance of visual methods by qualitative researchers is also evidenced by the inclusion, or mainstreaming, of visual approaches in methodological tomes such as The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005b); where authors such as Harper (2005) and Finley (2005) featured elsewhere in the visual methods terrain (e.g. Harper, 2003; Finley, 2003) are included alongside of chapters explaining interviewing techniques. In their discussions of the differences between visual sociology and the sociology of the visual (Harper, 2005), and arts-based research and research-based art (Finley, 2003), both authors outline the (dis)similarities of doing research on, and doing research with, visual images, artifacts, and technologies; a division that has come to characterize approaches to the visual in sport and physical cultural studies. Both the theory underpinning recent approaches to the visual, and the methodologies developed and utilized to explore (with) it, are significant and insightful additions to qualitative and PCS research. Encompassing the study of the visual in the arts, media, and everyday life, visual culture and its methodologies readily articulate with physical culture and the persistent visualization of active bodies in contemporary society. Thus, an invigorated critical examination of visual 40 materials and methods has also been evidenced and encouraged in the examination of physical culture, most notably through recent special issues of the International Journal of the History of Sport (IJHS) and Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise (QRSE; now Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health) ? and the published anthologies which followed (Huggins & O?Mahony, 2011c; Phoenix & Smith, 2011). Developed through a series of conferences aimed at researching the visual in sport history, the ?Sport and the Visual? special issue of IJHS is an multidisciplinary (e.g. sport history, social history, art history, film history, design history, visual culture studies), and chronologically diverse contribution that ?seeks to integrate an analysis of sport within a broad range of visual culture activities and to highlight the value of such images and materiality as key texts that cast further light on a broad range of sociopolitical and sociocultural practices? (Huggins & O?Mahony, 2011b, p. 1089). Critiquing the use of visual ?evidence? and highlighting the complexity and constructed nature of imagery, Huggins, O?Mahony and the contributors to the special issue encourage scholars to ?move beyond traditional text-based scholarship and engage with the many and powerful images of sport in new ways? (Huggins & O?Mahony, 2011b, p. 1090). While admitting to ?reveal[ing] only a fraction of the subtleties and shadings of [the visual?s] sporting impacts and meaning? (Huggins & O?Mahony, 2011b, p. 1101), the articles in the special issue do focus on a wide variety of visual sources (e.g. stamps, statues, art, cartoons, museums, archives, stadiums), though the range of methods and moments (e.g. image, production, reception) utilized the to explore these sources are more limited. 41 Significantly, visual materials and methods have also been pursued in sport history through a ?Sources and Methods? section implemented in the Journal of Sport History by editor Wray Vamplew. Contributors to the section, including Hardy, Loy & Booth (2009), Howell (2007), Huggins (2008), and Phillips, O?Neill & Osmond (2007), have explored materiality, cultural and visual turns, and visual sources respectively, advocating for ?broader horizons? (Phillips, et al, 2007) and providing justification for the use of visual materials and methods in sport history, PCS, and sport studies generally. Less focused on visual materials, artifacts, and representations (i.e. research on the visual) and more engaged with visual methods and embodiment (i.e. researching with the visual), the ?Visual Methods in Physical Cultures? special issue of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise edited by Cassandra Phoenix asks, ?What are visual methods and why might they be useful? How might they be utilised in qualitative research? What cautions accompany the use of these methods?? (Phoenix, 2010, p. 94). Arguing for the incorporation of visual methods into the methodological toolboxes of qualitative physical culture researchers, Phoenix (2010) explains: First, they can offer a different way of ?knowing? the world of physical culture, which goes beyond knowledge constructed and communicated through written and spoken word alone? Second, visual images can act as unique forms of data that have the ability to amass complexly layered meanings in a format, which is both accessible and easily retrievable to researchers, participants and audiences alike. Third, images are powerful in 42 that they can do things. Images can evoke a particular kind of response. (p. 94) While Phoenix?s (2010) above assertions for researching with the visual largely reflect the arguments presented by Huggins and O?Mahony (2011) for doing research on the visual ? to understand their ?ways of knowing?, complexity, and significance ? Phoenix (2010) goes on to query the appropriateness of the use of visual m ethods within the ??any one can do it? boom? (Harrison as cited in Phoenix, 2010, p. 95). In doing so, Phoenix (2010) tasks researchers with the following: Visual -based research is dynamic and multidimensional. As an increasing number of qualitative researchers make the ?visual turn?, to ensure distinctiveness and robustness of visual studies, we must familiarise ourselves with the lay of the land. We must become articulate in theoretical and conceptual debates. And, as we negotiate new terrains in terms of data collection, interpretation and representation, we must ensure that we do no harm to our informants and work with visual data in moral and ethical ways. (p. 103) Organized around researcher-created (e.g. visual ethnography; Atkinson, 2010; Pope, 2010) , researcher-found (media and self-representations; Griffin, 2010; Krane, et al, 2010) , and participant-generated (e.g. auto-photography, photovoice, arts-based, film; Azzarito & Sterling, 2010; Cherrington & Watson, 2010; D?Alonzo & Sharma, 2010; Gravesto ck, 2010; Kluge et al, 2010 ; Sims-Gould et al, 2010 ) images, the ?Visual Methods in Physical Cultures? special issue presents a ? range of qualitative research projects that have employed a variety of visual methods in order 43 to ?see the way? of physical cul ture? (Phoenix, 2010, p. 94). Representing the majority of contributions, participant-generated visual materials are advanced as particularly suitable for the inclusion of marginalized groups and participants of all ages in physical culture research. Similar to the aforementioned feminist arguments presented by education and youth researchers, participant-led methods are promoted for the ways they co-produce knowledge with participants, and provide participants with the ability ?to use their bodies and the space around them to ?show? rather than just ?tell? about their lives? (Riessman as cited in Phoenix, 2010, p. 99). Additionally, these methods encourage participants to engage in reflexive practices, and provide ?a sense of agency and opportunity to speak for themselves, and subsequently help to erase the traditional power imbalance between researcher and participant? (Phoenix, 2010, p. 99). A final key methodological text in sports studies is Azzarito?s (2010) recent Quest contribution ?Ways of Seeing the Body in K inesiology: A Case for Visual Methodologies?. Once again the border-crossing qualities of participant-generation are championed, with a focus towards physical education and pedagogy, and on the ways ?the critical analysis of visual culture and the investigation of the body as a social, historical, and visual text might generate new ways of understanding the contemporary cultural condition of young people?s bodies [emphasis added]? (p 156 ). Similar to Phoenix?s (2010) categorization of contributio ns in the special issue, Azzarito (2010) introduces ?ways of seeing the body in kinesiology? through Pink?s (cf. Pink, 2007a) approaches to visual methodologies; pre -existing visual representations (e.g. researcher-found), making visual representations (e.g. 44 researcher-created), and collaborative production of visual representations (e.g. participant-generated, participatory). First introducing feminist research on, and analysis of, media texts and critical readings of visual body texts (i.e. semiology), Azzarito critiques them for their lack of strategic tools and inability to adequately capture the complex ways agents are active in their construction, negotiation and embodiment, and quickly moves past them to elaborate on various forms of photo- elicitation (with researcher-generated, researcher-found, participant-generated, or participant-found images). Framed as ?social transactions? (Schwartz as cited in Azzarito, 2010), photo-elicitation is suggested as a method to ?study the social by creating images and using them to trigger people?s narratives of embodiment, narratives of self?, and is advocated as a way forward in ?investigating the complex ways young people think about, make sense of, and construct their social worlds? (Azzarito, 2010, p. 161). The aforementioned literature each critique the lack of engagement of sport studies and physical culture scholars with visual materials and methods, and conversely the lack of engagement on the part of visual studies scholars with sites of physical culture. Through their compilation of examples encompassing a wide range of disciplines, theories, methods, and materials, the two special issues aim to ?offer a first step in the further deployment of visual culture as a rich resource [emphasis added] for sport historians? (Huggins & O?Mahony, 2011a, p. 1373), and ?act as an impetus for further high quality, high impact (however one chooses to define it) image-based research [emphasis added] within the field of physical culture? (Phoenix, 2010, p. 106). In doing so, the special issues, and other contributions 45 dedicated to researching (with) the visual in physical cultural studies (e.g. the Journal of Sport History?s sources and methods, Azzarito [2010] in Quest) highlight the need for conversations between visual and physical culture scholars. However, as there is little evidence of crossover or conversation between the authors and the sport studies disciplines (e.g. pedagogy, sociology, and history) in which they are situated , the current literature also indicates the need for a more integrated approach to researching (with) the visual in physical culture; where: ? research on visual artifacts and images recognizes the ways in which those images are produced (e.g. how, where , and by whom) , and how they are utilized by researchers; ? the ways in which visual technologies and images are utilized or (co)produced by researchers are (skeptically) interrogated in much the same way as when they operate as the focus of research (e.g. as constructed, situated, complex, polysemic, persuasive, material); ? and, where images as sources and tools are ethically utilized across the research process (e.g. as sites, and for collection, interpretation, and dissemination), contextualized within wider visual practices and cultures, and grounded within wider theoretical conversations. Despite the lack of engagement critiqued by recent sporting special issues and the lack of exchange between their authors, it is important to note that recent contributions to the visual (methodological) turn in physical culture draw on a rich tradition of qualitative offerings penned by scholars from various sport- related disciplines, including those in sport sociology (e.g. Baker, 2003; Curry, 1986 ; 46 Duncan, 1993, 1994; King & Leonard, 2006; Markula, 2001; Thomsen, Bower & Barnes, 2004), sport management (e.g. Snyder & Kane, 1990), sport history (e.g. Bale, 1998; Clark & Guttmann, 1995; Mangan, 1999; O?Mahony, 2006), physical education (e.g. Azzarito & Solmon, 2006; Gorely, Holroyd & Kirk, 2003), health (e.g. Harrison, 2002), and qualitative sport research (e.g. Sparkes, 2002). Additionally, scholarship interrogating the intersections of visual and physical culture is evident outside of traditional sport disciplines and journals; for example, Penaloza?s (1998) visual ethnography of Nike Town in Consumption, Markets and Culture and Hockey & Collinson?s (2006) use of visual sociology in their research on distance runners in Visual Studies. Therefore, the various contributions from visual methods texts, sporting special issues, and continuing scholarly submissions to a range of disciplinary journals: mark previous and ongoing exchanges in the field; announce the arrival of the visual to the physical and vice versa; ?add confident substance to earlier hesitant suggestions? (Mangan, 2011, p. 1087); and influence my methodological approaches. Moving forward, Rose?s (2007; referenced in many of the aforementioned texts) critical visual methodology offers the theoretical development, multisensory and multimethod approaches, and image-rather-than-text- based research, analysis, and representations that Huggins & O?Mahony (2011) and Phoenix (2010) call for. Furthermore, it provides the synthesis of researching on and researching with visual culture necessary to meet the demands of PCS imperatives. 47 Chapter 3 ? Methods: Researching (with) the Visual in Physical Cultural Studies ?Any dinosaurian beliefs that ?creative? and ?analytical? are contradictory and incompatible modes are standing in the path of a meteor? (Richardson, 2000b, p. 10). Following the sketching of empirical, ontological, epistemological, methodological, and disciplinary parameters and intersections of visual and physical culture ? or the ways that visual culture functions as a theoretical possibility, methodological approach, and empirical site in physical culture ? in my review of literature, this chapter will further delineate the role of the visual in practicing (Silk & Andrews, 2011) PCS. Exploring the visual as a site for interrogating the knowledge - making inherent in visual practices, as a methodological tool, and as a possibility for expression and intervention, I will provide an overview of Rose?s (2007) critical visual methodology, and outline the various strategies and methods I have adopted, and adapted, to research visualizing technologies in physical culture, and their effects, on active bodies.5 These include: visual discourse analysis; (auto)ethnographic methods; participant observation; and, arts - based research. 5 The approaches Gillian Rose (2007) outlines in Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials have heavily influenced me, and guide many of my methodological choices in this chapter. 48 Critical Visual Methodology and the PCS Imperative Shaped by an emphasis on empirical breadth, ontological complexity, theoretical and disciplinary diversity, and a political, partial, and situated epistemology committed ?to progressive social change? (Miller as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 10), a PCS methodology: involves identifying an ?event,? almost in an abstract sense, that represents a potential important focus of critical inquiry (in as much as it is implicated in hierarchical, iniquitous, unjust power relations and effects). Thus follows a process of connecting/articulating this ?event? to the multiple material and ideological determinations which suture the event ? in a dialectic sense ? into the conjuncture of which it is a constituent element. (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 16) Situating articulation as its core practice (e.g. Andrews, 2002, 2008; Andrews & Giardina, 2008; Silk & Andrews, 2011), PCS research must be multi -methodological to adequately contextualize and engage with the multi-directional, multi-dimensional, multi-sited, and in the case of my research multi-sighted, sources that define the field. These multisi(gh)ted texts do ?not simply record a multiplicity of viewpoints, but those where dominant versions are challenged, extended or repositioned? by entering new contexts, re-situating research in wider relations, and providing new social perspectives (Johnson et al, 2004, p. 240). In addition, and ?given the epistemological grounding of the research? a PCS approach must also be reflexive, where ?the researcher?s moral and political values are not something messy and untidy to be taken care of by tight method, or even by attempts to bracket assumptions? (Silk & 49 Andrews, 2011, p. 21). After outlining such an ambitious PCS project, Silk and Andrews (2011) turn to qualitative research to support its practice. Drawing heavily from qualitative researcher Norm Denzin (e.g. 2002, 2004) ? in particular, his and Lincoln?s long-running edited collaboration The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (1994, 2000, 2005, 2011) ? and the feminist (e.g. Fine, 1994; Lather, 2006; Richardson, 2000b, c), and cultural studies (e.g. Giroux, 2001, 2004; Grossberg, 1997, 2006; Hall, 1981, 1996), scholars often prominent in Denzin-driven collaborations, Silk and Andrews (2011) firmly position PCS within the politically-charged and methodologically-contested, present, and fractured future of qualitative research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a). These admittedly arbitrary research ?moments? are where ?an embarrassment of choices now characterize the field of qualitative research?new ways of looking, interpreting, arguing, and writing are debated and discussed?[and] the qualitative research act can no longer be viewed from within a neutral or objective positivist perspective? (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a, p. 20). Additionally, these moments are where PCS methodologists embody ?socially and culturally responsive, communitarian, justice-oriented? research across a great divide from ?gold standard? scientific research (Lincoln & Denzin, 2005, p. 1123). Thus, Silk and Andrews (2011) align PCS with critical interpretive qualitative research, which suits its needs for political, fluid, flexible, and reflexive approaches; and creative, interpretive, and expressive practices and praxis. Practicing a visual PCS, then, emphasizes the study of the visual as a complex cultural processes, where: physical and visual culture are contested terrains; where visual events shape, and are shaped by, various discourses; and, social relations, 50 social subjectivities, and social effects are co-produced, contested, and negotiated through visualizing and viewing practices. Beyond researching these complexities and their effects, the articulations of physical and visual culture also offer opportunities for: creative analytical, or performative, practices; alternative forms of critical public pedagogy; and, new spaces for cultural workers and public intellectuals to operate within. Complementary to practicing PCS, and fitting easily within its ?toolbox?, is Rose?s (2007) critical visual methodology which; 1) takes images seriously; 2) thinks about social conditions and effects of visual objects; and 3) considers your/our/my own way of looking at images. Within the framework of PCS, a critical visual methodology offers a theoretically informed, and radically contextualized, approach to studying the visualization of active bodies by paying careful attention to visual events, representations, and technologies, their effects, and the social and individual contexts of their production and interpretation. Taking images seriously. To take images seriously, Rose (2007) suggests that careful attention is paid to the visual aspects of (physical) culture; as opposed to not paying careful attention to the existence of the visual in physical culture, and PCS researcher, or focusing on the visual to the exclusion of other empirical sites or methodological approaches. Thus, a critical visual methodology extends the empirical breadth, ontological complexity, and epistemological variability of physical culture research through its inclusion and recognition of the visual, and visualizing technologies, in physical culture as sites ?where social forces, discourses, institutions, and processes congregate, congeal, and are contested in a manner which contributes to the shaping of human relations, 51 subjectivities, and experiences in particular, contextually contingent ways? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 9). In line with PCS?s adoption of the researcher as bricoleur (Denzin & Lincoln as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011; cf. Kinc heloe, 2001), Rose (2007) also promotes the use of visual methods as part of multi -methodological, practice, to be used in conjunction with other strategies to extend, complement, and crystallize (Richardson, 2000b, c), rather than replace, or prove better than, other approaches. As Pink (2007a) explains, ?it is impossible to predict, and mistaken to prescribe, precise methods for ethnographic research. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to require that visual methods be used in all contexts? (p. 40). Furt hermore, ?[visual methods] cannot be used independently of other research methods; neither a purely visual ethnography nor an exclusively visual approach to culture can exist? (Pink, 2007a, p. 21). Thus, visual methods are a welcome addition to a (physical) cultural studies approach that: has no distinct methodology, no unique statistical, ethnomethodological or textual analysis to call its own. Its methodology, ambiguous from the beginning, could best be seen as a bricolage. Its choice of practice, that is, is pragmatic, strategic, and self-reflective?.For cultural studies has no guarantees about what questions are important to ask within given contexts or how to answer them; hence no methodology can be privileged or even temporarily employed with total security and confidence, yet none can be eliminated out of hand. Textual analysis, semiotics, deconstruction, ethnography, interviews, phonemic analysis, psychoanalysis, rhizomatics, 52 content analysis, survey research ? all can provide important insights and knowledge. (Nelson, Treichler & Grossberg, 1991, p. 2) Consistent with Silk & Andrews?s (2011) promotion of the coexistence and valuing of multiple genres and methods, the inclusion of a critical visual methodology contributes to the further diversification of a PCS methodological toolbox and promotes opportunities to ?analyze, express, and publish differential works in differential spaces? (p. 23). Visual(izing) effects. Embodying the centrality of articulation in PCS, a critical visual methodology requi res that researchers think about the social conditions and effects of visual objects; locating them as important products and producers of discourse, and within their conjunctural complexities. As Silk & Andrews (2011) assert: To practice PCS then means recognizing that the physical cultural forms (e.g. practices, products, and institutions) can only be understood by the way in which they are articulated into a particular set of complex social, economic, political, and technological relationships that comprise the social context. (p. 15) Situating the visualization of active bodies in their social conditions, aligns with Hall?s articulated conjuncturalism (as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 15), and is political, in the sense that it renders these ?productive links? (Grossberg as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 15) visible by thinking about the effects of visual objects, asking ?that we open up (often ?innocent? physical) texts (film, television, written, electronic media [and images]) to reveal relations of power as we read of, and for, 53 dominance? (Johnson, et al. as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 19). Thus, the objective for my analysis of visual physical culture ? and within my research on exhibitions, installations, art, plastinates, and sculptures ? is to make visible their social conditions and effects. Reflexivity. Finally, a critical visual methodology considers your/our/my way of looking at images by reflecting on the way we interpret them in the context of our own disciplinary alignments, cultural locations, individual philosophies, and personal experiences; and, also, in the ways we produce understandings of images in our writing and expression. Within a critical interpretive qualitative approach, the research act: is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a, p. 3) To maintain a visible presence of our selections, our practices, and ourselves (in addition to our opening of other innocent texts), and consider the possible biases of choices we make as researchers, critical visual methodologies engage in reflexivity through interpretive modesty (Rose, 2007). This approach allows researchers to be political, and partial, across the various stages of research, including collection, interpretation, evaluation, and expression. Acknowledging the need for situated PCS 54 researchers throughout ?our immersion in the field?, Silk and Andrews (2011) explain: As with our methodological choices, there are no prescriptions for how we express or judge PCS scholarship; inevitably though the processes of analysis, interpretation, and expression are politicized. We are going to make choices ? practical, situational, moral, ethical, political?in our empirical disembedding, in our ?double- dialogues? with our record of a person?s (including ourselves) words, in our theoretical abstractions?and with regard to how we express our research to multiple communities. (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 21) In addition to emphasizing the transparency, or visibility, of our methodological choices, researching with the visual can also contribute to the ways PCS researchers can visualize, or express, our research. Acknowledging their collaborative and emancipatory potential, creative forms of ?writing? and practice can serve as: methods of inquiry (Richardson, 2000b, 2000c); alternatives to traditional, scholarly, objective, and ?naked? ways of writing (Haraway, 1997, p. 26); a way forward, and past, ?persuasive fictions? (Sparkes, as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 21); and spaces for border crossing and performative physical cultural pedagogies (Silk & Andrews, 2011). Throughout Visual Methodologies, Rose (2007) evaluates possible visual methods against her criteria for a critical visual methodology, frames them within particular disciplinary and theoretical paradigms, and pairs them for use with particular sources and materials. No single method, however, fulfills all of her 55 criteria, works across each of her sites and modalities, or can be utilized with all materials. As with Silk & Andrews?s (2011) conceptualization of a PCS methodological toolbox, picking the ?correct? method(s) depends on a ?multitude of factors ? by no ways limited to the complexities of the setting, the varied constituents involved in the design, and, the potential uses and users of the research? (p. 18). While Rose (2007) discusses a wide range of methodological possibilities, her application of discourse analyses (discourse analysis II and I) offers the kind of ?rigorous mixing? (Frow & Morris, 2000), rad ical contextualism, and reflexivity representative of both critical visual methodologies (Rose, 2007), and the promise of PCS approaches. Thus, working to fulfill Rose?s (2007) critical visual methodology criteria, and PCS?s need for ?a diverse methodological arsenal? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 17) to engage in the complex and contradictory nature of visual physical culture, my research is guided by (visual) discourse analysis and incorporates auto/ethnographic and arts - based research methods to carry out ?a meaningful PCS with the intent to displace, decentre, and disrupt? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 29). Practicing (Visual) Discourse Analysis ?To say that [discourse] is a complex arrangement is not strong enough but to stop there is negligent? (Rose, 2007, p . 149) Accounting for the empirical breadth and ontological complexity of visual culture on display across my research sites, and in visual and physical culture generally, (visual) discourse analysis recognizes articulations of visual and physical 56 culture events that ?can and do ?happen? ? the product and producer of numerous overlapping systems and discourses (economic, political, aesthetic, demographic, regulatory, spatial) that creates a bewilderlingly complex, and dynamic, coherent, social totality? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 10). Taking images seriously ? prioritizing the visual as significant physical cultural texts ? as part of a discourse analysis: assumes that you are concerned with the discursive production of some kind of authoritative account ? and perhaps too about how that account was or is [or can be] contested ? and with the social practices both in which that production is embedded and which it itself produces. (Rose, 2007, p. 148). A (visual) discourse analysis is, therefore, political in the same sense as PCS; ?identifying, and analyzing ? and thereby seeking to intervene into ? the operation and the experience of power relations (sometimes liberatory, oftentimes repressive, frequently both) through the examination of the (contested) realm of everyday physical? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 16). Ensuring a critical attention to visual culture and visualizing practices, ?the [visual] discourse analyst seeks to open up statements to challenge, interrogate taken-for-granted meanings, and disturb easy claims to objectivity in the texts they are reading? (Tonkiss as cited in Rose, 2007, p. 167 -8). Similar to the ambiguity of PCS?s methods, the complexity of practicing ?sport without guarantees? (Andrews & Giardina, 2008), and the diversity of visual methodology typical for the ?burgeoning field? of visual research (Margolis & Pauwels, 2011), discourse analysis can be defined and practiced in a number of ways. Citing ?at least 57 varieties? (p. 173), Gill (2000) explains: 57 Discourse analysis is the name given to a variety of different approaches to the study of text, which have developed from different theoretical traditions and diverse disciplinary locations. Strictly speaking, there is no single ?discourse analysis?, but many different styles of analys is that all lay claim to the name. (p. 172) Emerging from similar linguistic turns in the humanities and social sciences, discourse analysis is largely predicated on critiques of positivism. However, the ways in which discourse is analyzed may vary. For example, while Fairclough (2003) and Gee (2011) engage with critical discourse analysis (CDA) as a form of sociolinguistics, a poststructural, or Foucauldian (e.g. his genealogies of discipline [1977] and sexuality, [1978]), discourse analysis is ?interested not [ emphasis added] in the details of spoken or written text, but in looking historically at discourses? (Gill, 2000, p. 174). Despite their differences, the myriad forms of discourse analysis are derived from similar (poststructural, postmodern, feminist) epistemological concerns and influences common to contemporary critical qualitative research, namely; 1. A critical stance towards taken- for- granted knowledge and scepticism towards the view that our observation of the world unproblematically yields its true nature to us; 2. A recognition that the ways in which we understand the world are historically and culturally specific and relative; 3. A conviction that knowledge is socially constructed ? that is, that our current ways of understanding the world are determined not by the nature of the world itself, but by social processes; 58 4. A commitment to exploring ways that knowledges ? the social construction of people, phenomena or problems ? are linked to actions/practices. (Burr as cited in Gill, 2000, p. 173) Thus, while forms of discourse analysis are different, they can be blended, assimilated, and exchanged to accommodate research questions around four main themes: ?a concern with discourse itself; a view of language as constructive and constructed; an emphasis upon discourse as a form of action; and a conviction in the rhetorical organization of discourse? (Gill, 2000, p. 174). Accordingly, a visual discourse analysis is concerned with images, visual objects, and their interpretive technologies as discourses: a group of statements which structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act on the basis of that thinking. In other words, discourse is a particular knowledge about the world which shapes how the world is understood and how things are done in it. (Ro se, 2007, p. 142) Furthermore, a visual discourse analysis identifies and analyzes the ways in which visual texts and technologies are activated as social practices which are used ?to do things ? to offer blame, to make excuses, to present themselves in a positive light, etc? (Gill, 2000, p. 175). Recognizing that ?all discourse is occasioned? (Gill, 2000, p. 175), Rose (2007) presents discourse analysis II (institutions and ways of seeing) and discourse analysis I (text, intertextuality, and context) and a s methods which 59 explore the visual as products and producers, and ? when used together ? satisfy her critical visual methodology criteria.6 Discourse analysis I and II: Multi - methods, - materials, - sites and - modalities. Acknowledging Fou cault?s influence, Rose?s (2007) two forms of discourse analysis offer ways to analyze subtle and overt flows of power, and their relationship(s) to knowledge(s): Certainly his [Foucault] most satisfying works, to me, are his empirical accounts of particular texts and institutions, often focusing on their details, their casual assumptions, their everyday mundane routines, their taken-for- granted architecture, their banalities. It is these detailed descriptions that produce his most startling accounts of how subjects and objects were and are discursively produced. (p. 145) Correlating with Foucault?s archaeological and genealogical methods, Rose (2007) introduces her discourse analysis through the separate, but interconnected endeavors of discourse analysis (DAII) and discourse analysis I (DAI). In particular, DAII focuses on ?institutions that display visual images and objects, for example museums and art galleries? and DAI is more interested in visual texts, including ?a wide range of still and moving images,?book illustrations, maps, photographs, paintings and cartoons? (p. 31). As my focus is on the breadth of (researcher -found) visual physical 6 Though Rose (2007) presents discourse analysis I before discourse analys is II in her text, I will discuss them throughout this chapter in the opposite order to underpin my interest in situating the analysis of visual texts and intertextualities in their institutional sites of audiencing, and reflect the organization of the analysis in my empirical chapters. 60 culture and its display, often in institutions such as museums and galleries, both DAII and DAI are appropriate methods. In addition to aligning DAII and DAI with particular visual materials, Rose (2007) situates their suitability within particular sites (production, image, audiencing) where ?meanings of an image are made?, and their intersecting modalities (technological, compositional, social), which ?contribute to a critical understanding of images? (p. 13) (Table 3.1). Though each of the sites and modalities offer valid Table 3.1. Intersections of sites and modalities Modalities Technological Compositional Social ?any form of apparatus designed either to be looked at or to enhance natural vision? (Mirzoeff as cited in Rose, 2007, p. 13) ?specific material qualities of an image or visual object? (p. 13) (e.g. formal strategies) ?the range of economic, social and political relations, institutions and practices that surround an image and through which it is seen and used? (p. 13) P ro du ct io n ?All visual representations are made in one way or another, and the circumstances of their production may contribute towards the effect they have? (p. 14). How made? Genre? Who? When? Who for? Why? S it es Im ag e The formal components of an image. Visual effects? Composition? Visual meanings A u di en ci n g ?process by which a visual image has its meanings renegotiated, or even rejected by particular audiences watching in specific circumstances? (p. 22) Transmisson? Circulation? Display? Viewing positions offered? Relation to other texts? How interpreted? By whom? Why? Locations of research emphasized. Primary research emphases are indicated in dark orange; secondary in light orange. Adapted from Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials (p. 30), by G. Rose, 2007, London: Sage. approaches to visual research, I have opted to focus on the social modality at sites of production and audiencing. Although I acknowledge the importance of the site of the image, and the objections of disciplines such as art history that critique critical cultural studies of images for their lack of attention to the images themselves, I am 61 not interested in decoding their particular meaning(s). Rather, my research is most interested in how visual texts are put to work; in situating visual events in the social conditions of their making; and, in understanding the effects of their particular uses and visualizing practices on active bodies and physical subjectivities. As DAII and DAI are identified by Rose as strongest at the social modality, both are enlisted in my research to explore the social conditions and effects of visual events ? the ways images are ?seen and used? (Rose, 2007, p. 13). Additionally, I have broadened my discursive analysis to technological and compositional modalities to extend the circumstances of production to visualizing technologies (e.g. plastination, portraiture), and to connect institutional interpretations to display technologies, and intertextualities. Similar to limitations faced when studying every aspect of the ?circuit of culture? (du Gay, Hall, Janes, Mackay, & Negus, 1997; Johnson, 1986), Rose (2007) explains that there are very few studies of visual culture that attempt to examine all the sites and modalities, concentrating instead on a particular site/modality intersection selected in line with the ?theoretical logics? of the researcher, project, and research questions. Furthermore, she warns that the selection of more than one site or modality runs the risk of analytical incoherence or logistical constraints as ?researchers rarely have time, resources or inclination to pursue all sites and modalities? (Rose, 2007, p. 29). Balancing the geographic parameters of my research with the time available, and the breadth and depth of research necessary to understand the complex and contingent locations of the visual display of active bodies, I have opted to risk becoming a victim in Rose?s (2007) cautionary tale; pursing six of the 62 nine possible intersections to satisfy my theoretical logics, and best examine the myriad locations, and practices, of visualizing active physicalities.7 As visual discourse ?never consists of one statement, one text, one action or one source? (Foucault as cited in Hall, 1997, p. 44), it occurs in physical culture through a countless variety of visual images, objects and performances, and in an overwhelming number of sites; ?and any and all of these are legitimate sources for a discourse analysis? (Rose, 2007, p. 148). In addition to a focus across arrange of sites and modalities, each of my empirical chapters focuses on different visual events and/or texts to examine the diversity of visual discourse in physical culture. In Champions and Body Worlds, the visual events are exhibitions at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC, and the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore, respectively; and Champions All focuses on the juxtaposition of images on one visual text, a public sculpture in a larger ?animal parade? anniversary celebration at the University of Maryland, College Park. Though connected through similar contemplative viewing practices, visual events across my research occur in different sites of audiencing and production, and are constructed with different visual texts. In addition, within particular empirical events, sites of audiencing can be different from the sites of production, and visual texts can be produced by individuals, or institutions, different from those that construct the visual events (Table 3.2). These 7 One ?victim? of my insistence on exploring discourse at both institutional and (inter)textual levels was a chapter on the 17th Street High Heel Race in Washington, DC, that was initially part of my dissertation. ?Unpack[ing] the density of relations? (Frow & Morris, 2000, p. 354) that surrounded four unique visual events proved too large of a dissertation project. While the dissimilarity of the 17th Street High Heel Race?s contexts and visualizing technologies were important to my initial theorizing of (the breadth of) visual discourse of physical culture, the chapter was eventually omitted to provide a more manageable and cohesive project. 63 Table 3.2. Chapter sites of production and audiencing Sites of Production Event Producer Visualizing Technology Visual Event Visual Text Visualizing Technology Text Producer National Portrait Gallery (DC) National Portrait Gallery (DC) Permanent Exhibition Champions (Sporting) Portraits (Sporting) Portraiture Artists, Commissioners Maryland Science Center (Baltimore) Institute for Plastination (Germany) Traveling Exhibition Body Worlds Plastinates Plastination Institute for Plastination (Germany) University of Maryland (College Park) University of Maryland (College Park) Public Installation Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project (150th Anniversary) Champions All Collage Artist S it e s o f A u d ie n ci n g Institutional sites of audiencing, institutional visualizing technologies, and producers (left of center); individual visual texts of the visual events and their visualization technologies and producers (right of center); and sites of audiencing for both. Locations of research emphasized; primary research emphases are indicated in dark orange; secondary in light orange. various alignments, divergences, and relationships between, and within, sites of audiencing and production, influence the making of visual texts and the events that they are part of, and, ultimately, the ways in which active bodies can be envisioned and understood. For example, Champions is a permanent exhibition of sporting portraiture at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC, curated from works in the National Portrait Gallery?s permanent collection. Alternatively, Body Worlds is a traveling, ?blockbuster? exhibition produced by the Institute for Plastination in Germany. Hosted by various institutions in the US and globally, the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore welcomed the event in 2008. Body Worlds?s audiencing location, then, differs from its site of production; though they are symbiotically scientific. Additionally, the individual plastinates on display, and the exhibition are both created by the Institute for Plastination, enabling a coherent and comprehensive production of institutional discourse. In comparison, Champions is located in the same institution 64 that curated its display. However, its individual portraits were produced by various, unaffiliated, artists, and often commissioned by, yet, another party. Finally, Champions All is one of fifty turtles sculptures created by artists for the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project as part of the University of Maryland?s 150 th Anniversary celebration in 2006; and is my contribution to the project. During their exhibition the sculptures were publically installed some distance from each other and were, therefore, viewed individually. Rather than a physical proximity to other turtle sculptures and interpretive technologies, their intertextuality was formed through a discursive relationship to the University, crafted by the 150th Anniversary campaign, and the Parade?s print and electronic media. Furthermore, Champions All is a collage, and is therefore a display, and juxtaposition, of many images itself. As the artist, I was afforded a unique insight into the practices of its production not easily accessed, or personally experienced, in any of the other sites. Thus, my authoethnographic experience enabled me to provide information about the selection of images and their purposeful placement, and Champions All ?s from arts-based production, to audiencing at the University of Maryland Golf Course , and, eventually, the University of Maryland Archives . By examining a range of productive technologies and producers across various sites of audiencing throughout my empirical chapters, the breadth, depth and multi-directional and -dimensional nature of visual physical culture can be contextualized, its effects interrogated, and its emergent complexities and possibilities uncovered and engaged. However, DAII or DAI alone do not adequately address the range of visual events and texts encompassed by my research, nor the various sites in 65 which they are audienced, the technologies through which they are practiced, or the complexity of their effects and fluidity of their interpretation. Although both forms of discourse analysis take images seriously, DAII is better equipped to interrogate the social conditions of visual objects and the power relations embedded in visual displays and institutional practices; whereas, DAI is more interested in the individual visual components of visual events, and is very effective at ?interpreting their effects, especially in relation to constructions of social difference? (p. 171). Measured against Rose?s (2007) criteria for a critical visual methodology, DAII is ?immodest? (p. 185); seemingly ?uninterested in the complexities and contradictions of discourse? (p. 186); and, lacking the reflexivity and careful attention to images that she calls for. Conversely, DAI doesn?t consider the wider social conditions and effects of visual images to the extent of DAII. Paired together, however, the two approaches allow for a critical examination of the individual components and various visual events examined in my research, and the ways they are stitched together through institutional apparatuses and technologies to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their effects. An integrated visual discourse analysis combines the two distinct (yet interconnected) approaches to visual discourse; DAII?s positioning of visual images as ?embedded in the practices of institutions and their exercise of power? (p. 193); and, DAI?s ?notion of discourse as articulated through various kinds of visual images and verbal texts? (p. 146). This allows for an examination of physical culture?s visuality ? how active bodies are visualized to ?construct specific views of the social world?through particular regimes of truth? (Rose, 2007, pg. 146) ? and the ways in which these images and 66 displays (and their accounts of physical culture) are produced, utilized, and put to work by institutions (Rose, 2007). Discourse analysis II: Apparatuses and technologies. Firmly situated in sites of production, DAII is primarily concer ned with institutions ? for example, and in regards to my research, the National Portrait Gallery, Maryland Science Center, and University of Maryland. As Rose (2007) explains, DAII is most often used to ?look at the ways in which various dominant institutions have put images to work [emphasis added]? (p. 194) and is ?effective at examining the powerful discourses that produce the objects and subject positions associated with various institutions, for example the objects that count as ?art?, the art gallery, and subjects such as patrons, curators, and visitors? (p. 195). Her approach to DAII and institutional discourse focuses on the apparatuses and technologies of institutions, for example how museums display images and artifacts. Drawing on Stuart Hall (19 97), and clarifying Foucault?s definitions, Rose (2007) defines apparatuses as ?the forms of power/knowledge that constitute the institutions: for example, architecture, regulations, scientific treatises, philosophical statements, laws, morals, and so on, and the discourse articulated through all these? (p. 174), and technologies as ?the practical techniques used to practise that power/knowledge? (p. 175). To analyz e these, Rose (2007) suggests studying apparatuses through an evaluation of institutional discourse, architecture, layout and social subjectivities (the social positions produced), and to examine visual discourse through its display, layout, tactile, and interpretive technologies. As technologies are not easily defined, 67 nor readily distinguishable from apparatuses, identifying the range of apparatuses and technologies within each of my three empirical research sites was an initial step in my research (see Table 3.3). Reflective of the flow of chapters from institutional to individual, the prevalence of apparatuses and technologies decreases across the chapters as the focus shifts towards the ?possibility of visualities other than those of dominant institutions? (Rose, 2007, p. 176). Table 3.3. Chapter apparatuses and technologies Champions Body Worlds Champions All Apparatuses (DAII) National Portrait Gallery Maryland Science Center & Institute for Plastination University of Maryland & Turtle Sculpture Parade Museum Staff, Patrons, Artists, Commissioners, Visitors Museum Staff, Patrons, Scientists, Body Donors, Visitors Artists, Sponsors, Organizers, Viewers Mission Mission(s) Mission(s) Gallery Layout Museum Layout Architecture Architecture Technologies (DAII) Permanent Exhibition Traveling Exhibition Public Installation Exhibition layout Exhibition layout Parade layout Environment Environment Environment Open displays Open displays Open displays Display cases Display cases University Archives Spatial organization Spatial organization Framing & Hanging Framing & Hanging Warders Warders Object files Exhibition Shop Museum Shop Museum Shop Technologies of Interpretation (DAI) Portraits Plastinates Champions All Text panel Text panels Collage Labels & captions Labels & captions Pamphlet Photo banners Quote banners Video/Audio Audio Artifacts Video Photographs Catalogue Exhibition collateral Exhibition collateral Social Subjectivities, Rules & Regulations, Internal Layout, Architecture Layout, Display, Tactile, Spaces Behind Text Panels, Labels & Captions, Photographs, Artifacts, Catalogues & Collateral Institutional apparatuses and technologies, and their methods of discourse analysis, across empirical sites. Though technologies of interpretation are an institutional technology, their effects are analyzed through DAI, instead of DAII. Technologies at work, active bodies on display. Technologies, visualizing practices, or ?the techniques of effecting meanings? (Haraway as cited in Rose, 2007, p. 175) are a primary interest, as they are the ways 68 in which physical culture?s visual texts become embedded into institutional practices, and points of articulation for institutional power ? effecting how physical and visual culture (can) articulate to produce knowledge(s) about, and through, active bodies. Technologies of display (e.g. display cases, open displays, reconstructions, simulacra) focus on how images, artifacts, subjects, and objects are placed on display (including framing and hanging, and the spatial organization within individual displays), and the social meanings and effects their techniques of display engender. As Baxandall (1991) explains in his discussion of museum exhibitions: To select and put forward any item for display, as something worth looking at, as interesting, is a statement not only about the object but about the culture it comes from. To put three objects in a vitrine involves additional implications of relation. There is not exhibition without construction and therefore ? in an extended sense ? appropriation. (p. 34) Technologies of display work in conjunction with other technologies, such as tactile, layout, and textual or visual interpretations to present a ?truthful? (Rose, 2007) account and encourage a contemplative way of seeing ? where, for example, ?viewers are produced as contemplative eyes and paintings as objects to be contemplated? (p. 186). The layout of an exhibition or visual event includes the proximity and order of one component to another, and the location?s (site of audiencing) d?cor, ambience or atmosphere. Tactile technologies often work directly with display technologies, enabling visitors to ?see and [not] touch with the right conventions? (Haraway, 1997, p. 85). As part of a ?museum set? (Baxandall, 1991), or wider cultural expectations, ?one of the most important disciplines of museum and gallery spaces for visitors is 69 the almost universal rule that you cannot touch the exhibits? (Rose, 2007, p. 189). Technologies can also extend to the s p aces behind an exhibition or event. Though not directly observed by visitors, the offices, filing cabinets, and computer files are where displays and events are constructed, and where their constructedness remains invisible; ?the spaces in which the museums and galleries produce their knowledges?[and] the spaces in which the classification schemes that structure the public display areas are put into practice? (Rose, 2007, p. 190). While each of the technologies are connected to apparatuses, spaces behind are particularly, and intimately, intertwined. The spaces behind visual discourse are where technologies are enacted by social subjectivities a nd tempered by rules and regulations, and where the techniques practiced remain visible ? in contrast to the exhibition or event spaces where technologies (e.g. text labels, display cases) materialize sans author or intention. Spaces behind also include sp aces external to the event space, such as museum shops and websites, which provide information (e.g. pamphlets, catalogues) to supplement exhibition, event, and institutional narratives. These adjacent spaces are where understandings can be extended, alter ed, pre-empted, or continued, before or after a visit. Often applied to ?visual institutions? such as museums and galleries, display, layout, tactile, and interpretive technologies are active and impactful in any social institution or visual event which do es something with visual texts (e.g. produce, archive, display, sell). Technologies of interpretation. Display, layout, and tactile technologies, and the spaces behind each of the visual events in my research all play important roles in the production of 70 knowledge(s) at visual events. However, textual and visual technologies of interpretation are the techniques that most directly connect visual texts to discourse, and are, therefore, the most visible, and most productive technologies. Textual and visual technologies of interpretation work in conjunction with other technologies (e.g. display, layout, tactile, and spaces behind), and include text labels and captions, text panels, and audio, video, and visual (e.g. photographic) illustrations. Interpretive texts also include institutionally or internally produced texts supplementary (i.e. working with/in the spaces behind) to the display space, such as catalogues, websites, and teaching resources. Additionally, although outside of the scope of my research, media coverage, reviews, blogs, and other forms of externally produced texts, provide further frameworks for understanding visual events. Technologies of interpretation are therefore the various written, visual, and audio accompaniment that shapes a viewer?s interpretation of a visual event (e.g. exhibitions), and produces their visual texts ?as particular kinds of images and objects? (Rose, 2007, p. 193). For example, explanatory text panels are where an event may be interpretively situated within a larger context, theme, mission, or purpose. Text panels, in conjunction with text labels, and captions, are ?key way[s] in which objects and images are produced in particular ways? (Rose, 2007, p. 193); where descriptive information such as the name of the artist, date of the artwork, its title, and materials provide ?apparently innocuous pieces of information [that] nonetheless work to prioritize certain sorts of information?over others? (Rose, 2007, p. 186). Visual and textual technologies are: where the ?exhibit or?s thinking about the object, or that part of his thinking he feels it to be his [ sic] purpose to communicate to 71 the viewer? (Baxandall, 1991, p. 38) is at work; where it is ?difficult for a viewer to question the kinds of knowledge they offer? (Rose, 2007, p. 186); and, where the ways viewers look, see, and know about the active bodies on display are shaped. Therefore, while visual and textual technologies of interpretation are examined in DAII in an effort to understand ?how the effects of dominant power relations work through the details of an institution?s practice? (Rose, 2007, p. 193), the role of interpretive technologies in creating specific accounts of the social world, should be interpreted using DAI. Discourse analysis I: Text, intertextuality, context [and reflexivity]. Placing a primary emphasis on visual texts (i.e. sporting portraiture, plastinated cadavers, and Champions All), and the interpretive technologies involved in their display as visual events (Champions, Body Worlds, Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project), DAI is interested in the ways in which intertextualities ? ?the way that the meanings of any one discursive image or text depend not only on that one text or image, but also on the meanings carried by other images and texts? (Rose, 2007, p. 142) ? construct specific views or accounts of the social world, and ?how those specific views or accounts are constructed as real or truthful or natural through particular regimes of truth? (Rose, 2007, p. 146). In contrast to DAII, DAI ?tends to pay rather more attention to the notion of discourse as articulated through [emphasis added] various kind of visual images and verbal texts than it does to the practices entailed by specific discourses? (Rose, 2007, p. 146). Here, DAI and my research is primarily concerned with the ?production of social difference through visual imagery? (Rose, 2007, p. 169) and its display. Thus, there is an emphasis on 72 rhetorical organization strategies (e.g. textual and visual technologies of interpretation) that can ?visually or verbally assert the truth of a particular discursive claim? (Rose, 2007, p. 166). For example, in relation to my research, sportsmen (and a couple of sportswomen) are (national) champions at the National Portrait Gallery, (in)active bodies are (un)healthy in Body Worlds, and the University of Maryland?s physical culture is complicated and contextualized in Champions All. To explore these assertions, DAI asks ?how, precisely, is a particular discourse structured, and how then does it produce a particular kind of knowledge?? (Rose, 2007, p. 156). Furthermore, it seeks to understand the social effect of this particular kind of knowledge, through an interest in: how a particular discourse describes things (although the power of discourse means that it produces those things it purports to be describing), in how it constructs blame and responsibility, in how it constructs accountability, in how it categorizes and particularizes. (Rose, 2007, p. 156). However, visual texts, and their rhetorical organization and effects are hard to extract from the social location of their production. Rather than be treated as ?transparent windows on to source materials? (Foucault as cited in Rose, 2007, p. 165), they must be understood in the context of the practices and institutions through which they are produced, disseminated and experienced. Advocating for the ?sociological imagination? (Mills, 1959/2000), ?radical contextualization? (e.g. Grossberg, 1997) and ?(articulated) conjuncturalism? (e.g. Grossberg, 1992; Gro ssberg, 2006; Hall, 1996) promoted by PCS (e.g. Andrews, 2002; Andrews, 2008; Andrews & Giardiana, 2008; Silk & Andrews, 2011), and critical qualitative research 73 (e.g. Denzin, 2010), Rose (2007) explains the importance of context to discourse, discourse analysis, and Foucault: Foucault, for all his reluctance to ascribe unidirectional causality, insisted on the need to locate the social site from which particular statements are made, and to position the speaker of a statement in terms of their social authority?Thus a statement coming from a source endowed with authority (and just how that authority is established may be an important issue to address) is likely to be more productive than one coming from a marginalized social position. (p. 166) Thus, DAI and DAII overlap in their understandings of social production, and their analysis of interpretive technologies. While DAII is not as concerned with visual texts and intertextuality as DAI, DAII can ?focus with care on the context of its display? (Rose, 2007, p. 193), and supplement DAI?s lack of interest in thinking about where, and why, discursive statements are constructed. As my research inquires about the visual culture, or discourse, of physical culture, and its social effects (regarding understandings of active bodies and social difference), it is imperative to understand the ways discourse is articulated through visual forms of physical culture, and within the use of these visual texts by institutions and individuals. It is important to note, however, that this is not a linear, simple, finite or ?guaranteed? process. Following Slack (as cited in Andrews & Giardina, 2008), context is ?not something out there, within which practices occur or which influence the development of practices. Rather, identities, practices, and effects generally, constitute the very context within which they are practices, identities or effects? (p. 74 406). Thus, visual discourse analysis requires an interpretive modesty (Rose, 2007) that complements an approach to practicing PCS in a contextually contingent manner (without guarantees; Andrews & Giardina, 2008). This modesty acknowledges that discourse is multidirectional, messy, and ongoing by shedding light on the ?innumerable points? from which power is exercised (Foucault as cited in Rose, 2007, p. 193), and the ?possibility of visualities other than those of dominant institution? (Rose, 2007, p. 176). Rectifying the lack of reflexivity available in DAII, DAI extends this modesty to our own research practices, and those of our interpretive communities, to offset the ?analytical self-confidence? (Rose, 2007, p. 194) often featured in analysis focused exclusively on production. Reflexivity and interpretive modesty. DAI insists upon reflexivity on the part of the researcher. As Rose (2007) explains: If you are writing a discourse analysis, then, the arguments about discourse, power and truth/knowledge must surely be just as pertinent to your work as to the materials you are analyzing. Doing a discourse analysis thus demands some sort of critical reflection on your own research practice. (p. 167-168) Considering the charge of PCS, critical visual methodology, and discourse analysts to identify, analyze, open up, and challenge discursive statements and their claims to truth and objectivity (e.g. Silk & Andrews, 2011; Tonkiss, as cited in Rose, 2007) it would be ?inconsistent to contend that the analysts?s [ s i c ] own discourse was itself wholly objective, factual or generally true? (Rose, 2007, p. 167-8). Therefore, Rose (2007) suggests that researchers should make visible the choices in our discussions 75 (e.g. the inclusion of some materials at the expense of others) and in doing so acknowledge the construction of our interpretations as ?persuasive rather than truthful? (p. 168; cf. Sparkes in Silk & Andrews, 2011). By (re)claiming our presence in our texts ? our field notes, interpretations, reports, poems, collages and articles ? we avoid becoming complicit in the very naked ways of writing (Haraway, 1997), and claims to truth and objectivity, that we aim to disrupt through our research and writing practices. Aligned with the performance and narrative turns in qualitative inquiry discussed in Denzin?s Manifesto (2010), Rose?s (2007) reflexivity moves away from ventriloquism, and towards research that ?commits to the study of change, the move toward change, and/or is provocative of change? (Fine in Harrison, MacGibbon & Morton, 2001, p. 339). Thus, Rose?s (2007) reflexivity embodies traditional forms of reflexivity, which considers your/our/my way of interpreting images and visual events and asks that we situate ourselves biographically (e.g. Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a). However, it tasks us to go beyond an ?engaged detachment? (Rojek & Turner, 2000), and become aware of the impact of our interpretations, our dissemination of them, and the ways we situate our selves, and our authority, in them; because reflexivity as a substitute for objectivity ?does not dodge the world-making practices of forging knowledges with different chances of life and death built into them? (Haraway, 1997, p. 37). Situated within discourses of poststructuralism and postmodernism, qualitative inquiry?s triple crisis (of representation, legitimation, and praxis) (Flaherty, Denzin, Manning & Snow, 2002; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a), and the ?deconstruction of epistemic privilege?, Richardson (1991) explains that, ?with philosophical impunity 76 sociologists can interrupt their own discursive space, reflect on their modes of production, their power interests, and explore writing/performing/teaching/sharing sociology both as a ?science? and as a public or aesthetic or practical or morally charged discourse? (p. 173). In this regard, DAI?s reflexivity attends to the ?self- situating impulse of [physical] cultural studies? (Frow & Morris, 2000, p. 330). Furthermore, it promotes the performative physical cultural pedagogy on which a PCS practice is predicated, as ?research in [physical] cultural studies goes further than other methodologies that refuse claims to objectivity in that it is always undertaken ? explicitly ? as a response to and intervention in political and social conditions? (King, 2005, p. 28). Without an accounting for the individual visual texts (DAI), the institutional production and context of visual events (DAII and DAI), and the complexities or ?mini-discourses? inherent in discursive statements (including our own) (DAI), a discourse analysis could not meet all three of Rose?s (2007) criteria for a critical visual methodology, or fit comfortably into a PCS methodological toolbox. Therefore, an integrated visual discourse analysis (DAI and DAII) will drive my interrogation of visual events and texts across all of my sites ? as it is a balance between a purely institutional or specifically compositional focus; provides for a contextual and intertextual (rather than only textual) approach; and prioritizes situated researching, performed politics, and discursive visibility. Recognizing that: ?discourses are articulated through a huge range of images, texts and practices? (Rose, 2007, p. 148); ?qualitative research?consists of a set of interpretive, material 77 practices that make the world visible?[and] involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials? (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a, p. 3); and ?no single method can grasp all the subtle variation in ongoing human experience? (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a, p. 21); PCS researchers are multi-methodological bricoleurs (Kincheloe, 2001). Accordingly: qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretive practices, hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject matter at hand. It is understood, however, that each practice makes the world visible in a different way. Hence there is frequently a commitment to using more than one interpretive practice in any study. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a, p. 3-4) Engaging in ?a postmodern sensibility [that] celebrates multiplicity of method and multiple sites of contestation? (Richardson, 1991, p. 178), my combination of DAI and DAII with auto/ethnographic and arts-based research methods is well-suited for interrogating: the institutional location and production of the Champions and Body Worlds exhibitions; the individualized expression of creating collage for the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Parade; and, the possibilities of researching (with) the visual in PCS. Additionally, visual discourse analysis provides a method for practicing a (physical) cultural studies that matters (Andrews & Giardina, 2008) and committing to a ?critical pedagogy and communitarian feminism with hope but no guarantees? (Denzin, 2010, p. 24). Doing (Auto)Ethnography, Observing Audiencing, and Making Interpretations As ?issues of collecting, producing, analyzing, and presenting visuals are 78 typically intertwined in visual research? (Margolis & Pauwels, 2011, p. xx) the following sections will discuss site and source selection, (auto)ethnographic methods, and interpretation, in regards to my approach to both interrogating the ways in which visual texts, events, and technologies visualize active bodies; and the ways in which they are utilized by institutions, individuals and myself (as an academic) to make visibility possible. While visual discourse drives my methodological approach and my analysis, ethnographic methods (i.e. participant observation and textual and visual documentation) guide my practices in the field. Though Phoenix (2010) explains that visual methods used as part of multi- method and ?complex field interactions?can provide the researcher with useful and meaningful visual information? (p. 96), she also challenges researchers to examine the appropriateness of visual methods by ?asking how they might contribute to an understanding of a said concept in ways that words cannot? (Harrison as cited in Phoenix, 2010, p. 95). In this regard, visual methods serve a number of purposes in my research. Beyond researching the visual in PCS, I research with the visual: 1) to visually document sites of research through photography and sketching; 2) to create performative, arts-based research. In the field: (Photo)documenting displays. Recognizing that ?discourses are articulated through all sorts of visual and verbal images and texts? (Rose, 2007, p. 42), and the importance of this ecclecticism and intertextuality to discourse (and PCS), I enlisted a ?multi-sited? or ?multilocal? (Hannerz, 2003) ethnographic and participant observer approach to exploring visual physical culture in an effort to be: ?there?and there?and there!? (Hannerz, 2003, p. 79 202); ?place specific encounters, events, and understanding into a fuller, more meaningful context? (Tedlock, 2000, p. 455); and provide the kind of ?free form? (Hahn, 2008, p. 14) or ?browsing research that leads to serendipitous finds? (Rose, 2007, p. 149). While participant observation can denote an objective, documentary, and ?scientific? approach to observing and understanding cultures through researcher immersion in the field, I am instead enlisting Tedlock?s (2008) definition of participant observation as ?observation of participation? which merges the previously dualistic approaches to researcher observation and participation into a reflexive, performative, and public form of ethnography. As the visual materials and sources I researched are primarily available through site visits to public-yet-protected spaces, I initially entered my sites as a participant observer and through the same mechanisms and restrictions as other visitors, therefore accessing and experiencing the sites in a similar fashion (e.g. as a contemplative viewer at Champions ; as part of the jostled masses at Body Worlds ). However, given Tedlock?s (2008) understanding of participant observation it would be na?ve (and non-critical, -poststructuralist, -postmodernist and -feminist) of me to think that my experiences closely approximated or could stand in for the experiences of others, or that my space-sharing with other visitors ? our copresence (Giardina & Newman, 2011) ? went unnoticed or had no impact. On the contrary, my notebook and extended presence often drew quite a bit of attention ? other visitors and viewers often questioned what I was doing, asked me questions (as a perceived expert), commented on me taking (so many) notes, and shaped my interpretations through 80 their verbal and physical interactions with the visual texts, with each other, and with myself. Although initially focused on modalities at the site of production, my decision to operate ?[auto - ] ethnographically? (Giardiana & Newman, 2011), to engage with a ?PCS ?on location?? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 18), and to ref lect on, and make visible my own body, politics, and practices, provided (an unexpected) insight into the discursive complexities at work in visitor interactions with visual objects, technologies, exhibitions, and events, and emphasized the need for Rose?s (2007) audiencing framework and methods. While not an audience or reception study in a traditional sense (i.e. I did not interview visitors in regards to their ?decoding? of the event), my visual ethnography/ethnography of the visual integrates a cultural studies influenced audience ethnography that: situates ?audiences in their full sociological complexity? (Gillespie as cited in Rose, 2007, p. 207); identifies visitors and viewing as particular to their site of audiencing; and acknowledges the active and embodied engagements of visitors as discursive subjects (in addition to patrons, scientists, curators, etc) by conceptualizing audiences as an additional (though not necessarily institutional) interpretive technology. Additionally, a participant ethnographic approach also allowed me to gain familiarity with site subjectivities (e.g. curators, volunteers, organizers) beyond my initial requests and permissions for access. This provided another layer of insight into producers and their practices, and the discourses they work within, through, and around, through access to the ?spaces behind? visual events and ?naturally occurring talk?, which Phillips and Hardy (in 81 Rose, 2007) suggest is ?more valid for discourse analysis than talk [i.e. interviews] produced in the context of a research project? (p. 178). Keeping in mind Rose?s (2007) suggestion to ?read and re - read the texts [and] look and look again at the images? (p. 157), while negotiating limited access to my sources (available only through site visits and only during hours of operation or limited engagements), I immersed myself in my sites through multiple and extended visits as a participant observer, and created textual and visual interpretations to aid in my continued immersion, ?reading?, and ?looking? off- site. Recognizing that my field notes could never be comprehensive or ?innocent? (Richardson, 2000; Sparkes, 1995) and photography produces interpretations rather than truthful documents, data collection took place in the field through a series of interpretations and representations (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; cf. crisis of representation, Denzin, 2002), including field notes, conversations, photographs, sketching, and recordings. In addition, I collected print and electronic media generated by each of the sites, including print collateral such as newsletters, advertisements, museum maps, press kits, and brochures. ?Reading with great care for detail? (Rose, 2007, p. 165), my writing, sketching and photography noted: ? the layout of the institutional (e.g. museum) and event (e.g. exhibition) sites; ? visual texts and their composition (e.g. portraits, artifacts, plastinates, sculptures); ? institutional and interpretive technologies (e.g. video, audio, text panels and labels); 82 ? sited social subjectivities (e.g. viewers, organizers, warders) and their relationship and interaction with the site, each other, and myself (e.g. naturally occurring talk); ? and my own reflections and observations; including themes which began to emerge in the field. Given the focus on visual texts, visual events, and visual discourse in my research, I found traditional text-based field notes lacking in their ability to adequately capture the intertextualities on display in my sites; particularly those tied to composition and aesthetics. Describing the way things looked could not compare with an image of it. Additionally, given the limited time available, or acceptable, to be on-site, and the complexity of the texts, contexts, and technologies embedded in each event, photodocumentation provided me with the ability to extend my attendance and examination of events away from the site. Thus, photodocumentation supplemented, but did not replace, written field notes and participant observation; as not everything is visible, nor can everything be captured in photographic form. Beyond a crisis of representation (Denzin, 2002), photography: cannot capture the utterances of visitors or the hushed atmosphere of contemplation; cannot replace the embodied experience of a researcher in the field; and its usefulness as a tool for documentation can only extend to where and how it is allowed to function. My ability as a participant observer (visitor, spectator, volunteer, and artist) to (photo)document the events and sites of my research was contingent on the discursive allowances of the institutions and sites of audiencing, and the way in which these were negotiated by other visitors or spectators. In my efforts to visually document my 83 sites and their intertextualities ? to visualize the way I interpreted active bodies being visualized ? it also emerged that photography was a significant way that people experienced and interacted with the visual events I was studying. As Sontag (1997) explains, ?photography has become one of the principal devices for experiencing something, for giving an appearance of participation? (p. 10). While exploring this particular phenomenon in more detail falls somewhat outside the range of my research, the role of personal photography in consuming visual events, and negotiating disciplining technologies, shaped the visual culture and ways of seeing at the sites of audiencing; as well as my ability as a researcher to (photo)document sites within the parameters of approved viewing practices. For example, while the National Portrait Gallery allowed photography (which I verified with a museum guard since there was no clear indication posted one way or another), I was one of the few that took advantage of the opportunity. However, the exhibition was usually sparsely attended, and I was able to extensively document the exhibition photographically to supplement my field notes, and provide recall of the exhibition and points of reference during my analysis, unencumbered by the watchful eyes of other visitors. In Body Worlds I abided by the explicitly stated, and well- enforced rules prohibiting photography ? even though other visitors did not. However, they did allow sketching (and there were often artists in attendance), so in addition to writing field notes, I also recorded the positioning of the whole body plastinates on display through quick gestural sketches (see Figure 3.1). 84 Figure 3.1. Body Worlds field note sketches. Gestural drawings documenting plastinate positioning in the Body Worlds exhibition; (left- right) The Ringman, 2002; The Skateboarder, 2005; The Yoga Lady, 2006; The Baseball Player, 2005 (field notes, February - September, 2008). While these were hardly rendered in enough detail to closely examine the finer visual points and positioning of the plastinates away from the field, the sketches provided the details necessary for identifying images on- line (posted by the Institute for Plastination and ?rogue? exhibition visitors) that could provide extended viewing opportunities. Finally, photography was the primary method of vis itor interaction during the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project and exhibition; at least partially influenced by a take- your- photo- with- the- turtle scavenger hunt promotion. However, photography played a more diverse role in my final empirical chapter, as it additionally acted as a method of visually, and autoethnographically, documenting my process of creating Champions All ; and it produced the archival, researcher- found images I utilized to form my researcher - created visual text while conducting arts- based research. Interpre ting intertextualities, evaluating e ffect(s) ?What brings the intertextual search to an end?is the feeling that you have enough material to persuasively explore its intriguing aspects? (Rose, 2007, p. 150). 85 After gathering (more than enough) material in the field to ?persuasively explore its intriguing aspects? (Rose, 2007, p. 150), I turned my attention to the analysis of texts, intertextualities, and contexts. While technologies of interpretation are also an institutional technology that can be read for the ways they present information truthfully, to understand the way discourse is rhetorically organized Rose (2007) suggests utilizing DAI to read visual and textual technologies of interpretation ?for their key themes, claims to truth, their complexities and their silences? (p. 187). Identify key themes as ?key words, or recurring visual images? (p. 157). In addition to immersing myself in the visual events during site visits, Rose suggests reading and re-reading, and looking and looking again, as way of coding for key themes. While discourse analysis is not likely to depend on ?rigourous procedures? (p. 156), Rose nonetheless, suggests using ?slightly more systematic methods? (p. 157) of coding to look for key themes and truth claims, and uncover silences and complexities. However, unlike content analysis, it is important to note, that in discourse analysis ?the most important words and images may not be those that occur most often? (Rose, 2007, p. 157). Consequently, the coding process for content analysis and discourse analysis varies significantly. While both begin with identifying key themes, content analysis relies on quantitative measures (the most important words and images are those that occur most often), whereas coding within discourse analysis is focused on qualitative measures (the most important words and images are those that produce a particular kind of knowledge). Additionally, content analysis requires a strict adherence to a set 86 list of key themes; often deductively looking through collected materials for preconceived themes. The key themes for discourse analysis, on the other hand, are inductively informed, emerging from my immersion in the field, and with my sources. Indeed, Foucault (as cited in Rose, 2007) suggest holding preconceptions ?in suspense? (p. 157). Thus, additional themes can be identified while coding; unlike content analysis, which requires you to start the coding process over if themes are added or deleted during the course of the analysis; ?as new questions occur, prompted by one moment of coding, you can return to your materials with different codes in a second ? or third or fourth of twentieth ? moment of interpretation? (p. 161). The flexibility of coding in discourse analysis is much better suited then to PCS?s method of articulation; and for excavating the fluid and layered nature of visual discourse. Each of my sites required the examination of a large number of images and interpretive technologies. Champions displayed 28 portraits (each with approximately 140 words of text on their labels), and a number of secondary artifacts, photographic banners, and video commentary. I identified over 100 unique plastinated organs, whole body plastinates, text panels, and videos in Body Worlds 2 - and recorded information from each of text labels and audio guide entries. Finally, there were 50 sculptures designed and constructed for the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project , and my sculpture, Champions All, featured nearly 200 images. To aid in my immersion away from the field, and keep the events? intertextualities intact, I organized my field notes into excel spreadsheets, noting the visual texts in the order they appeared in the exhibitions, and positioning the 87 interpretive texts next to their appropriate visual texts.8 I also transferred the mapping from my field visits to figures, by assigning corresponding numbers to each visual text, and arranging them in their exhibition spaces and layouts. These figures provided me with an off-site orientation of the exhibition to assist in my analysis, and will also provide a way to introduce readers to the exhibition structure (and complexity) in my empirical chapters prior to an analysis of layout and display technologies. After organizing my field notes, I began coding by looking for the ways that an image or its texts, or the combination of the two, claimed to be true ? ?how a particular discourse works to persuade? (Rose, 2007, p. 161); what truths they were claiming; and the consequences of those truth claims. In addition to looking for key themes and truth claims, I also looked for complexities, or contradictions, in the key themes and truth claims; for places that may ?highlight a process of persuasion? (Rose, 2007, p. 161), or discursive dissent. Even more difficult to locate, I also coded for absences. Mirroring Haraway?s (1997) concern that ?the averted gaze can be as deadly as the all-seeing panopticon that surveys the subjects of the biopolitcal state? (p. 202), Rose emphasizes looking for silences, as ?absences can be as productive as explicit naming; invisibility can have just as powerful effects as visibility? (p. 165). 8 I am familiar with computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) such as Nvivo, and have previously used it to analyze text, images, and talk about images in a photovoice project. However, I found the software restrictive for the kind of inductive, fluid, coding I wanted to accomplish; and the kind of intertextuality I wanted to retain from the field, and multiple connections I wanted to make. For a more flexible approach to storing and analyzing my data I turned instead to Hahn (2008), and his practical guide for doing qualitative research with Microsoft Office. 88 As silences and complexities are difficult to hear, see, and locate, a visual discourse analysis: depends on reading with great care for detail. It assumes that the efficacy of discourse often resides in the assumptions it makes about what is true, real or natural, in the contradictions that allow it interpretive flexibility, and in what is not said, and none of these is accessible to superficial reading or viewing (Rose, 2007, p. 165). Thus, my analysis consisted of numerous ?coding passes?, and coding categories were expanded, changed, merged, and eventually narrowed, as I looked closer and closer, and became more and more immersed in my data. In additional to reading with great care for detail, Rose (2007) also suggests supporting coding conclusions with great detail. To appropriately support my research, and its findings, then, each of my chapters walks through the numerous discursive influence acting on, and through, each visual event, and provides a number of visual and textual examples (both in-text and in my appendices) to support my findings; including a ?visual narrative? at the beginning of each chapter, which familiarizes readers with the location(s) and visual culture of each of my sites. While I recognize that discourse, and the interpretation of it, is hardly a straightforward or unidirectional process, I have structured my empirical chapters to first, situate each visual event in its broader institutional, and cultural, contexts; and, second, to provide an analysis of its interpretive texts and intertextualities. Structured in this manner, my interpretations of the visual events, like the events themselves, are informed by the contextual and conjunctural location of the event; its institution(s), 89 and institutional apparatuses and display technologies; and, the visualizing technologies that shape the ways active bodies can be rendered. In particular, prior to interpreting an event?s visual texts and technologies of interpretation (DAI), I analyze the ways institutional missions and objectives shape how active bodies can be imagined; and the ways institutional technologies (e.g. display, layout, tactile, interpretive, spaces behind) create truthful claims (their effects of truth). 90 Chapter 4 ? E xhibiting Champions at the National Portrait Gallery Visiting Champions . Special Exhibitions The Art of William Christenberry American Origins Education Center G Street Kogod Courtyard (opening 2007) F Street Lobby Lobby Folk Art One Life Archives of American Art Gallery Gifts to the NationTo McEvoy Auditorium Americans Now American Experience Portraiture Now First Floor I American Experience I American Origins I American Experience I Folk Art I The Art of William Christenberry I Special Exhibitions National Portrait Gallery I Americans Now I Portraiture Now I American Origins, 1600?1900 I One Life I Gifts to the Nation I Folk Art Smithsonian American Art Museum I Americans Now 4 901_SAAM_Visitors_Guide 5/24/06 10:32 AM Page 4 Civil War The Early Republic Impressionism Gilded Age Antebellum Art Western Art America?s Presidents Portico Caf? (seasonal) The Presidency and the Cold War Portrait Connection Special Exhibitions Southwestern Art Graphic Arts Temple of Invention The American Colonies Modernism Second Floor I Western Art I America?s Presidents I America?s Presidents I Graphic Arts I American Art through 1940 National Portrait Gallery I America?s Presidents I The Presidency and the Cold War I Portrait Connection I Special Exhibitions I Impressionism Smithsonian American Art Museum 5 901_SAAM_Visitors_Guide 5/24/06 10:32 AM Page 5 Contemporary Art Luce Foundation Center Great Hall Upper West Side Caf? Art Since 1945Special Exhibitions 20th-Century Americans 20th-Century Americans Third Floor I Luce Foundation Center I Special Exhibitions I Art Since 1945 I Contemporary Art National Portrait Gallery I 20th-Century Americans I Great Hall Smithsonian American Art Museum I Contemporary Art I Art Since 1945 I 20th-Century Americans I 20th-Century Americans 6 901_SAAM_Visitors_Guide 5/24/06 10:32 AM Page 6 Luce Foundation Center Lunder Conservation Center Luce Foundation Center Lunder Conservation Center Champions BRAVO! Third Floor Mezzanine National Portrait Gallery I BRAVO! I Champions Smithsonian American Art Museum I Luce Foundation Center Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery I Lunder Conservation Center Smithsonian American Art Museum I Luce Foundation Center Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery I Lunder Conservation Center Fourth Floor 7 901_SAAM_Visitors_Guide 5/24/06 10:32 AM Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 4.1 . Visiting Champions ; 1. Metrorail map (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2012); 2. Smithsonian Museum National Mall map (Smithsonian Institution, 2011); 3. National Portrait Gallery exterior (East) (J. Sterling, personal photograph, December 16, 2007); 4-6, 8. Visitor?s Guide and Map ? Smithsonian Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture (Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture, 2011). 7. The Great Hall, Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery (J. Sterling, personal photograph, December 16, 2007); 9. Champions poster ( Babe Ruth , Nat Fein, 1948) (J. Sterling, personal photograph, October 29, 2008). Exiting the Gallery Place/Chinatown metro (1), I emerge from underneath the Verizon Center (home to the Washington Mystics [WNBA], Washington Wizards [NBA], Washington Capitals [NHL], and the Georgetown Hoyas men?s basketball team [NCAA]), and cross the street to the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery (2). 91 (See Figure 4.1) Gazing at the East fa?ade, I take note of the banner featuring Arthur Ashe unfurled between the columns replicated on each of the four sides of the newly remodeled, Pantheon-inspired, Patent Office building (3). I head North to the entrance on G Street, where security has a quick look through my bag. After being declared non-threatening, I start up the right-hand side of a curving double staircase, heading toward the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery exhibits; cool-colored on the visitor?s guide map to distinguished them from the warm-colored areas of the Smithsonian American Art Museum in the shared space (4-6, 8). Climbing towards my destination on the third floor mezzanine, I continue upwards. I catch my breath when I reach the ornate Great Hall (7), and search for the final set of stairs. Upward bound once more, I finally arrive at Champions (8, 9); an open balcony, mezzanine- level exhibition, perched atop of 20 th Century Americans and down the hall from neighboring mezzanine dweller BRAVO! I ntroducing Ch ampions . Champions is an ongoing exhibition at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery in Washington D.C. The exhibition is made up of a selection of sporting portraiture, mostly athletes, from the Gallery?s permanent collection, and is supplemented with video commentary, photographic banners, and artifacts on loan from the National Museum of American History. This chapter will examine the Champions exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery through an analysis of its artworks and exhibition technologies (i.e. artifacts, text panel and labels, video, banners, object files). Contextualized within a wider Smithsonian complex in the Nation?s capital, the genres of portraiture and sport art, and the Gallery?s wider 92 collections and galleries, Champions will be analyzed for the ways it is produced through the museum?s mission and policies, and collection and exhibition practices, which are, in turn, shaped by neoliberal discourse. Furthermore, this chapter will examine the ways in which the National Portrait Gallery utilizes technologies of interpretation to produce truth claims in regards to the ?remarkability? of America?s (sporting) champions, which are the Gallery?s mission to house. Thus, this chapter considers the role of Champions, and the National Portrait Gallery, in the representation and display of active bodies, and the dissemination of a museum- sanctioned version of what the nation looks like, plays like, and who is, or is not, remarkable and American. Researching Champions. The Champions exhibition will be examined through a discourse analysis of its institutional apparatuses and technologies (DAII), and its exhibition images and texts (DAI) ? its portraits, text panel, text labels, photographic banners, narrated video, and historical artifacts. Analyzed from field notes gathered during multiple visits between October 2007 and January 2013, the layout, display, tactile, and interpretive technologies utilized by the National Portrait Gallery and the Champions ?exhibition team? (Crew & Sims, 1991) will be examined for their key themes, truth claims, complexities, and silences.9 As a participant observer, I viewed the exhibition and collected information 9 Direct references to museum texts (e.g. text labels, text panels, audio) accessed during my visits to the National Portrait Gallery will be cited in text as follows: name of object or exhibition the text is referring to, type of interpretive technology, and acknowledge of its collection in the field (e.g. Ty Cobb, text label, field notes). 93 through field notes and photography; looking at the portraits, reading the text, looking again at the portraits, listening to the narrated video, looking again at the portraits, observing other visitors to the exhibition, and collecting museum-generated collateral (e.g. pamphlets, museum guides). Additionally, and unique to this chapter, apparatuses and the non-public spaces behind the display ? ?spaces in which the museums and galleries produce their knowledges? (Rose, 2007, p. 190) ? are analyzed through an examination of Champions portrait object files in an effort to better grasp the institutional practices that influence the collection, display, interpretation, and promotion of sporting heroes. Further to visual and interpretive texts available at the Champions exhibition, within the National Portrait Gallery, and active in it spaces behind, my interpretations ? and particularly my understandings of the National Portrait Gallery?s apparatuses (e.g. its mission and po licies) ? were supplemented by ?visits? to the museum?s website with access to its: press releases, strategic plans, annual reports, fact sheets, Profile magazine, newsletters, blogs, podcasts, exhibition websites, online exhibitions, searchable collection database, and educational materials. Finally, my understandings of museum practice, traditional sporting art, and the contexts and conjunctures within which Champions and the National Portrait Gallery operate are further underpinned by : 1) a curatorial internship completed in the Division of Music, Sports and Entertainment (now the Division of Culture and the Arts) at fellow Smithsonian institution National Museum of American H istory from January ? July 2008; 2) visits to the National Art Museum of Sport (October, 2005; November , 2007) and Art of the Olympians (May, 2010); and, 3) an ongoing review 94 of sport-related art, exhibitions, and artists. Together, this chapter explores the social conditions and effects of the visualization of active bodies (i.e. the commissioning, collection, exhibition, and institutional interpretation of champions) through an analysis of the exhibition?s c omplex discursive locations, practices, and meanings. Locating Ch ampions : Policy and Practice at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery Figure 4.2. Locating Champions; (left to right) Smithsonian Museum National Mall map (Smithsonian Institution, 2011); National Portrait Gallery exterior (East) (J.Sterling, personal photograph, December 16, 2007); The Great Hall, Smithsonian National Portrait Galle ry (J.Sterling, personal photograph, December 16, 2007) . Ellie: ?Today we?ll take you into the National Portrait Gallery where we will tell you some of the stories of Americans who have shaped our culture.? Sonny: ?And through art you?ll learn history.? Ellie: ?I?m going to see the Presidents, Rosa Parks in the American Search for Justice Exhibition, and oh yeah, the Great Hall?and maybe also? Sonny: ?Wait a sec, it?s not about seeing the hundreds of portraits that are on display, it?s about learning history through what you see.? (Student Orientation Video, Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2008 b). 95 Situated near the National Mall in Washington D.C. the National Portrait Gallery is where ?generations of remarkable Americans are kept in the company of their fellow citizens? (National Portrait Gallery, 2012a). The Gallery is free to the public, and is advertised as a ?must-visit? destination for local, national, and international visitors ?fascinated by famous Americans and their stories? (National Portrait Gallery, 2012a). As a Smithsonian Institution, the National Portrait Gallery is part of 19 museums (see Figure 4.2), 168 affiliate museums, and 9 research centers, which boasts thirty million visitors and over 137 million objects as the ?world?s largest museum and research complex? (Smithsonian, 2012a, n.p.). Established in 1846, the Smithsonian?s mission to increase and diffuse knowledge is carried out through their vision to ?[shape] the future by preserving our heritage, discovering new knowledge, and sharing our resources with the world? (Smithsonian, 2012b). Thus, the National Portrait Gallery is implicated in efforts to preserve American heritage and ?understand the American experience? (one of four current Smithsonian ?grand challenges?), and to do so through Smithsonian priorities of broadening access (i.e. digitized and web-accessible collections), revitalized education, interdisciplinary border crossing, and strengthening collections (Smithsonian, 2012b). Operating at a time of shifting museum roles in public/private (i.e. federal funds and donor contributions) and domestic/global spheres, Marc Pachter (as cited in Lubow, 2006) explains that the National Portrait Gallery has ?expanded, along with the nation, our notion of the background and definition of greatness?What we have not abandoned is the notion that it is still important to think about greatness. 96 Mediocrity is well represented elsewhere? (para. 3). Thus, its role is to ?explore the ways in which individuals determine national identity? through portraits of remarkable Americans (Lubow, 2006). Although the museum?s definition of remarkable-ness has shifted over time, often in concert with its directors, its mission as a Smithsonian, and public, institution, in the Nation?s capital , keeps it firmly entrenched within ?official? state discourse. As Duncan (1991) explains, ?Such public institutions made [and still make] the state look good: progressive, concerned about the spiritual life of its citizens, a preserver of past achievements and a provider for the common good? (p. 93). In particular, the National Portrait Gallery makes the neoliberal state look good by extending myths of classlessness, promoting meritocracy, and upholding individuals, and individuality, as measures of success. Materialized through a variety of forms, including differentiated subject positions (e.g. curators as experts and visitors as lay people) and awe-inspiring architecture (Rose, 2007), the National P ortrait Gallery?s discourse of ?greatness? locates Champions, and its sports and sporting heroes, in national discourse, and emphasizes their significance to the nation through the construction of contemplative spaces and thoughtful visitors. Defining the viewer as ?an adult member of a developed society? (p. 33), Baxandall (1991) explains their ?museum set?: He (let us say)?has a sense of the museum as a treasure house, educational instrument, secular temple, and the rest?. First, he has come to the exhibition partly to look at visually interesting objects. He expects things to look at and he expects a large part of this activity in the exhibition to consist of looking. If 97 this were not so he would have stayed at home and read a book about the culture. (p. 33- 34) The ?museum set? is also instigated by the physical museum; its interior and exterior architecture. Here, ?museums do not simply resemble temples, shrines, and other such monuments. Museumgoers today, like visitors to these other sites, bring with them the willingness and ability to shift into a certain state of receptivity? (Duncan, 1991, p. 91). For Champions, then, the National Portrait Gallery, its Greek revival architecture, and imposing facades and entrance halls (see Figure 4.2) ? ?designed to be as inspiring and nullifying as the understanding of culture and science articulated within? (e.g. Bennett as cited in Rose, 2007, p. 181) ? act as a reifying spaces where persons on display assume, often unfettered and unquestioned, importance. Collecting, selecting, and displaying sport, sporting portraiture, and sporting champions at the National Portrait Gallery ? as something worth looking at, as interesting, is a statement not only about the object but about the culture it comes from? (Baxandall, 1991, p. 34). Thus, the Gallery?s advancement of sporting champions also indicts the (sporting) individual as significant to our current neoliberal conjuncture. The National Gallery carefully balances goals of both history and art museums, focusing on the people represented (the sitters) and their perceived importance to the nation, rather than the artists who made their representations. Then- director Charles Nagel ( as cited in Townsend, 1968) explains the importance of this focus in the museum?s inaugural exhibition catalog, This New Man: A Discourse in Portraiture: 98 First, ours [museum] must never be regarded as a gallery of art but rather as a history museum, one with a serious national purpose. Consequently, the sitter is always the most important element to be kept in mind, particularly when likenesses are being selected for the collections (p. 1). Following a six-year renovation, which restored the National Historic Landmark and former Patent Office Building to its Greek Revival glory and acted as a centerpiece of a revitalized downtown Washington, DC (Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2012c), the museum reopened its doors in 2006 with a revised mission and new collection guidelines (Pachter, 2006). The revocation of a ?decade-dead? rule, which specified that ?no likeness save that of a President and his wife may be exhibited, except temporarily, until the sitter has been ten years deceased? (Nagel as cited in Townsend, 1968, p. 1), expanded the museum?s collecting practices and exhibition options. Moving beyond the display of those ?dead-enough? (Pachter as cited in Lubow, 2006, para. 3), this policy change afforded the Gallery more latitude in display of ?individuals who have left ? and are leaving [emphasis added] ? their mark on our country and our culture? (National Portrait Gallery, 2012a). As Lubow explains in his 2006 Smithsonian Magazine article about the reopening, although ?the decade-dead rule was intended to ensure historical perspective?it worked against the museum?s ability to connect to its audience? (p. 50), and, I would argue, rendered its collection both out-of-date and ahistorical. Part of the difficulty in collecting and exhibiting post-decade-dead rule at the National Portrait Gallery is gauging who is going to be historically significant in the future. To allow time to evaluate newcomers, the Gallery has both a study collection 99 and a permanent collection. The study collection is made up of portraits that continue to be monitored for historical significance, with the possibility of being later ?graduated? or ?upgraded? to the permanent collection. This two-tiered system is a change from the Gallery?s previous decade-dead policies that functioned across three levels ? temporary (still living), study (dead, but not for 10 years), and permanent (dead for 10 years or more) (museum staff, personal communication, December 12, 2007). Constantly shifting, the National Portrait Gallery?s collecting and exhibiting policies and practices admit, and reflect, the difficulty in capture the fleeting nature of fame in postmodernity. Aiming to capture remarkable Americans and their defining characteristics and moments through portraiture, the Gallery actively collects new portraits, exhibits newly acquired works and portraiture from their study and permanent collection, and curates and hosts temporary exhibitions in their rotating gallery spaces. The updated policies are particularly evident in new rotating gallery spaces, such as Portraiture Now, which aims to showcase and further define contemporary Americans, portrait artists, and portraiture. These galleries also provide a space to exhibit works from the study collection, as they are not yet eligible for display in permanent galleries. Further to their addition of contemporary galleries, the museum adopted a thematic gallery organization (including Champions) after its renovation to ?provoke conversations about what it means to be an American? (Lubow, 2006, p. 50). Together, the new policies and practices prompted by the Gallery?s renovation move the museum forward from its focus on (dead) presidents, generals, and ?white men on horses? (Pachter as cited in Lubow, 2006, para. 3) that 100 birthed a ?prematurely gray museum? in 1968 (Lub ow, 2006 , para. 3), and towards a (supposed) ongoing review, revision, and interpretation of remarkable Americans. (Sporting) portraiture: What c ounts. Sonny: ?Now let?s talk about what exactly a portrait is.? Ellie: ?A portrait is a likeness of a person. Different mediums are used; paintings, sculpture, print, drawing, mixed media, and video portraiture? (Student Orientation Video, Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2008 b). ?Simply put, portraits are art works, intentionally made of living or once living people by artists, in a variety of media, and for an audience? (Brilliant, 1991, p. 8). Visitors entering through the Gallery?s main entrance on F Street are welcomed to the National Portrait Gallery section of the Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture through its contemporary Portraiture Now galleries. Here, the challenges of ?national portraiture ?, the significance of cultural phenomena (such as sport) in new definitions of remarkability, the fleeting nature of fame, and the abundance of popular imagery (especially sports and entertainment) are discussed openly (Americans Now, text panel, field notes). Underpinning the incompleteness of their collection, one of the challenges discussed is the availability of good art or a credible likeness; explaining ?n ot everyone of current interest is represented ? great fame does not always produce great portraits? (Americans Now, text panel, field 101 notes). Working at the ?intersection of American history, biography and art? (Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2012d), staff at the National Portrait Gallery have to strike a balance between ?great fame?, historical significance, and ?great portraits? when the perfect pairing is unavailable. Consistent in their claims of aesthetic prioritization, the emphasis on likeness, and a struggle to balance the two, Nagel (as cited in Townsend, 1968) explains: Naturally, every effort will be made to secure as many fine portraits aesthetically as are available, on the principle that generally an excellent portrait will also be an outstanding work of art. But a genuine likeness taken from life is the primary consideration. (p. 1) The concept of ?likeness? then, plays an important role in the mission of the National Portrait Gallery and Champions exhibition, and an equally, if disputed, role in the genre of portraiture. Due to the perceived conflation of portrait and likeness, the primary function of portraits is often commemorative, preserving a likeness ?that endures after the sitter is long gone? (Sturgis & Clayson, 2000, p. 162). However, Sturgis & Clayson (2000) explain, ?not every portrait is a likeness? (p. 136), and Woodall (1997) adds that portraiture ?does not always work as re-presentation? (p. 9). Rather, portraits represent an, often idealized, interpretation of an individual, capturing an essence, rather than a physiognomic, or natural likeness. Despite the recognition that no likeness can take the place of the real, as it often uncritically stands in for, Brilliant (1991) concedes that ?good? portraiture is often evaluated on its ?faithfulness? to the original; 102 Because portraits req uire some discernible connection between the visible image and the person portrayed in order to legitimize the analogy, some degree of resemblance is normally posited, however imagined. The purported resemblance, a restriction on the image?s freedom of reference, has brought about the use of the term ?likeness? as a synonym for ?portrait?. (p. 25) Finally, Sturgis and Clayson (2000) explain the various ways that ?likeness? can be achieved: The portrait painter need not rely exclusively on the face and figure to convey information about the sitter. Dress, whether official uniform, fashionable garb, or everyday attire, often carries as much information about social standing or professional position as a face. The same is true of the setting and the objects with which a painter surrounds the subject (p. 146). This reference to social designators alleviates some of the ?burden of representation? and prior knowledge that may otherwise be necessary for viewers to obtain recognition of the sitter (Brilliant, 1991 , p. 15 ). For example, in Champions, sitters are pictured with their sporting equipment , within a sporting environment, in uniform, or in action to designate their sport, position, prowess, or a specific and historic event (e.g. a championship bout or trademark windup). These designators also become categories that define sporting portraits and athletes in the National Portrait Gallery collection database (e.g. portrait objects > equipment > sports equipment > baseball glove, fishing pole, golf club, javelin, surfboard, tennis racket [ sic]), and influence who can be thematically displayed. 103 In line with the museum?s mission to represent remarkable Americans , ?[p]ortraits of persons who occupy significant positions in the public eye ? statesmen, intellectuals, creative artists, war heroes, and approved champions [emphasis added]?offer up images of serious men and women, worthy of respect, persons who should be taken equally seriously by the viewing audience? (Brilliant, 1991, p. 10). The National Portrait Gallery ?s collection relies heavily on commissioned portraits, and also commissions portraits for their collection (though to a much lesser extent). However, commissioned portraits ?will in nearly every case present an approved view of the sitter?.it will be more the ?authorized? than the ?unofficial? biography? (Sturgis and Clayson, 2000, p. 137). These ?champions? are therefore multiply approved: i nitially in the significance that the commissioning implies; followed by the approval by the sitter of their likeness (if still alive), and of the artist for its quality; and, finally by the National Portrait Gallery in their recognition of the sitter as significant to the nation, and the portrait as a good likeness, and (thus) good art. In questioning a portrait?s capacity for ?aesthetic transport?, however, Silver (1995) queries ?what claim to truth may a portrait have that has been commissioned and paid for by the sitter (or the sitter?s loved ones or institution), especially when it is made clear that the portrayal must be flattering?? (p. 66). Accordingly, Brilliant (1991) explains that an analysis of portraiture should move forward with caution, as a portrait is: imagery which combines the conventions of behaviour and appearance appropriate to the members of a society at a particular time, as defined by categories of age, gender, race, physical beauty, occupation, social and civic 104 status, and class?[and thus] requires some sensitivity to the social implications of its representational modes, to the documentary value of art works as aspects of social history, and to the subtle interaction between social and artistic conventions. (Brilliant, 1991, p. 11) The possibilities for sporting portraiture and representations of sporting individuals at the National Portrait Galle ry, therefore, are limited by the genre of portraiture, and the role of the (sporting) individual in neoliberal society. Sport art and sporting portraiture. A, not the, definition of sport art could be any work of art that has as its subject matter ? defined by Taylor (1981) as the objects and incidents represented ? any range of sport (or physical) culture, including but not limited to: the athletic body, sporting celebrity, leisure or competitive sporting pastimes and practices, or sporting spaces. Often depicting particularly well-known athletes, teams, events, and locations, sport art and sporting portraiture suffer struggles similar to portraiture ? in its location between representative and representation ? and to the National Portrait Gallery ? in its mission to balance American history, biography, and art. While sport art can be sited in a variety of locations, it is often made available and legitimized as a specific genre through its collection, inclusion, and exhibition in sport and history museums, art museums and galleries, and most specifically in sport art museums. Opening its doors in 2011, the National Sporting Art Museum in Middleburg, Virginia became the fourth dedicated sport art museum in the United States alongside of the Art of the Olympians (Fort Myers, FL; 2010), American Sport Art Museum and Archives (Daphne, AL; 1984), and the National Art Museum of Sport 105 (Indianapolis, IN; 1959). With a focus that ?preserves the performance and movement of man [sic] by creating an awareness of the role art mediums play in capturing our sports heroes and perpetuating their performances for posterity? (American Sport Art Museum and Archive, 2012), sport art museums often rely on representational, documentary, and commemorative works, and on art by sport artists (artists whose primary subject matter is sport-related). Additionally, outside of sport art museums, sport art can be displayed: as, or alongside of, artifacts (e.g. in sport history and history museums); as examples of artistic oeuvre or a particular period (e.g. American Realist George Bellows?s Both Members of This Club (1909) at the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C.); as companion exhibitions during major sporting events (e.g. Road to 2012: Changing Pace [2011-2012] organized by the National Portrait Gallery in London as part of the Cultural Olympiad; Hoofbeats and Heartbeats: The Horse in American Art (2010) at the Art Museum at the University of Kentucky during the 2010 Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games); or in contemporary gallery and touring exhibitions which are more likely to (literally and figuratively) exhibit a concern with, or critique of, the relationship between sport and society (e.g. Mixed Signals: Artists Consider Masculinity in Sport [multiple locations; 2009-2011]; You?re Such a Good Sport [Paragraph Gallery, Kansas City; 2010]). Although sport and art are hardly new companions, sport art exhibitions have been on the rise in recent years despite the decrease in public funding ushered in by the rise of neoliberalism, and demise of the welfare state. The collection of sporting portraiture by the National Portrait Gallery, and its display in Champions, is indicative of not only the role of sporting individuals in ?making? history, and the 106 importance of sport in American society, but also of the capitalization of sport (and by association sport art) into a robust American economy. This is perhaps not surprising viewed alongside a shift towards entertainment- focused display practices and the museum as an expositionary ? rather than exhibitionary ? complex (Kirshenblatt - Gimblett, 2006) , where part of the complex purposes of exhibitor?s activities include putting on a good show (Baxandall, 1991 ). Additionally, the inclusion of sport art in the National Portrait Gallery advances, or rather takes advantage of, the softened postmodern fault lines between high and low cultural subjects, practices, and art forms. D isplaying, for example, presidents and scientists alongside athletes and entertainers; painting and sculptures by well known artists alongside of press photography and work by (literally and figuratively) unknown artists; and, mapping the contours of the America?s cultural and technological (r)evolutions. Within th is increasingly (techno)visual ?post- culture? (Abbas, 1996) the collapse of distinctions between ?man- made? images and art (Berger, 1972) conflate, confuse, and challenge what can be seen every day and what can only be seen in museums or galleries. This is particularly evident in the National Portrait Gallery?s larg e collection of sports photography, which reflects the rise of 20th century sports- and photo- journalism and calls into question Brilliant?s (1991) assertion that ?portraits are art works, intentionally made of living or once living people by artists, in a variety of media, and for an audience? (p. 8). While the sporting portraits in the exhibition are indeed of living or once living people, are made through a variety of media, and were created for an audience, not all of the portraits were intended to be art works or portraits, or were intended for museum display and 107 viewing. Though not necessarily intended for museum exhibition, the sporting imagery on display at the National Portrait Gallery certainly falls within the broad parameters of Bax andall?s (1991) exhibitable objects; ?objects designed to be looked at for their visual interest are those that properly can be displayed and examined for their visual interest? the exhibitable object is one made for visual exhibition or display? (p. 39-40). Regardless of their maker?s intention, however, or their medium, the inclusion and display of sporting imagery in the Gallery produces them as portraits, and in doing so, widens and challenges definitions of what art is, who artists are, and what a (sporting) portrait is or can be. However, and rewinding to the Gallery?s introductory text panel, great fame does not always produce great portraits, despite the abundance of popular imagery which is especially evident in sports and entertainment (field notes). Thu s, modifying Sturgis & Clayson ( 2000), not every sporting likeness is a portrait and it is ultimately the decision of the National Portrait Gallery to decide whose portrait, likeness, and biography gets to endure after the sitter is long gone. As visual technologies or visualizing practices, and technological and compositional modalities, the genres of portraiture and sport art, and their various mediums (e.g. paintings, sculpture, print, drawing, mixed media, photography, video) have a strong influence on how champions are, and can be, imagined, at the National Portrait Gallery. As Brilliant (1991) explains, portraits are: work[s] of visual art with special powers of representation; any legitimate attempt to understand what [sporting] portraits are, as art works, involves the 108 consideration of what portraiture itself is, an artistic genre with a long history of conscious development and critical reception. (p. 20) Sitting alongside of Mirzoeff?s (1999) definition of visual events as the interface through which visual texts are consumed for information, meaning or pleasure, ?portraits exist at the interface between art and social life and the pressure to conform to social norms enters into their compositions because both the artists and the subject are enmeshed in the value system of their society? (Brilliant, 1991, p. 11). Thus, in addition to producing ?objects that count as ?art?? (Rose, 2007, p. 195), galleries as proper spaces for their display, and the subjectivities implicated in what counts (e.g. curators, administrators, patrons and visitors), the National Portrait Gallery also produces the individuals on display. Furthermore, the National Portrait Gallery produces individuality as a distinct national focus, as the portraits they collect ?make value judgements not just about the specific individuals portrayed but about the general worth of individuals as a category? (Brilliant, 1991, p. 14). In its mission to explore the ways in which individuals determine national identity through portraits of remarkable Americans, the National Portrait Gallery and Champions acknowledge that "our society is obsessed by the role of the individual from celebrity culture today to heroes of the past" (Pacther in Lubow, 2006, para. 4); participates in and negotiates discursive ebbs and flows in their display and definition of greatness, American-ness, portraiture, athletes, and champions; and, visualizes active bodies in particular ways, shaping the ?For whom, by whom, and of whom?? effects of (in)visibility (Haraway, 1997, p. 202). 109 Exhibiting ?remarkable? Americans: Collecting and curating ?champions?. Special Exhibitions The Art of William Christenberry American Origins Education Center G Street Kogod Courtyard (opening 2007) F Street Lobby Lobby Folk Art One Life Archives of American Art Gallery Gifts to the NationTo McEvoy Auditorium Americans Now American Experience Portraiture Now First Floor I American Experience I American Origins I American Experience I Folk Art I The Art of William Christenberry I Special Exhibitions National Portrait Gallery I Americans Now I Portraiture Now I American Origins, 1600?1900 I One Life I Gifts to the Nation I Folk Art Smithsonian American Art Museum I Americans Now 4 901_SAAM_Visitors_Guide 5/24/06 10:32 AM Page 4 Ci? il War ? he Early epub lic m pressionism Gilded Ae Antebellum Art Western Art America?s reside nts ? ortico Caf? seasonal? ? he reside ncy and the Cold War ? ortrait Connection Special Exhibitions South? estern Art Graphic Arts ? emple of n? ention ? he American Colonies od ernism Second Floor I Western Art I America?s Presidents I America?s Presidents I Graphic Arts I American Art through 1940 National Portrait Gallery I America?s Presidents I The Presidency and the Cold War I Portrait Connection I Special Exhibitions I Impressionism Smithsonian American Art Museum 5 901_SAAM_Visitors_Guide 5/24/06 10:32 AM Page 5 Figure 4. 3 . Visitor?s Guide and Map ? Smithsonian Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture. Sporting portraiture (2007-2012) indicated in yellow (Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture, 2011). The National Portrait Gallery?s careful balance of good art, ?great fame?, and appropriate American-ness is reflected and reinforced through its pairing and juxtaposition with galleries in the Smithsonian American Art Museum thematically organized to ?let the art tell stories about how we got to be the country we are today? (Harvey in Lubow, 2006, para. 2). Alternating designated (but not divided) space with the National Portrait Gallery (see Figure 4.3), American art and portraiture are often experienced alongside one another ? either purposefully or unintentionally (if the ?the curving double staircase? confounds your directionality like it did so often mine). Although it can be disconcerting to wonder from 20 th Century Americans (National Portrait Gallery [NPG]) to Modern and Contemporary Art (Smithsonian American Art Museum [SAAM]), the two function in tandem to preserve and define American culture and the American experience; working chronologically upward from the first floor (e.g. American Origins [NPG]; Folk Art and American Presidents [SAAM]), to 110 the second floor (e.g. American Presidents and The Struggle for Justice (formerly The Presidency and the Cold War; [ NPG] ); The American Colonies, The Early Republic, Antebellum Art, Impressionism, Modernism and Southwestern Art [SAAM] ), to the third floor (e.g. 20th-Century Americans, Bravo!, and Champions [NPG] ; Art Since 1945, and, Modern and Contemporary Art [ SAAM] ). While Champions is the only exhibition in the National Portrait Gallery to focus exclusively on sport and physical culture, there is an institutional history of the display of sporting portraiture and sitters ? from the inclusion of John L. Sullivan, Babe Ruth, and Jim Thorpe in the Gallery?s inaugural exhibition This New Man (1969), to their recent integration and feature in permanent, temporary, touring, and online exhibitions. The inclusion of athletes in the contemporary, rotating, Portraiture Now galleries is particularly indicative of the shift in collection and exhibition practices since 2006 (i.e. the dissolution of the ?decade-dead? policy). For example, Martin Schoeller exhibited works from his Female Bodybuilders series in ?Portraiture Now: Feature Photography? (November 26, 2008 ? September 27, 2009), which examined contemporary portraiture and portrait artists (not included in the Gallery?s collections) who broaden audiences by working across both fine art and editorial photography (National Portrait Gallery, 2008a). Featuring female bodybuilders such as Christine Roth and Kim Harris alongside his portraits of Angelina Jolie and John McCain, Schoeller explains in his artist statement for the exhibition how he was struck by the complexities and contradictions of female bodybuilding, and: 111 compelled to build a catalog outside the range of judgment: not to celebrate, condemn, or expose, but merely to show. We all operate within narrowly constructed ideals of the good, the right, and the beautiful, all subject to the countless influences that swirl around us. The athletes presented here are no different; they are as vulnerable as any other perso n standing in front of a camera. (Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2008a) The Portraiture Now galleries have also featured athletes in their explorations of recently remarkable Americans, such as ?Americans Now? (July 20, 2010 - July 10, 2011). Here, LeBron James was included in Lincoln Schatz?s generative portrait endeavor, Esquire?s Portrait of the Twenty-First Century (2008), and newly accessioned photographs of contemporary athletes such as Lance Armstrong (2001), Andre Agassi (1998) (both also by artist Martin Schoeller), and Michael Phelps (Ryan McGinley, 2004) have been on display. Moving beyond the first floor contemporary galleries, there is a noticeable lack of sporting portraiture in the permanent galleries (e.g. American Origins Gallery: 1600-1900) until The Struggle for Justice (added in 2010). Here, Jackie Robinson (Harry Warnecke, 1947) and Eunice Kennedy Shriver (David Lenz, 20 09) are displayed for their respective roles as the first African American to play major league baseball and the organizer of the Special Olympics, in the company of civil right leaders and women?s rights advocates, such a Martin Luther King, Jr. and Betty Friedan. Sporting portraiture is also integrated throughout the permanent 20th-Century Americans galleries off the Great Hall on the third floor which ?showcase the major cultural, scientific and political figures of the 20th century? (field notes) from: 1900- 112 1930 (e.g. Babe Ruth, Nickolas Muray, 1927; Gertrude Ederle, Underwood & Underwood, 1935; Jack Johnson, Adolph Friedlander Lithography Company, 1910); 1930-1950 (e.g. Bobby Jones, Harold Edgerton, 1993); 1950-1980 (Donald Larsen, Arthur Rickerby, 1956; Joe Namath, Ben Ross, 1965); and 1980 to the present (e.g. Mark McGwire, Annie Leibovitz, 1998; Shaquille O?Neal, Rick Chapman, 2001; Cal Ripken, Jr., Rick Chapman, 2001; Pete Rose, Andy Warhol, 1985). Additionally, photographs Homestead Grays (Charles Harris, 1942), Arthur Ashe (Walter Kelleher, 1968), and Roberto Clemente (Charles Harris, 1960) are on display in 20th century: The American Search for Justice10. Positioned directly below Champions, The American Search for Justice displays portraiture ?embodying the battlegrounds where intolerance reigned, the striking down of segregated practices and discrimination, and the important catalysts that brought about historic mid-20th century changes? (field notes). Athletes have also been featured in traveling and web-only exhibitions featuring work from the Gallery?s permanent collection. For example, traveling exhibition ?Women of Our Time? (March 7, 2003 ? January 2, 2005) exhibited Althea Gibson (Genevieve Naylor, 1955) and Mildred ?Babe? Didrikson Zaharias (Harry Warnecke & Robert Cranston, 1947) in the company of other instrumental women who signified a ?landmark change in twentieth-century America? (Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2003). Also, web-only exhibition ?Cover Art: The TIME Collection at the National Portrait Gallery? explains that ?sports figures 10 Indicative of the fluidity of museum spaces and displays, Jackie Robinson (Harry Warnecke, 1947) was displayed in 20th century: The American Search for Justice prior to the The Struggle for Justice opening in 2010 (field notes). 113 have been regular topics for cover stories since TIME ?s inaugural year when boxer Jack Dempsey made the cover for September 10, 1923? (Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2005). Noting that ?t he National Portrait Gallery?s collection of athletes is extensive and includes a wide range of sporting activity? (Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2005) , the exhibition features Muhammad Ali (Boris Chaliapin, 1963), Althea Gibson (Boris Chaliapin, 1957), Dorothy Hamill (John Zimmerman, 1976), Bill Hartack (James Chapin, 1958), Joe Namath (Jack Davis, 1972), Parry O?Brien (Peter Hurd, 1956), and Babe Ruth (Jack Davis, 1976). Initially gifted to the National Portrait Gallery in 1978, the TIME collection has continued to grow (from 800 to nearly 2000; Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2005) , and plays a significant role in the National Portrait Gallery?s sport -related collection ? representing 13 of the 28 primary portraits on display in Champions , and 83 of the 328 sporting portraits I?ve identified through the Gallery?s searchable collection database. That sport has such significance and its own dedicated space at the National Portrait Gallery should not be naturalized (Rose, 2007). N or should the prevalence of sport across other Smithsonian Institutions (particularly evident in the extensive collection of sporting artifacts at the National Museum of American History) , or the use of exhibitions as institutional and visualizing technologies. The inclusion of sporting portraiture and athlete-champions in the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery signifies the importance of sport to the museum, and, by association, to the nation; locates sports and athletes as important and authorized story tellers; and, produces ?champions? as the subjects that are its mission to house. Hung in dedicated 114 galleries or alongside of other notable Americans, the exhibition of the Gallery?s collection of sporting portraiture signals the significance of sport in American society through an advancement of high achievement, high performance, narratives of meritocracy. While the situating of Champions and Bravo! on the top of the top floor may mark the continued relegation of popular culture and sport (and its study) to the eaves of history, and contradict the Gallery?s claim that sportsmen and sportswomen are ?just like the politicians, the generals, the artists? (Pachter, 1981, p. 15) displayed elsewhere, their dedicated space is equally indicative of the influence and economic utility of the sport in contemporary culture; as the exhibition?s capacity to draw visitors upward to a previously under-utilized and under-visited gallery space was key to its positioning (museum staff, personal communication, May 7, 2008). Embedded in wider historical, cultural, and ideological processes, the National Portrait Gallery?s articulation with (sporting) biography, history, and art is (admittedly) influenced by postmodern popularity, the ?commericalization of culture?, and the ?culturalization of the economy? (Andrews, 2006, p. 8 ). Furthermore, its collection practices and policies shape, and are shaped by, the genre of portraiture and its mediums, and the artists and commissioners involved in capturing the ?likeness? of the nation?s athlete-champions ? influencing who and how individuals can be made available for collection and display, and defining who ?occup[ies] significant positions?, acts as ?approved champions?, and are ?worthy of respect? (Brilliant, 1991, p. 10). Advanced through a chronological positioning of portraits over three floors, the National Portrait Gallery?s narrative of social progression, which ?makes the state 115 look good? (Duncan, 1991, p. 93), seemingly tops out at the 3 rd floor 20th century galleries. As you move up the stairs to Champions and walk the U -shaped course of its gallery, the shortcomings of the Gallery?s collection of sporting portraiture, or the shortsighted-ness of the Gallery?s sporting sociological imagination (Andrews, 2006; cf. Mills, 1959 ), become readily apparent. Selecting from an already selective pool of ?candidates? the exhibition displays 40 portraits (28 paintings and sculptures, and 12 photographs printed on banners and displayed overhead) from its collection of 328 portrait possibilities. Identifiable in the Gallery?s collection database ( accessible through http://npgportraits.si.edu/eMuseumNPG) by sitter/artist distinction ( sport and recreation), portrait objects (sports equipment), and portrait settings (e.g. sports arena), the collection predominately features mostly commissioned, or journalistic (e.g. originally unintended for museum display) photographs of white men, collected during the mid- to late-20th century, from American specific sports such as baseball, basketball and football. The lack of diversity visible in the sporting collection makes it difficult to carry the Gallery ?s, and society?s, social progression upward to the mezzanine level where Champions resides. Whether the limitations in the collection are the result of a (historically) not-so-socially progressive society, a lack of diversity in sports, a lack of popularity of particular sports or sporting persons and a concomitant lack of coverage and commissions, or the collection practices at the National Portrait Gallery (compounded by the lack of a dedicated sports specialist on staff), is difficult to decipher. However, the limitations are on display (though not necessarily ?visible?), and on display at the National Portrait Gallery. Thus, within the columned exterior 116 and ornate interior of the Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture, the sporting portraiture in Cham pions has been offered for inspection; and: Because it has been offered for inspection, [the viewer] takes it that the object has been considered worthy of inspection, either for its cultural importance or for its beauty and the producer?s skill. It is spotlit for some purpose. [The viewer] may or may not find it attractive but for any of a number of reasons ? the museum set, the authority of the exhibitors, or his own curiosity about a visually interesting object ? [they read] the label or catalogue entry with a view to learning about it. (Baxandall, 1991, p. 34) Moving from ?what counts? (Rose, 2007) to who counts, and they ways in which the National Portrait Gallery say they count and are significant to the nation, the next sections will describe and interrogate the Gallery?s exhibition technologies, intertextualities, and social effects by taking a closer look at Cham pions . 117 Exhibiting Champions Luce Foundation Center Lunder Conservation Center Luce Foundation Center Lunder Conservation Center Champions BRAVO! Third Floor Mezzanine National Portrait Gallery ! BRAVO! ! Champion s Smithsonian American Art Museum ! Luce Foundation Center Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery ! Lunder Con s ervation Center Smithsonian American Art Museum ! Luce Foundation Center Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery ! Lunder Con s ervation Center Fourth Floor 7 901_SAAM_Visitors_Guide 5/24/06 10:32 AM Page 7 1! 2! 3! 4! ! 5! ! 6!7! ! 8!9! ! 15! 13! 11! 12 ! 10!16! 14!17! 6a! 19! 18 a! 18 ! 18 b! 20! 21! 23 ! 25!22! 24! 26! 27! 28! 29! 30! 31! 29a! Luce Foundation Center Lunder Conservation Ce ter Luce Foundation Center Lunder Conservation Ce ter Champions BRAVO! Third Floor Mezzanine National Portrait Gallery ! BRAVO! Champion s Smithsonian American Art Museum ! Luce Foundation Center Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery ! Lunder Con s ervation Center Smithsonian American Art Museum ! Luce Foundation Center Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery ! Lunder Con s ervation Center Fourth Floor 7 901_SAAM_Visitors_Guide 5/24/06 10:32 AM Page 7 b1 ! b2 ! b3 ! b4 ! b5 ! b6 ! b7 ! b8 ! b9 ! b1 0! b1 1! b1 2! No. Visual Texts & Technologies Subject and Title No. Visual Texts & Technologies Subject and Title 1 Poster Babe Ruth 18 Portrait Dempsey-Willard Fight 2 Text Panel 18a Photograph Jack Dempsey at his Broadway restaurant 3 Portrait Helen Wills Moody 18b Artifacts Souvenirs of Jack Dempsey?s restaurant; Cast of Jack Dempsey?s fist 4 Portrait Ty Cobb 19 Portrait Oscar Robertson 5 Portrait Walter Camp 20 Portrait Byron Nelson 6 Portrait Joe Louis 21 Portrait Arnold Palmer 6a Artifact Joe Louis's gloves 22 Portrait Reggie Jackson 7 Portrait Ely Culbertson; Josephine Dillon Culbertson 23 Portrait Yogi Berra 8 Portrait Robin Roberts 24 Portrait Jimmy Connors 9 Portrait Roger Maris 25 Portrait Cat's Cradle, Muhammad Ali 10 Portrait Mickey Mantle; Roger Maris 26 Portrait Billy Martin 11 Portrait Juan Marichal 27 Portrait Bill Shoemaker 12 Portrait Casey Stengel 28 Portrait Larry Bird; Wayne Gretzky 13 Portrait Jack Nicklaus 29 Portrait Arthur Ashe 14 Portrait Jim Brown 29a Artifact Arthur Ashe's tennis racquet 15 Portrait Bill Hartack 30 Portrait Carleton Fisk 16 Portrait Bobby Hull 31 Portrait Nolan Ryan 17 Video & Commentary Banner Photographs 17a Muhammad Ali (2:15) b1 Portrait Carl Lewis 17b Helen Wills Moody (0:37) b2 Portrait Rocky Marciano 17c Reggie Jackson (0:52) b3 Portrait Christy Mathewson 17d Wayne Gretzsky (1:36) b4 Portrait Gertrude Ederle 17e Jim Brown (1:18) b5 Portrait "Babe" Didrickson Zaharias 17f Bill Shoemaker (1:15) b6 Portrait Muhammad Ali 17g Arnold Palmer (1:10) b7 Portrait Joe Namath 17h Juan Marichal (0:55) b8 Portrait Mark Spitz 17i Arther Ashe (1:32) b9 Portrait Josh Gibson 17j Roger Maris & Mickey Mantle (1:26) b10 Portrait Jackie Joyner-Kersee 17k Larry Bird (1:33) b11 Portrait Lance Armstrong b12 Portrait Alice Marble Figure 4.4. Champions layout; primary (white) and secondary (light blue) visual texts and technologies. Adapted from Visitor?s Guide and Map ? Smithsonian Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture (Donald W. Reynolds Center for Amer ican Art and Portraiture , 2011). 118 Figure 4.5. Champions exhibition. Champions primary (paintings and sculptures) and secondary (photo banners and artifacts) visual texts; layout, display, tactile (display cases, framing, and hanging), and interpretive technologies (text panel, text labels and captions, video commentary, artifacts); (left to right) North side of exhibition (J. Sterling, personal photograph, October 29, 2008); South side of exhibition (J. Sterling, personal photograph, December 16, 2007); Arthur Ashe?s tennis racquet (Smithsonian National Museum of American History; J. Sterling, personal photograph, December 16, 2007). The Champions exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery is made up of a selection of sport-related portraiture from the Gallery?s permanent collection. It is located adjacent to the Bravo! exhibition of performing artist portraits on the third floor mezzanine of the museum; an open upper-level of third floor gallery space in the Great Hall. The main focus of the exhibition are its painted and sculpted portraits of athletes, coaches, and managers (see Figure 4.4; 3-16, 18-31). Each portrait is accompanied by a text label written by museum staff, explaining who the sitter is, and why they are remarkable and significant to America. The primary visual texts are supplemented with video commentary (17a-k) on select sitters by well-known sportswriter, columnist, and commentator Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post (formerly) and ESPN?s Pardon the Interruption, and podium-perched plexiglass- enclosed artifacts on loan from the National Museum of American History (NMAH) 119 (6a, 18a, 18b, 29a) (see Figure 4.4 & 4.5 ).11 In addition, photographic banners reproduce works from the permanent collection and supplement the exhibition by introducing sports figures not included in the primary exhibition portraits (see Figure 4.4 & 4.5 ). As the public interface through which visual texts are consumed for information, meaning, or pleasure (Mirzoeff, 1999), the exhibition as a visual event is the National Portrait Gallery?s primary technology for visualizing active bodies and producing (sporting) champions. The following sections will look closely at the Champions ?s visual texts, their layout, display, tactile, and interpretive technologies (i.e. text panel, text labels and captions, artifacts, video/audio) , their intertextualities, and the spaces behind their production (i.e. object files) . In doing so, Champions will be examined for its key themes, truth claims, complexities, and silences; or the ways in which the National Portrait Gallery embodies, advances, and complicates particular productions of athletes, Americans, and champions. Champions ?s exhibition technologies and effects of t ruth . Champions is accessible via two sets of stairs ? one on either end of the exhibition ? and an elevator which opens at the exhibition?s midpoint. The ?main? entrance is marked by an exhibition poster featuring Babe Ruth (1) 12, and an introductory text panel (2) that outlines the purpose of the exhibition and justif ies the inclusion of sports in the National Portrait Gallery and within a dedicated gallery. In 11 Both the video commentary and artifacts on loan from the NMAH have been removed from the exhibition since my initial visits in 2007 and 2008. 12 Parenthetical numerical references denote the location within Champions (see Figure 4.4). 120 plural first person, the script situates sport in the making of a collective we and a united States, and emphasizes achievement (on and off the field), competit ion, and triumph over adversity. The full text is as follows: Americans are passionate about sports. Whether it?s baseball or boxing, hockey or horse racing, we delight in celebrating the triumphs and record - breaking feats of each new generation of champio ns and measuring their achievements against the performances of earlier athletic stars. Regardless of our ages or backgrounds, we share a common bond as sports fans when we experience the exhilaration of hard -fought victories or the disappointment of heart-breaking defeats. Through it all, we draw inspiration from the lives and achievements of our nation?s great sports figures, whose competitive spirit and dogged pursuit of excellence mirror our own struggles and aspirations. With this selection of paintings and sculpture from its collection, the National Portrait Gallery salutes a diverse mix of legendary individuals whose impact has extended beyond the ring, the court, and the diamond to become a part of the larger story of the vibrant life and culture o f our nation. ( field notes). The framed portraits that follow are hung in a single row along the neutrally painted interior wall of the U-shaped mezzanine gallery space. S culptures (and their partition walls) , and vitrine-encased artifacts are positioned along the railing of the narrow balcony area. This minimalist space individualizes both the image and viewer , and encourages a contemplative and focused way of seeing where ?viewers are produced as contemplative eyes and paintings as objects to be contempl ated? (Rose, 2007, p. 186). Corresponding text labels ? key in producing object s and images in particular 121 ways (Rose, 2007) ? are situated nearby each of the portraits and artifacts for reference. While ?apparently innocuous? (Rose, 2007, p. 186), these pieces of information provided by the National Portrait Gallery?s exhibition team work to prioritize the sitter, rather than the artist, by supplying (in order, and in descending font size): the sitter?s name (also usually the title) and life dates; the sitter?s birthplace; a (sporting) biography of the sitter crafted by museum staff in a Smithsonian-suggested 140 words or less (museum staff, personal communication, May 7, 2008); the artist?s name and life dates, the medium and date of the artwork; and the Gallery?s accession number (signifying the year of acquisition and its inclusion in particular collections) and credit (if credit is due; e.g. if the portrait was gifted to the museum). The portraits are arranged in a loosely chronological order, beginning with Helen Wills Moody (3; Edward McCarter, 1936), Ty Cobb (4; Joseph Kernan, 1916) and Walter Camp (5: Albert Hampson, c. 1960, after 1925 photo), and ending with Arthur Ashe (29; Louis Briel, 1993), Carlton Fisk (30; Susan Miller-Havens, 1993) and Nolan Ryan (31; Ruth Munson, 1994-1997). Taking up the entire middle wall, the centerpiece of the exhibition is the large Dempsey - Willard Fight (18; James Montgomery Flagg, 1944) canvas. The painting is flanked on either side by artifacts. To the right hangs a photograph of Dempsey in front of the painting in its original location at his Broadway restaurant (18a). To the left, souvenirs from his restaurant (a postcard and matchbook featuring the painting, and a shrimp fork from Dempsey?s restaurant), and a cast of Dempsey?s fist are situated in a covered display vitrine. Along with Joe Louis?s gloves (6a), and Arthur Ashe?s tennis racquet (29a), these 122 artifacts act as interpretive technologies, adding authenticity and extending the truth claims of Champions with ?real? objects. Also at the mid- point of the exhibition is a large screen television running Wilbon?s commentary on a continuous lo op. Q uietly broadcasting his narratives throughout the Great Hall, the commentary breaks the contemplative silence of the museum (alongside the video narratives filtering down the hall from Bravo!) and makes them available for visitors throughout the Champions exhibition. Photographic banners are hung overhead down the right and left sides of the gallery. However, the portrait sitters featured in them aren?t identified until midway through the exhibition, and are void of the biographies featured on the text labels of the primary portraits13. Contrary to the artifacts and video commentary that expand on the sitters already on display, the banners unfurled overhead extend the exhibition narrative through an introduction of athletes and portraits absent from the main texts. In doing so, they supplement the lack of diversity on display ? in regards to the sex and race of the sitter, the range of sports and sporting eras, and the variety of mediums ? that can be at least partly attributed to conservation concerns caused by the newly renovated and uncovered 3rd floor skylights. Sporting s itters, commissioned champions, and spaces b ehind . The Champions exhibition?s main visual texts include 25 paintings, 3 sculptures, and 30 sitters (three of the portraits feature two athletes; Ely Culbertson 13 The text label listing the names, birth and death dates, artist, medium, and acknowledgements was moved in line with the first banner after the television and artifacts were removed. 123 and Josephine Dillon Culbertson; Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris; and Larry Bird and Wayne Gretz ky). The sitters on display are mostly male athletes (28 of 30) participating in traditionally masculine American sports (11 baseball; 3 each of boxing and golf; 2 each of basketball, football, hockey, horse racing and tennis; and, 1 bridge player). There are only two women in Champions ? s primary portraits ? bridge player Josephine Culbertson (featured alongside her husband Ely) , and tennis great Helen Wills Moody. The exhibition also features mostly white athletes, coaches , and managers (22 of 30) , and only white female athletes (2 of 2). Identifying seven athletes as African American (Joe Louis, Jim Brown, Oscar Robertson, Reggie Jackson, Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe), one as Latin American (Juan Marichal), and three as adopted internationals (Josephine?s counter part Ely from Romania and hockey players Bobby Hull and Wayne Gretz ky from Canada) Champions lacks the ?diverse mix of legendary individuals? (field notes) its text label purports it embodies. Champions has been on display in its current location since the museum re- opened in 2006. Located on the top floor of the museum, the exhibition space was designated during the museum renovation to provide a more cohesive space for the sport- related portraiture to reside in. However, due to the amount of natural ligh t allowed in through the newly- uncovered skylights situated above the open balcony space, Champions (and Bravo!) both suffer from conservation issues that prohibit the display of photographs, and restricts the display of portraits to paintings and sculptures (museum staff, personal communication, May 7, 2008). The impacts of collection policies, practices, and placement decisions have therefore been significant 124 in regards to the exhibition?s possible visual narratives. Photography has dominated sports journalism since the mid-1900s and makes up a significant portion of the National Portrait Gallery?s collection of sport -related portraiture (193 of 328) . Absent of photography, Champions instead relies upon the fewer, less contemporary, and less diverse sporting sitters depicted through paintings and sculptures (61 of 328). Courtesy of the now defunct ?decade-dead? rule, the portraits on display in Champions work against the Gallery?s efforts to move away from a prematurely gray museum (Lubow, 2006) . Instead, t he portraits represent a more inequitable era in the US, when women and minority athletes were underrepresented in sport and sporting imagery (more so than today), through their depiction of sitters who pre-date civil rights and Title IX accomplishments , which shaped, and were shaped by, advances in sport. While some of the limited number of minority athletes on display are depicted as boundary breakers in their text labels, the overall theme of Champions runs contrary to Gallery?s focus on social justice i n its other galleries, and their use of athletes and sporting portraits in their creation of such narratives. Limited to its collection of paintings and sculptures, the National Portrait Gallery?s champion candidates dwindled, and are ultimately (over)represented through a selection of T IME commissioned paintings of white male athletes. TIME after TIME. Representing nearl y half (13 of 28 primary texts; 3 of 12 photographic banners) of the portraits in Champions and a quarter (83 of 328) of the Gallery - identified sport and recreation sitters, the T IME magazine cover collection also represents that largest portion of sport-related painted portraiture. Of 328 sport - 125 related portraits in the National Portrait Gallery?s co llection, only 55 are paintings. Of those 55 paintings, 38 are from the T IME magazine cover collection.14 Due to the aforementioned conservation issues, only paintings and sculptures (an additional 6 portraits; 1 of them a T IME cover) were available for display in Champions . The portraits on display in the exhibition, then, represent 13 of 38 T IME cover paintings, 11 of 17 painted portraits not in the T IME collection, and 3 of the 6 available portrait sculptures (not including T IME ?s sculpted cover portrait of the Fischer-Spassky World Chess Champ ionship match). Therefore, curators had a limited number of options available outside of the T IME Magazine cover collection. The 8 portraits (6 paintings and 2 sculptures) outside of the T IME collection not selected for display include an additional Arthur Ashe portrait, and 7 portraits whose sitters either signified limited sporting significance, whose sporting significance was not the primary biography for which they were collected, or were not clearly represented as sporting champions in their depictions. These include: 3 portraits (1 painting and 2 casts) of George Luks, a painter, and lesser known, boxer; writer -conservationist, Ed Zern; portrait photographer and Olympic fencing participant Nickolas Muray, depicted in a suit and tie; fighter pilot and race car driver Eddie Rickenbacker, depicted in his military uniform; and politician, financier, and thoroughbred horse racing enthusiast William Collins Whitney, painted formally in his suit and spectacles. Limiting the available selections for Champions to paintings and 14 There have been 6 sporting portraits collected by the National Portrait Gallery since the exhibition was mounted in 2006 that are not included in my tally of 55 sport paintings. These include portraits of: Tommy Lasorda, Pedro Martinez, Stan ?The Man? Musial, Paul Newman, Mel Patton, a nd Bobby Locke. Musial, Patton, and Locke are part of the T IME Magazine cover collection. 126 sculptures, therefore, also limited the selection of sitters to ?the compelling variety of personalities and art that have distinguished TIME covers for more than three-quarters of a century? (Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2005). Though the TIME cover collection initiated its gifting to the National Portrait Gallery in 1978, who was selected, and the ways in which sporting sitters were visualized, were shaped by the commission directive (i.e. the cover story), selection of artist, and artistic interpretation well before curatorial choices led to their display in Champions. Calculated to capture the ?zeitgeist of the week while surviving the judgment of history?, the TIME cover portrait has become an extension of its journalism and e mbodies the magazine and its founder?s beliefs ?that many stories can best be told though people? (Muller as cited in TIME, 1998, p. 5). Similar to the Gallery?s mission to collect, preserve, exhibit, and (sometimes) commission portraits of remarkable Amer icans, and to tell histories through art and biography, TIME balances newsworthiness, aesthetics sensibilities, and its commercial imperatives, through a prioritization of the individual. Additionally, to provide appropriately representative cover art, TIME selects artists as carefully as the stories they are commissioned to interpret, and enlists contemporaries who can adequately capture the essence of the selected sitter (Grunwald as cited in TIME, 1969 ). Described in the entry text of the online exhibition, and the foreword of the companion catalogue to the National Portrait Gallery?s traveling Faces of TIME: 75 Years of TIME Magazine Cover Portraits, respectively, the cover portrait process is captured in the following descriptions. Though lengthy, they lend insight to the complexities involved in the construction of cover art and the making of champions at 127 the National Portrait Gallery: A top priority of the magazine has always been the reporting of newsworthy people, and this has been true ever since TIME?s inaugural issue of March 3, 1923, when Joe Cannon, the once power-wielding speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, appeared on the first cover. In hasty need of a portrait of Cannon, the editors borrowed a preexisting portrait done in 1921. Yet what soon evolved at TIME, and became a long tradition, was the commissioning of portraiture exclusively for the cover of each weekly issue. TIME?s Man of the Year edition is still always a best-seller and underscores the magazine?s founding philosophy that newsmakers inherently make for good cover stories. (Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2005) The most eagerly awaited event in the editorial cycle at TIME is always the selection of the cover. Late in the week, usually on Friday night, editors and art directors converge in a conference room to argue the relative importance of major stories, to opine on the artistic and journalistic merits of various images, and finally to hone the cover billings that, one prays, will make the next issue irresistible to readers. Even when the choice of subject matter is easy ? who can argue against, say, putting the President-elect on the cover after his victory? ? there may be animated debates over which words and image best capture the moment. When there is either no news or too much news, the discussions can go on for hours and the decisions can be excruciatingly difficult. (Muller in TIME, 1998, p. 5) However, TIME covers have changed over the years, moving away from their 128 penchant for portraiture since the 1970s. While the magazine still features custom covers and newsworthy individuals, its covers more closely reflect the theme and issue (rather than individual) oriented trends in TIME reporting and within journalism generally (Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, 2005), and rely more heavily on photography, and computer generated or manipulated graphics. Thus, the TIME cover portraits that are paintings, and could be included in the making of Champions, are from TIME covers commissioned between 1956 and 1985 (t hough only Billy Martin, and Larry Bird and Wayne Gretzky represent the 1980s), and are representative of athletes and cover stories from that time period. While the artists who created these representations are invisible in the exhibition space, other than the brief mention of the artist?s name and life dates on the text labels, insight to the processes of commissioning and painting the portraits on display in Champions can be gained from accessing the portrait object files in the National Portrait Gallery?s spaces behind the exhibition. Object(ive) files. Filled with printed information on the accession and condition of a work of art, the history of its ownership (i.e. provenance) and exhibition, and information on its artist, and sitter ? in the case of the National Portrait Gallery, object files are an important institutional technology. As a process of ?archivalization? (Sekula as cited in Rose, 2007) , object files, their information, and the process of compiling and storing this information, are institutional technologies that shape the way works are selected for display (i.e. the way that images are described, assigned distinctions, and entered into a searchable database), and the ways they can be interpreted while on 129 display (i.e. by providing the information for text labels). Most of the information on sitters included in the object files of portraits on display in Champions is from popular, biographically-oriented, secondary sources. These include: (biographical) Encyclopedia of World Biography, Current Biography, and The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives; (popular) New York Times (including their biographical service and obituaries), Life, and (even) Wikipedia; (sporting) Biographical Dictionary of American Sports, Sporting News, ESPN biographies, and Hall of Fame or sport governing bodies websites; and , (institutional) the Smithsonian?s Biography and Genealogy Master Index, and text labels from pr evious exhibitions (field notes). Given the focus of the object files on biography, and the focus of athlete biographies on their sporting accomplishments, these sources highlight the sitters? sporting achievements through a litany of quantifiable successes (e.g. runs batted in, earned run average, touchdowns thrown, championships won). Purposefully w ritten in the specialized lay language (Rose, 2007) of sports journalism (museum staff, personal communication, December 12, 2007), the biographical information provided in the object files, and the quantified, highlight-reel laden biographies of athletes most widely available, shaped what, and how, information could be presented. Additionally, object files (sometimes) contain information regarding the artistic process, which can provide further insight to an intended (by the artist) reading. While this information is not provided for viewers to the Champions exhibition, artistic practices shape the way a sitter is initially represented, and can later be interpreted. For example, Arthur Ashe?s (Louis Briel, 1993) object file 130 includes an essay written by the artist (field notes; cf. Briel, 1999). In his essay, Briel discusses the sitting with Arthur Ashe: I had suggested casual dress, but again I let Arthur make the choice, because portraits best reflect the truth when they're not over-planned. He appeared at my studio wearing a sport jacket and tie for his evening appearance to receive a humanitarian award. I suggested he remove his jacket. "Shall I take off the tie?" he asked. " No, let's leave it on," I replied. When I saw the unexpected combination of white shirt, tie and racquet, I knew it was symbolically correct to describe the last chapter of Arthur Ashe's life - on the lecture circuit to promote the causes in which he believed, in a hurry, yet serene, always supported by the acclaim from his tennis days. Further, the design I chose for the painting is squared up - straight on - direct - like Arthur Ashe. It is the portrait of a gentleman. (Briel, 1999, p. 4) One of only a handful of portraits in the exhibition and the National Portrait Gallery?s collection of sporting portraiture that represents an athlete outside of their athletic ?prime?, Briel?s (1999) recounting of his session with Ashe ? including stories of the pose coming about after Ashe leaned on his racket for support, as he was tired and not feeling well that day; and how he repainted over a once vibrant background color with a ?soft, almost ethereal blue violet? (p. 4) to sooth his grief after the passing of Ashe ? are insights that complicate Ashe?s official sporting biography; and complicate the narrative of champions in American society generally. Furthermore, they make visible the creative practices involved in making a representation, and making a biography. In contrast, the text label word limit and suppression of artistic 131 intentions and biographies, and the evident yet unacknowledged impact of conservation issues in the Champions exhibition, restricts the biographies available for display, limits readings available to viewers, renders the painted representation and biographical text labels of the sitters as truthful, and situates the National Portrait Gallery (and its staff and administrators) as experts. Producing Champions at the National Portrait Gallery In the previous sections I have addressed the various institutional apparatuses and technologies that constitute and practice (respectively; Rose, 2007) the National Portrait Gallery?s discourse. These include: the missions of the Smithsonian Institution generally, and the National Portrait Gallery specifically, that shape collection and exhibition practices; the genre of portraiture, and the subgenres of sport art and sporting portraiture, that limit the available representations (quantity and quality); and the technologies (e.g. display, layout, tactile, and spaces behind) that create truthful accounts. The final section of this chapter will address the visual and textual technologies of interpretation that work with the aforementioned technologies to produce Champions? truth claims. These include (in order of importance), the text panel and labels, exhibition video, artifacts, photographs and photo banners, and exhibition collateral. Produced by museum staff, technologies of interpretation work in conjunction with other exhibition technologies to direct how viewers look at, and interpret, objects on display ? in this case, sporting portraits and their athlete-sitters. It is through these technologies that the institution?s discourse is delivered most directly; where the barrier between the National Portrait Gallery and their intend ed audience is the most 132 permeable. While these technologies? effects of truth have already been established (utilizing DAII), they need to be furthered examined to better understand their truth claims and impacts. Thus, the role of interpretive technologies in creating specific accounts of the social world will be examined in this section (utilizing DAI). In particular, the social difference (i.e. who is a champion, and why?) produced through intertextual interactions between visual texts and their visual and textual technologies of interpretation will be analyzed through an examination of their key themes, truth claims, absences, and complexities. First, the key themes and truth claims emerging from the Champions exhibition?s primary visual texts (portraits) and technologies of interpretation (primarily text panels and labels) will be interpreted. As ?discourse analysis also involves reading for what is not seen or said? (Rose, 2007, p. 165), the productivity of Champions?s absences ? ?what remains invisible, to whom, and why? (Haraway, 1997, p. 202)? ? will also be examined. Finally, Champions?s complexities, contradictions, struggles, and persuasions will be discussed, and examined for their possibilities in producing interpretive flexibility and more inclusive American champions. Interpreting texts, constructing key themes, and looking for invisibilities. My analysis of the portraits and interpretive technologies identified two major key themes: ( 1) rugged individuals, and (2) exceptional(ist) Americans. Each of the themes are additionally supported by a number of sub-themes. This section will first discuss the ways Champions produces its athlete-sitters as rugged individuals through an emphasis on their physicality; accomplished through their vis ual identification as athletes [ Men in uniform] , a focus on their physical attributes [ Bigger, faster, 133 stronger] and prime athletic years [Prime times], the quantification of their successes [Statistically significant], and the qualification of their achievements [Defining moments]. While the birthplace indicated on their text label geographically locates (most of) the athletes as ?born in the USA?, the second key theme connects the athletes to the ?competitive spirit and dogged pursuit of excellence [that] mirror our own struggles and aspirations? (Champions , text panel, field notes). Aligned with the mission of the National Portrait Gallery, the production of Champions?s athletes as exceptional(ist) Americans extends neoliberal values through their: colorful character descriptions and heroic efforts [Admirable (American) attributes]; their sporting (national, and international) dominance [Simply the best]; and their contributions both in and out of the ring, court, and diamond [Beyond the insert-sporting- metaphor]. Rugged individuals. Men in uniform 15. Champions has a distinctive interpretive repertoire. Influenced by portraiture?s insistence on creating a readily identifiable likeness, the sitters are identified as athletes through a number of visual tropes: in action, in uniform, and in situ. With few exceptions (e.g. Moody, Nelson), each of exhibition portraits features its sitters in at least one, if not all three, of these tropes. For 15 To emphasize the dominance of men the Champions exhibition, I have opted to title this sub-theme ?men in uniform? rather than ?wo/men in uniform?. Additionally, the only two women featured in the primary exhibition portraits are not (clearly) depicted in uniform. Helen Wills Moody is depicted from only the neck up, and Josephine Culbertson sits next to her card-holding husband Ely in an evening gown and feather stole. If Ely?s three-piece tuxedo is any indication of the contract bridge uniform of the time, then Josephine may well be pictured in game-appropriate attire. However, her location in the portrait seems to instead identify her as a well-dressed spectator. 134 example, Ryan is featured in his Texas Rangers uniform, delivering a pitch from the mound during a game, and, although Yogi Berra?s portrait is a static sculpted bust, the trademark pinstripes and NY script of the Yankees are etched across the surface of his uniform and hat. Though the mid - stride, - skate, - shot, and - strike poses are the most obvious visual indicators of the sitters? physicality, the attire, equipment, and locations they are pictured with, and within, also mark the sitters as active and athletic bodies. The collective physicality on display in Champions is a noticeable departure from other galleries in the National Portrait Gallery, where a motionless, and often aging, population of achievers gaze out at visitors from their perch along museum walls. Bigger, faster, stronger. Strengthening the physicality visible in the portraits, the exhibition?s interpretive texts adopt a journalistic approach to describe the athletes? physical feats and features. For example, the museum- authored text labels tout Hull?s ?superb upper- body strength?[and] legendary quickness?, Mantle?s ?phenomenal power?, Connors?s ?quickness, power?and devastating ground strokes?, Nicklaus?s ?superb athletic talent?, and Brown?s ?strength, speed, and agility [that] made him all but unstoppable as he powered his way over, around, or through his opponents? defenses? (field notes). Even Shoemaker?s stature ? ?only four feet, eleven inches tall and weighing just ninety- eight pounds? ? is positioned as a positive physical feature for a jockey. According to Wilbon?s commentary, Shoemaker was as ?pound for pound the strongest athlete? (field notes). In comparison, Nicklaus?s ?keen strategic ability and phenomenal powers of concentration? and similar references to the sitters? mental skills are rare and fleeting 135 (field notes). Finally, while sitters? physiques aren?t featured prominently in the portraits, and muscle definition isn?t exaggerated, or even visible except when uniforms offer less coverage (e.g. boxers Louis and Demsey, basketball player Robinson), Champions display a limited range of body shapes and sizes. This fairly one-size-fits-all approach to the selection and depiction of athletes limits the ways that champions can be imagined, and emphasizes the exhibition?s, and sporting portraiture?s, emphasis on athletes in their prime. Prime times. Though portraits are usually acquired by the National Portrait Gallery in the years following a sitter?s athletic retirement (or death, in the case of the former decade-dead policy), they are most often commissioned and/or completed during their active careers ? often after achieving a major career milestone. It is these years of intense athletic achievement that are captured in the Champions portraits and text labels16. For example, Moody?s career is defined by her first American championship in 1923 and her retirement in 1938 (text label, field notes). Her portrait was completed in 1936, and was acquired by the National Portrait Gallery in 1999, after her death in 1998. While the terra-cotta sculpture belies her athletic abilities, the text label that accompanies it hails her career achievements, including ?180 consecutive matches without dropping so much as a single set?[and] thirty -one Grand Slam tennis titles?. Even portraits completed after retirement still represent athletes in their heyday. Adopting the visua l tropes discussed above, Shoemaker?s 1994 portrait features him racing down the homestretch even though he retired in 16 See Appendix A for a Champions portraiture timeline that compares the sitters? birth and death dates, the portrait commission and accession dates, and the span of career highlights outlined by the exhibition?s text labels. 136 1986, and Ryan?s pitch delivery is depicted in his 1997 portrait, well after his last game with the Texas Rangers in 1993. Also, though it may seem that Camp, Stengel, and Martin are represented as past their prime in their portraits, it is their post-play contributions (as the ?Father of American Football?, and baseball managers respectively) that have earned them a place in the National Portrait Gallery, and are, thus, highlighted in their portraits and text labels. However, when the likeness of a sitter is misaligned with the biography approved by the National Portrait Gallery, interpretive technologies can correct the narrative. For example, Nelson?s portrait depicts the athlete 28 years after his final golf tournament17. His text label, however, focuses exclusively on his accomplishments while a player. Statistically significant. The final sub-theme supporting the production of athletes as rugged individuals is the use of quantifiable successes in the construction of their physicality. This definition of success and championhood is foreshadowed, and naturalized, in the exhibition?s introductory text panel, explaining how ?we [Americans] delight in celebrating the triumphs and record-breaking feats of each new generation of champions and measuring their achievements against the performances of earlier athletic stars" (field notes). As the primary textual trope, athletic accomplishments are rattled off portrait after portrait: ?thirty-one Grand Slam tennis titles? (Moody); 892 stolen bases and ?twelve American League batting titles? (Cobb); ?six consecutive seasons of twenty or more victories? (Roberts); ?fifty-four home runs? (Mantle); ?four home-run titles? and sixty-one home runs (Maris); ?191 17 Though not acknowledged by the National Portrait Gallery in the Champions exhibition, Nelson?s portrait was completed the same year of his induction to the World Golf Hall of Fame (1974). 137 wins? (Marichal); ?ten American League pennants and seven World Series championships in just twelve seasons? (Stengel); ?an unprecedented six Masters trophies? (Nicklaus); ?more than 100 rushing touchdowns? (Brown); five Kentucky Derby victories (Hartack); ?26,710 points? (Roberston); ?eighteen [single-season] tournament titles? (Nelson); four Masters, one U.S. Open, and two British Open titles in six years (Palmer); ?563 career home runs? (Jackson); ?fourteen pennants and ten World Series championships? (Berra); ?five U.S. Open singles titles?two Wimbledon singles crowns? (Connors); ?first three-time winner of the heavyweight crown? (Ali); ?five division titles, two American League pennants, and one World Series championship with the five franchises he piloted? (Martin); ?8,833 winning rides? (Shoemaker); ?named to the All-Star team eighteen times? (Gretzky); ?twelve All-Star games? (Bird); ?caught a record-setting 2,226 games? (Fisk); 5,714 strikeouts (Ryan). The sitters? stellar statistics are further supported through the recounting of champion-defining moments, such as Roberts?s ?pitching heroics? that led the Phillies to ?their first National League pennant in thirty-five years?, Maris and Mantle?s 1961 home run race, ?Mr. October?s [Jackson]?postseason brilliance?, and Ashe?s twenty-six aces in the final of his first U.S. Open championship and ?memorable triumph over Jimmy Connors at Wimbledon in 1975? (field notes). These extraordinary achievements are the primary standards set for success, popular and professional recognition, and inclusion into the National Portrait Gallery. Furthermore, the statistics offer a quantifiable measurement, and heralding, of physical abilities. Embodied through key visual and textual themes, Champions produces champions as rugged individuals, and rugged individualism as the standard- 138 bearer for Americans and their sporting champions. Equally, the physical ability of the exhibition?s athlete -sitters to accomplish these feats prioritizes individuals and individualism, and aligns Champions, and the National Portrait Gallery, with neoliberal discourse, and uniquely American values. Exceptional(ist) Americans. Admirable (American) attributes. Positioned as characteristics ?we ? aspire to, find inspiration in, and have in common with the sporting sitters featured in Champions (text panel, field notes), competitiveness, determination, and hard work are highlighted in the exhibition?s interpretive texts. For example, Ashe?s ?keen competitive spirit?, and Moody?s ?steely determination? are highlighted. Additionally, Hartack is described as a ?fierce competitor? with a n ?intense determination to win?, and Fisk as ?a tenacious competitor with an impr essive work ethic? ( text labels, field notes). These traits are in turn linked to the ability of the exhibition champions to rise to the occasion and overcome the odds ? conquering physical and social limitations to triumph over adversity. Physicality is once again emphasized through a foc us on early achievements, lengthy careers, improbably victories, and post -injury performances. In comparison, the social limitations overcome by the exhibitio n?s champions are less visible (though still promoted as possible), making an appeara nce only in Ashe?s text labels where his journey from ?the segregated playground courts of his youth to the pinnacle of the tennis world? is chronicled. Rather, the early achievements of Moody ? ?only seventeen when she won her first American singles championship? ? and Ali?s upset of Sonny Liston at ?just twenty -two years old? are celebrated. Shoemaker?s early 139 achievements and lengthy career are both highlighted in his portrait?s text label: ?just twenty-three when he won the derby crown in 1955, Shoemaker was fifty -four when he rode to his fourth and final derby victory in 1986?. Also, the age -defying feats of Nicklaus and Connors are incredulously offered in their text labels, where Nicklaus captured the last of his ?unprecedented six Masters trophies?by a single stroke at the age of forty-six?, and Connors was ?still competitive at thirty-nine, when he made it to the semifinals of the 1991 U.S. Open? (field notes ). Additionally, Palmer?s ?amazing ability to surge from behind? is credited with making him an ?overwhelming favorite with the public?, and ?underdog? Demps ey?s David -and- Goliath-like victory over Willard ?who was five inches taller and fifty-eight pounds heavier than his opponent and considered unbeatable? is relished. Finally, described as ?one of major league baseball's most capable and durable catchers? Fisk?s accomplishments are categorized as ?all the more remarkable because he repeatedly overcame career-threatening injuries? (field notes), and evidenced in Fisk?s text label as follows: In 1975, after bat tling back from reconstructive knee surgery and a broken arm, Fisk gave Red Sox fans a never-to-be-forgotten thrill in the sixth game of the World Series when he drilled a twelfth-inning home run to win the game. (field notes) While Hargreaves and Vertinsk y (2007) explain that there is ?no denying that injury has now become an inescapable part, not only of the careers of elite sportsmen and women, but of all athletes? (p. 17), the naturalization of pushed physical limits by the 140 exhibition?s interpretive texts is complicit in both neoliberal and masculine discourses already hard at work in sport. Simply the best. Promoted for their admirable attributes and physical feats, the sitter?s in Champions are put forward as the best that their sport, and America, has to offer. The Gallery explains, ?When Muhammad Ali proclaimed "I am the greatest," it was hard not to agree? (text label, field notes). Likewise, the assault of accomplishments lavished on Champions visitors renders the Gallery?s selections of the ?greatest? and ?best? as hard to question. Additionally, the exhibition and collection?s focus on the ?big three-and-a-half? American sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey conflates the nation?s best as the world?s greatest. For example, baseball heroes Cobb, Roberts, Marichal, and Stengel are, in turn, described as ?one of the greatest all-around performers in baseball history?, ?one of the era?s best pitchers?, ?one of the best pitchers in baseball throughout the 1960s?, and ?one of baseball?s greatest managers? (field notes). Elsewhere, football player Brown is likened to Superman, and ?hockey great? Gretzky18 and ?basketball star? Bird are declared ?Simply the Best?; agreeing with, and referencing, the title of the TIME cover that featured their portrait. Beyond the insert-sporting-metaphor. The final sub-theme supporting the production of champions as exceptional(ist) Americans is the exhibition?s claim that it ?salutes a diverse mix of legendary individuals whose impact has extended beyond 18 Wayne Gretzky is Canadian, and is acknowledged as such by the birthplace listed on his text label (Brantford, Ontario, Canada) and his depiction in an Edmonton Oilers uniform. However, it is his prominence in the United State?s National Hockey League that is highlighted by the Gallery?s interpretive texts (text label and video commentary), and paves his admission to the National Portrait Gallery?s collection. 141 the ring, the court, and the diamond to become a part of the larger story of the vibrant life and culture of our nation" ( Champoins, text panel, field notes). Thusfar, my analysis of the exhibition?s key themes and truth claims has pointed to a focus within the ring, the court, and the diamond, which has emphasized the sitters? physical feats and statistical successes rather than any impact (particularly social) that extends beyond their sport. This trend continues with the National Portrait Gallery?s focus on sitters? contributions to the growth, popularity, and style of their respective sports both nationally and internationally. The inclusion of Ely and Josephine Dillon Culbertson in Champions is due to their success in ?transforming bridge from a parlor game into an international phenomenon? (text label, field notes). Highlighting their skills as players, and Ely?s entrepreneurial endeavors, their portrait text label attributes the Culbertsons, and the ?unprecedented media coverage? of their high- profile matches, with ?ignit[ing] a contract bridge craze that remained unabated for more than a decade? (text label, field notes). The text labels for Hull and Palmer also discuss their contributions to increasing the popularity of their sports. Hull?s ?electrifying displays of power and speed on the ice? is credited with ?spark[ing] professional hockey?s huge popularity boom in the United States in the 1960s? ( text label, field notes). Similarly Palmer?s ?thrilling brand of ?go for broke? play and his charismatic app eal?propelled professional golf to unprecedented heights of popularity in the 1960s? ( text label, field notes). In particular, Palmer?s interpretive texts connect him, and his career, to the increasingly mediated nature of professional sport in the mid- 20th century. In 142 short, Palmer ?brought golf to television? (Wilbon video commentary, field notes). As Palmer?s text label explains: at a time when televised coverage of the pro tour was in its infancy, Palmer succeeded in making golf an exciting spectator sport for home audiences as well as for the legions of fans known as ?Arnie's Army? who turned out to follow their hero from tee to green. (field notes) Likewise, Nelson?s label situates his development of the modern golf swing within contemporary technological advances; ?at a time when clubs with steel shafts were replacing the more flexible hickory-shafted models of an earlier era? (field notes). In tennis, Moody and Connors are both credited with influencing the culture of the sport ? Moody who ?elevated the sport to a new competitive level with her hard-hitting style of play?, and Connors whose (un-champion-like) ?brash, bad-boy behavior? that ?shattered the game's time-honored decorum? (field notes). Finally, Walter Camp is Champions?s most obvious example of a ?legendary individual? whose impact has extended beyond his accomplishments as a player, but within the confines of his sport. As the ?undisputed ?Father of American Football?? Camp?s ?off-the-field contributions to the emerging sport? are outlined in detail in his text label: A member of the Intercollegiate Football Association?s rules committee for forty-eight years beginning in 1877, Camp spearheaded the initiatives that reduced teams from fifteen to eleven players and created the key position of quarterback. He instituted the line of scrimmage, suggested a system of downs 143 to govern possession of the ball, devised the present-day point system, and is credited with developing the distinctive gridiron pattern of the playing field. Most important to the construction of Camp as an exceptional(ist) American champion, however, is the National Portrait Gallery?s acknowledgement of him as the individual most influential in ?shaping the structure of the modern [American football] game? through his ?innovative rule changes that transformed English rugby into a uniquely American game [emphasis added]? (text label field notes). Despite the National Portrait Gallery?s claim to include a ?diverse mix of legendary individuals whose impact has extended beyond the ring, the court, and the diamond?, there is neither much diversity, or social impact, featured in the exhibition. However, the sitters that represent the diversity that is visible in Champions are equally asked to embody the exhibition?s claim that champions are ?part of the larger story of the vibrant life and culture of our nation? (text panel, field notes). Of the seven African American athletes, one Latin American, and two women represented in Champions all but three (Reggie Jackson, Oscar Robinson, and Josephine Culbertson) are put to work qualifying this claim. For example, Helen Wills Moody is credited with being the ?first American woman to achieve international fame as an athlete? (Moody text label, field notes; see also Wilbon video commentary), finding success in tennis during the golden age of boxing and baseball in the 1920s, and showing women it was okay to be athletes; that it was okay to sweat (Wilbon video commentary, field notes). Juan Marichal is noted as being the ?first Latin American player inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame via the regular selection process? (Marichal text label, field notes; see also Wilbon video commentary), and 144 characterized as the father of the Dominican Republic baseball players American professional baseball is now accustomed to (e.g. Sammy Sosa, Pedro Martinez; Wilbon video commentary, field notes). Also, while Jim Brown?s portrait and text label promote the traits of a physical champion, Wilbon?s commentary provides insight to his abilities as a social champion by recounting how Brown helped to broker a peace agreement between the Crips and Bloods ? at his house ? after the 1992 Los Angeles riots. In particular, however, African American athletes (in chronological order of significance) Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, and Arthur Ashe bear the weight of Champions?s ?beyond the insert-sporting-metaphor? claims. Joe Louis?s initial loss and eventual triumph against German Max Schmeling are the focus of his portrait?s text label; though it is the rematch in 1938 that moves Louis?s impact beyond the ring. Acknowledging both the racial and national significance of the fight, the text label explains the event as follows: When he reentered the ring against Schmeling in 1938, far more was at stake than a world heavyweight crown [emphasis added]. Schmeling came to the contest as Adolf Hitler's champion of Aryan supremacy while Louis, the first African American boxer to win the enthusiastic support of black and white Americans alike, was embraced as democracy's standard-bearer. Louis struck like lightning when the fight began. Staggering Schmeling with a sequence of tremendous blows, he took only 124 seconds to claim one of the sweetest victories in boxing history. As reporter Heywood Broun rightly observed, Louis had ?exploded the Nordic myth with a boxing glove?. (field notes) 145 Ali is explicitly tied to the exhibition?s mission when he is described as a ?force beyond [emphasis added] the ring? (text label, field notes). His interpretive texts go on to identify him as a ?poet?, ?prophet?, ?resurrector? (Wilbon video commentary, field notes), and ?symbol of conscience? (text label, field notes) ? the latter in reference to his draft evasion conviction, and subsequent reversal and redemption. His ?gift of gab? (Wilbon video commentary), ?braggadocio? (text label; Wilbon video commentary), and ?rhyming banter? (text label) are also credited for his public popularity and extended social reach (field notes). Finally, Arthur Ashe?s impact off the court, including his dedication to humanitarian causes, and leadership in the fight against AIDS (Ashe text label), are highlighted along with his ?superb natural talent?, rise from ?the segregated playground courts of his youth?, and accomplishments as the first African American to win the U.S. Open (Ashe text label), and the first to win Wimbledon (Wilbon video commentary) (field notes). Ashe?s post-career impact is emphasized by his portrait as well ? and is unique to Champions. An exception to the ?prime times? theme discussed above, Ashe is painted out of his uniform (though with a tennis racquet) and in ?real-time? 13 years after ?a heart attack?forced his retirement in 1980? text label, field notes). The National Portrait Gallery thus, offers a consistent, comprehensive, and robust biography of Ashe through their collection and interpretation of Louis Briel?s 1993 portrait; a biography better-suited to offering a champion ?whose impact has extended beyond the ring, the court, and the diamond to become a part of the larger story of the vibrant life and culture of our nation? (Champions text panel, field notes). Discussed by Michael Wilbon as voice that is 146 still missed (video commentary, field notes), the representation and interpretation of Arthur Ashe in Champions is also a reminder of the absence of alternative representations, traits, subjectivities , and persons invisible in the National Portrait Gallery?s current construction of champions. Notably absent. Together, Champions?s key visual and textual themes construct sporting champions as rugged individuals and exceptional(ist) Americans by highlighting the traits that make them significant contributors to American history and culture. The above analysis of the exhibition?s key themes has rendered physicality as the priority in the National Portrait Gallery?s efforts to collect and exhibit champions, by contributing success to physical prowess and measurable efforts. Furthermore, athletic rugged individuality is emphasized by success on the field, and on- the- field successes are characterized as exceptional(ist) American achievements, which qualify sporting sitters for inclusion in the National Portrait Gallery and its national narratives of greatness. However, by emphasizing the sitters? strength, power, agility, feats, determination, perseverance, competitiveness, work ethic, success, and sporting contributions, the National Portrait Gallery and Champions produce differentiated subject positions by excluding weak, clumsy, mundane, feeble, lazy, unsuccessful, and (ultimately) inactive bodies; or characterizing persons as such through their absence. This section will examine what ?the consequences of such selective blindness? (Haraway, 1997, p. 202) are, since ?absences can be as productive as explicit naming; [and] invisibility [ emphasis added] can have just as powerful effects as visibility? (Rose, 2007, p. 165). 147 Champions?s (visual and textual) absences and under-representations reinforce the exhibition?s key themes. In regards to ?rugged individuals?, women and minority athletes? lack of visibility prioritizes white men, and the absence of active representations of women limits their inclusion in ?bigger, faster, stronger? narratives. Despite the Gallery?s policies that have encouraged a move away from the dead, ?white men on horses? that prematurely aged the museum (Pachter as cited in Lubow, 2006), Champions features mostly white men (24 of 31 athletes) .19 While many of the sitters are not dead, and only one (Shoemaker) is featured on his horse, the lack of diversity available in regards to race, ethnicity, gender, and sex, in the National Portrait Gallery?s collection generally, and in Champions specifically, restricts the kinds of conversations that can be had about sports in America, and American sporting champions. Though the Gallery has supplemented the absence of women in Champions with photographic banners (e.g. visual interpretive technologies) ? tripling the number of women with the addition of Gertrude Ederle, ?Babe? Didrikson Zaharias, Jackie Joyner -Kersee, Alice Ma rble ? their poised physicality, decorative presence, and lack of interpretation leave visitors guessing about their significance. Thus, rather than extending or diversifying Champions narratives through visual and textual technologies of interpretation, the presence of the banners, and absence of information, further reinforces the meager (qualitatively 19 While outside of the scope of this research, it should also be noted that the Champions portraits, and the National Portrait Gallery?s collection of sporting portraiture, is dominated by white, male artists. There are five portraits by four women artists featured in the exhibition?s primary portraits (Rhoda Sherbell is featured twice with Casey Stengel and Yogi Berra), and none of the thirteen TIME commissioned covers in the exhibition were commissioned from women artists. 148 and quantitatively) primary portraits of Helen Wills Moody and Josephine Culbertson featured in the exhibition. While race, ethnicity, gender, and sex, have suffered under-representation in Champions, persons with disabilities and Paralympic athletes have been altogether denied entry to the exhibition, and the National Portrait Gallery?s sporting collection. The consequence of this absence is two-fold; rejecting differently-abled persons as American champions, and denying visitors to the Gallery alternative views of physicality and ability. Also absent from exhibition portraits, and ignored in exhibition narratives, are the broad range of ?players? ? beyond athletes ? that contribute to sport being ?part of a larger story of the vibrant life and culture of our nation? (Champions, text panel, field notes). Though Stengel?s and Martin?s careers as managers are put on display in Champions, their initial successes as collegiate or professional athletes are also noted. Missing from the exhibition are the journalists, team owners, administrators, equipment manufacturers, and the like, that have contributed to sport?s ?larger story?; as are discussions about the politics and economy of American sport that their presence would make possible. The focus on the masculinity of rugged individuals in Champions therefore ignores the significance of particular (groups of) people to American sport and sporting culture, and extends its exceptionalism inward by constructing national champion narratives without them. The theme of ?exceptional(ist) Americans? is also advanced by Champions?s (in)visibilities. For example, the admirable attributes of the (rugged) individuals on display are maintained through the absence of fallen champions. Though ?simply the best? at one time, and at the time of their commission and collection, the absence of 149 athletes such as Pete Rose and Mark McGwire from Champions (though present in the collection), keep controversies and contradictions from complicating exhibition, Gallery, and national narratives about greatness. 20 The insignificance of Olympic sports and athletes in the Gallery?s Champions exhibition and collection, also advances American exceptionalism. Inexcused by the collection?s limited focus on 19th and 20th century athletes, the poor visibility of Carl Lewis, Mark Spitz, and Jackie Joyner -Kersee in the exhibition?s photographic banner portraits, strengthens the monotonous emphasis on champions from America?s unique, capitalist, sporting landscape. The lack of Olympic sports ? those practiced widely around the world ? maintains the emphasis on the American sports, and athletes, that have achieved popular and commercial success in the United States . The emphasis on professional athletes and the privileging of America?s primary professional sports also leaves professional women athletes, and secondary men?s professional sports, such as soccer and lacrosse, (literally) out of the picture. For example, there are no soccer athletes on display in Champions, or available for display in the National Portrait Gallery?s collection; even though soccer has had a long, if complicated, history as a popular spectator sport in the United States. Finally, the focus on America?s professional sports and athletes, forgoes discussions of champions at other levels of play ? including, collegiate, high school, senior, and youth sports ? that are certainly [equally, if not more so] ?part of the larger story of 20 Lance Armstrong is featured in one of the exhibition?s photographic banners. However, his inclusion in the exhibition was prior to his recent (2013) doping admission. Additionally, the absence of any textual interpretation of the banner portraits ? like each of the sitters featured in them ? sterilizes the potential complexities of his inclusion. 150 the vibrant life and culture of our nation? (Champions, text panel, field notes). Together, the absences of particular sitters, subjectivities, and representations, narrows the national narrative presented by the National Po rtrait Gallery to its visitors. Furthermore, the truthfulness of these (in)visibilities are strengthened through the absence of authorship and intention in the exhibition. Other than an acknowledgement that the exhibition is a ? selection [ emphasis added] of paintings and sculpture from its collection? ( Champions, text panel, field notes), the process of constructing the exhibition, and the acknowledgement of the exhibition as a constructed visual event is not recognized. The spaces behind ? ?the spaces in which the museums and galleries produce their knowledge? (Rose, 2007, p. 190) ? stay behind. There is no reference to who wrote the exhibition texts, or what informed the content, style, or length of the text that was written. The wider issues and contexts that have shaped the limitations of the exhibition are also not acknowledged. In particular, Champions lacks any reference to the conservation issues, collection practices, and genre preferences that led to the selection of particular paintings, sculptures, and persons for display. Discussed previously, these involve issues such as: the prevalence of photography in sporting representations and (thus) the Gallery?s collection of sporting portraiture; the domination of TIME magazine cover portraits in the Gallery?s limited collection of painted sporting portraiture; and, the focus of TIME cover portraits on champions from an inequitable era. The invisibility of such information leaves the selection of portraits and sitters in Champions unexplained, uncomplicated, and unquestioned, and renders their 151 representations and interpretations as ?matters of fact? (Haraway, 1997; cf. Latour, 2004). Artists are, additionally, absolved of their representational responsibility through the briefest of mentions (name, birth and death dates), and absence of intentions in exhibition texts; and commissioners and the parameters of the commissioned projects are also consequentially absent. For example, T IME cover portraits in the Champions exhibition are recognized as such on their text labels with the date of the cover, a ?gift of? acknowledgement, and a ?TC? accession number inscribed in small print in the lower right hand corner of the text (though visitors would be unaware of this numbering convention). However, only the text label for the ?Simply the Best? cover of Bird and Gretzky indicates why the two were commissioned for the cover. It reads: In the late winter of 1985, the cover of Time magazine featured this double portrait of basketball star Larry Bird and hockey great Wayne Gretzky. The image ran with the headline "Simply the Best," and in the accompanying article, the magazine described the pair as athletes whose excellence had "transcended the competition." (text label, field notes) While the institutionally suggested word limit is partly the culprit in the absence of information, the decision to keep artists and commissioners invisible in the exhibition?s interpretive texts causes authority to come largely from the curator?s relationship with the object, and limits ?active? viewing (Baxandall, 1991) opportunities for museumgoers. This confined interpretive space, in turn, reinforces a narrow national narrative, and preserves a particular past through ?a celebration of 152 certain lives? (Pachter, 1981, p. 16). Cultivating complexities in the American search for (social) ju stice. Though visitors to the Champions exhibition are met with a panhistorical homage to the rugged, exceptionalist, American (male) hero, they may have arrived to the 3rd floor mezzanine via a visit to the National Portrait Gallery?s permanent exhibition 20th Century: The American Search for Justice; where the Homestead Grays, and the work of African American photographer Charles ?Teenie? Harris, are situated next to civil rights activists, and within America?s civil rights movements (field notes). Or maybe they have stopped by to see Special Olympic athletes Airika Straka, Katie Meade, Andy Leonard, Loretta Claiborne, and Mary Sheets in The Struggle for Justice exhibition on their way to see Champions; where they are equal participants in Lenz?s portrait of Eunice Kennedy Shriver?s Gallery-commissioned portrait (field notes). Maybe visitors to Champions have arrived in the Great Hall after visiting one of the Gallery?s temporary exhibitions in its first floor contemporary galleries. Perhaps Champions would provide visitors with a different interpretation if they had first viewed Americans Now; where Lance Armstrong?s alleged (though now confirmed) use of performance-enhancing drugs, was discussed in the Gallery?s interpretation of Martin Schoeller?s stark photograph. Or maybe, they were struck by the same complexities and contradictions as Schoeller, in his photographs of female bodybuilders featured in Portraiture Now. Maybe the same visitors that attended Hide/Seek, the National Portrait Gallery?s controversial exhibition on sexual 153 difference in modern America, viewed Champions afterwards and wondered why discussions of sexuality and gender were missing from its narratives. The point I am making here, is that Champions is both aligned, and misaligned with the National Portrait Gallery?s contradictory apparatuses and technologies; their staid mission and collection policies that have shaped, and maintained, a ?prematurely grey? (Lubow, 2006) Champions exhibition; and, their progressive, socially-oriented, justice-seeking curatorial practices, and conceptualizations of representation in other areas of the museum. There are complexities, contradictions, and struggles visible in the National Portrait Gallery ; fissures in their discursive renderings of who counts, and why they matter. In detailing the number of discursive influences that work towards, and through, traditional representations of the athlete-hero, and American individual, I have attempted to ?open up (often ?innocent? physical) texts? (Johnson et a l., as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 19), and point to the ?possibility of visualities other than those of dominant institutions? (Rose, 2007, p. 176). To pursue these possibilities, however, discursive disconnects need to cultivated for their potential to reconceptionalize sporting representations, reinterpret remarkable champions, disrupt neoliberal sporting discourses, and, ultimately, reimagine the active body. 154 Chapter 5 ? Displaying Body Worlds at the Maryland Science Center Attending Body Worlds . 1 2 3 7 4 5 6 Figure 5.1. Attending Body Worlds; 1. Maryland Science Center and the Baltimore Inner Harbor (Map generated with Baltimore CityView, October 15, 2011); 2. Maryland Science Center (Maryland Science Center, 2011); 3. Body Worlds 2 & The Three Pound Gem at the Maryland Science Center (J. Sterling, personal photograph, February 2 , 2008 ); 4 - 6. Maryland Science Center floor plans ( Maryland Science Center, 2008 ); 7. Body Worlds 2 exhibition rules (J. Sterling, personal photo graph, February 2 , 2008 ). Arriving early enough to park my car in the $6.00 all day early bird lot on East Conway Street across from the Inner Harbor and the Maryland Science Center (1), I grab my parking ticket, lock my car, double check that I?ve locked my car , and cross the street. A short walk along the water takes me to the main, harbor- side, entrance of the Center (2). (See Figure 5.1) Passing a large advertisement of a soccer playing cadaver on my way in (3), I avoid the lines and head to the will call area to pick up the $28 ticket I purchased online in advance to guarantee my preferred time of attendance. After stashing my coat in the unsecured check, I get in line and wait for the museum staff member who will escort the visitors in my time slot one floor up to Body Worlds (4 - 6). Onc e upstairs, I am allowed to slowly file in through a turnstile, 155 monitored by museum staff to ensure my cell phone is turned off, and that I am familiar with the other exhibition rules (i.e. no re-entry, no food or drink, no cameras or photography, no leaning on cases or touching the specimens) (7). Before entering the exhibition we pass a desk where audio guides are being hawked to ?better [my] experience? for an additional cost (Adult - $5, Senior/member - $4, Groups - $4, Child - $3). Slipping through a curtained corridor, a lengthy entry text awaits my reading, and bottlenecks the throng of visitors who have gained access to the exhibition with me. Arriving at the text, the corridor opens to reveal the first of 15 exhibition rooms, and silences visitor chatter to hushed contemplation. Floor to ceiling black curtains construct the walls that organize the silver metallic stands and spotlit plexiglass vitrines that display meticulously prepared and exquisitely posed specimens. In stark contrast, brightly colored text panels dot the eye-line, and images and quote banners are unfurled from overhead; their poignant black and white photography offsetting the flayed whole body plastinates that anchor the exhibition. ?Welcome to the Art of Body Worlds 2?? (Entry te xt panel, Body Worlds 2 at the Maryl and Science Center; field notes) Introducing Gunther von Hagens? Body Worlds, The Original Exhibition of Real Human Bodies. Body Worlds is a traveling ?blockbuster,? exhibition of plastinated cadavers produced by Gunther von Hagens and the Institute for Plastination (IfP) in Germany. On display at the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore?s Inner Harbor in 2008, Body Worlds and the museum?s permanent exhibitions, such as Your Body: The Inside Story and Body Link, visualize active bodies in an effort to ?educate the public about 156 the inner workings of the human body and show the effects of poor health, good health and lifestyle choices? (IfP , 2013g, para. 3). This chapter will enlist Body Worlds at the Maryland Science Center to further explore the exhibition of (in)active bodies as visualizing, and knowledge-making, practices. Specifically, the production of body knowledge(s) through neoscientific discourses of health, illness, and physical activity are explored through a discourse analysis of Body Worlds , and its plastination and exhibition technologies (i.e. text panels and labels, audio guides, video displays, quote banners). Contextualized within neoliberal health initiatives, medical imaging technologies and cadaver display practices, Body Worlds is analyzed for the ways in which it is shaped by the missions of both the IfP and the Maryland Science Center. In particular, this chapter will examine the ways in which its exhibition technologies ? including its utilization of athletic-inspired plastinate positioning ? articulate to produce ?healthified? (Fusco, 2006 , 2012), and ?medicalized? (Wheatley, 2005) understandings of sport, exercise and the physically active body; literally turning the ?all-seeing panopticon? (Haraway , 1997) inwards. Thus, a critical socio-cultural examination of Body Worlds ?counter[s] the scientific knowledges and naturalizing truths that have commandeered the body as an object of inquiry? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 7) by interrogating the ways in which science practices its practices, scientizes active bodies, and exercises its power. Researching Body Worlds . As part of a multi-sited ethnography exploring the articulations of physical and visual culture, Body Worlds at the Maryland Science Center in B altimore is the 157 second of two exhibition and museum-located sites. Body Worlds differs significantly from Champions in its location at a science museum rather than an art gallery, and its use of scientific rather than artistic visual technologies (i.e. plastination rather than painting). However, the use of particular exhibition technologies (e.g. display, tactile, layout, spaces behind) and their ?effects of truth? are similar, as are the educational and preservationist missions of the institutions and exhibitors. Body Worlds is a traveling, rather than permanent, exhibition, though, and is produced by an institution different than its host site, which allows for multiple shows to be touring simultaneously, and complicates the role of institutional discourses. The visual discourse analysis carried out in this chapter is drawn from multiple, and variously timed21, visits to Body Worlds 2 (Body Worlds & The Brain ? Our Three Pound Gem), hosted by the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore from February 2nd - September 1st, 2008. However, my analysis has also been shaped by single visits to Body Worlds exhibitions prior to and following the exhibition at the Maryland Science Center, including: Body Worlds 1 in Philadelphia at The Franklin Institute (October 7, 20 05 ? April 23, 2006); Body Worlds 3 in Vancouver at TELUS World of Science (September 15, 2006 ? January 14, 2007); Body Worlds 3 at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (March 12 ? August 15, 2010); Body Worlds 1 (Body Worlds & the Mirror of Time) in London at the O2 Arena (October 24, 2008 ? August 23, 2009); and Body Worlds Vital in Des Moines at the Science Center of Iowa (May 7, 2011 ? October 31, 2011). In fact, it was my last-day, open-24 -hours, 21 I visited Body Worlds at different times of the day to experience the exhibition with various populations of visitors ? e.g. families and school groups during the day, adults and couples during extended evening hours. 158 2am visit to the Philadelphia exhibition, and its artistically posed cadavers frozen in the midst of sporting endeavors, which piqued my interest in the exhibitions and their unique visualization and display of active bodies. Although not directly part of the intertextual analysis of the Baltimore exhibitio n, visits to the other Body Worlds exhibitions, and the various cities and institutions that have hosted them, have informed my understanding of the development of the exhibitions, and their technologies and visitors. It is also indicative of the exhibitio n?s popularity, as it seemed that I could coordinate visits to the exhibition with many of my other travel plans. The field notes that form the basis of my discourse analysis were gathered during lengthy22 visits to Body Worlds and noted: the exhibition objects (i.e. whole body plastinates, individual specimens); technologies (e.g. tactile, display, layout); and the rhetorical organization and intertextuality of the interpretive technologies (e.g. text panels, labels and captions, quote banners, audio guides).23 Since photos were not allowed in the Body Worlds exhibition field notes were gathered through written text and gestural sketching (in reference to the positioning of the plastinates) (see Figure 3.1 in the methods chapter for an example). Supplementar y exhibition materials (e.g. exhibition catalogue and DVD , postcards, brochures) were also collected from the museum and the Body Worlds shop located at the end of the 22 The Institute for Plastination (2012d) suggests spending 1-2 hours in the exhibition. To accommodate the amount of material available in the exhibition, I spent bet ween 4 and 6 hours in the exhibition during each of my visits. 23 Direct references to Body Worlds 2 texts (e.g. text labels, text panels, audio) accessed during my visits to the exhibition will be cited in text as follows: name of object the text is refer ring to, type of interpretive technology, and acknowledgement of its collection in the field (e.g. The Skateboarder , audio, field notes). 159 exhibition. In addition, and to supplement understandings of the Maryland Science Center and the IfP , my analysis is further informed by institutional communication provided by their respective websites (e.g. press kits and releases, educational materials), and participant observation of the Maryland Science Center?s ? body exhibitions? (Your Body: The Inside Story and Body Link). Thus, this chapter explores the social conditions and effects of the visualization ? the plastination, manipulation, and exhibition ? of active (read healthy) bodies through an analysis of the exhibition?s scientific production and location. Locating Body Worlds : Mapping the Civic and Institutional Context Figure 5.2. Locating Body Worlds; (left to right) Maryland Science Center and the Baltimore Inner Harbor (Map generated with Baltimore CityView, October 15, 2011), Maryland Science Center (Maryland Science Center, 2011), Body Worlds 2 & The Three Pound Gem at the Maryland Science Center (J.Sterling, personal photograph, February 2, 2008) ?Baltimore is a paragon of urban renewal. That?s why it?s the fittest city, that?s why it?s the comeback city? (USA Today in Silk & Andrews, 2006). Situated at the southwest corner of the Baltimore Harbor, the Maryland Science Center was opened by the Maryland Academy of Science in 1976 , and is one of the cornerstones of the city?s multi-phase Inner Harbor renewal project initiated in 1963 (Visit Baltimore, 2012 a); ?the first attraction built as part of Baltimore?s famed renaissance? (Maryland Science Center, 2012, p.1) (see Figure 5.2 ). O ngoing, the 160 Inner Harbor has continued its regeneration through the renewal of Camden Yards (1983-1992), the construction of Oriole Park at Camden Yards (1992) and M & T Bank Stadium (1998), and its envelopment of the University of Maryland Medical School and Center campus. This strengthening of cultural, educational, and entertainment industries in the Inner Harbor area of Baltimore has been celebrated as key to Baltimore?s downtown and city-wide transformation. Now considered ?the crown jewel of the city?s active tourism industry? ( Visit Baltimor e, 2012a), the Inner Harbor is a pedestrian-friendly, amenity-laden area that connects destinations along a brick promenade, including those packaged together with the Maryland Science Center as part of the Baltimore Harbor Pass (?5 attractions, 4 days, 1 discounted price?; Visit Baltimore, 2012b) : National Aquarium, World Trade Center, American Visionary Art Museum, Port Discovery Children?s Museum, Sports Legends at Camden Yards , and the Reginald F. Lewis Museum of African American History and Culture). Further to the physical reconstruction of the city, Baltimore has engaged in ?discursive strategies? (Silk & Andrews, 2006, p. 316) such as Mayor O?Malley?s Believe campaign, which exemplifies the city?s symbolic efforts and neoliberal approach towards social change. Targeting drugs and its related effects as ?the most pressing contemporary public health issue in Baltimore? (Silk & Andrews, 2006, p. 317), the campaign shifted responsibility for its resolution to the city?s civilians. As Silk & Andrews (2006) explain; ?the crucial word in the message is we; the campaign is centered on the responsibility of the community to act on said message?.In calling for 161 residents to ?do their part,? to call ?1 -866 -BELIEVE to find out what you can do,? the Believe campaign is emblematic of neoliberal city governance in which responsibility is shifted from those in power to the citizen. (p. 317) Furthermore, in their article ?The Fittest City in America? , Silk and Andrews (2006) take to task Men?s Fitness ?s designation of Baltimore as such; referring to the magazine?s choice as ?perhaps the most contrived illusion to the health of Baltimore? (p. 319). The authors also criticize the magazine?s selection criteria (e.g. ratio of parks to population; use of fitness facilities; di et patterns; reactions to public health emergencies such as obesity; and the role of civic legislation and leadership in creating fitness-education and health-education directives), along with other symbolic labels, for obscuring the ?rot beneath the glitter? (Harvey in Silk & Andrews, 2006, p. 321) and conflating the health of Baltimore with its urban renewal. They explain: The concomitant material (in terms of the built environment) and discursive (in terms of the rhetorical representation of the city) reconstitution of what is a geographically limited and certainly unrepresentative tract of Baltimore (the ?inner urban tourist bubble?) has been spuriously extrapolated as a marker of the vibrancy, energy, and health of the city in its entirety. However, in actuality, the briefest of examinations reveals little more than an expensive piece of facial cosmetic surgery having been carried out on an otherwise diseased and decaying civic corpus. (Silk & Andrews, 2006, p. 318) Rather, the Inner Harbor/Federal Hill neighborhood profiles in the ?healthiest third? of the city across most indicators (e.g. mortality, causes of death, and maternal and child health outcomes) and is nearly 79% Caucasian , compared to the Baltimore City 162 population of nearly two thirds (64%) African American and only one third (31%) Caucasian (Office of Epidemiology and Planning, Baltimore City Health Department, 2008b). Furthermore, African American residents of Baltimore City were nearly two times as likely than their white counterparts to have an income below the poverty level (Office of Epidemiology and Planning, Baltimore City Health Department, 2008a). In response to continued health disparities, health inequities, and social determinants of health (Spencer, Petteway, Bacett, & Barbot , 2011), Healthy Baltimore 2015 was introduced in 2011 by the Baltimore City Health Department and newly elected mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; continuing the attack on abject bodies behind the fa?ade of the Inner Harbor. Similar to initiatives like the Fittest City in America, Healthy Baltimore 2015 ? names, shames, and makes discernable the degenerate? [and] facilitates the disappearance of the social, economic, and political conditions responsible for the proliferation of degeneracy, ultimately providing th e justification for the systematic evisceration of those bodies that do not matter? (Silk & Andrews, 2006, p. 322). Working towards ? a city where all residents realize their full health potential? , Healthy Baltimore 2015 lists the following as its ?ambitio us, yet reachable? priorities: 1. Promote access to quality health care for all 2. Be tobacco free 3. Redesign communities to prevent obesity 4. Promote heart health 5. Stop the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections 163 6. Recognize and treat mental health needs 7. Reduce drug use and alcohol abuse 8. Encourage early detection of cancer 9. Promote healthy children and adolescents 10. C reate health promoting neighborhoods. (Spencer, et al., 2011, p. 4) By taking the fundamental drivers of health inequities (e.g. poverty, e ducation) into consideration Healthy Baltimore 2015 attempts to ?go beyond traditional public health measures? (Spencer, et al., 2011, p. 4). However, once again ?the crucial word in the message is we? (Silk & Andrews, 2006, p. 317): Healthy Baltimore 2015 recognizes that individuals and communities must have the opportunity to make choices that impact their health regardless of race, income, or education. This agenda for change also acknowledges that a local public health department cannot successfully implement the plan working alone: the authority and expertise to act on and influence many root causes of health inequities frequently lies within other sectors of society. The City?s success can only be realized by involving every instrument of Baltimore Cit y?s government and other levels of government, the health care industry, motivated neighborhoods, individual citizens, academic institutions, community-based organizations, and the business community. (Spencer, et al., 2011, p. 5) The goals of Healthy Baltimore 2015, then, are to be achieved ? at least in part ? through a collaborative process of community engagement; incorporating partners to communicate, facilitate, and integrate health-related information and interventions 164 with the aim of ?informing, ed ucating and engaging Baltimoreans to improve their health and the health of their communities? (Spencer, et al., 2011, p. 5). As an official and unofficial partner and participant in the symbolic, economic, and physical, renewal and reinvention efforts of Baltimore City, the Maryland Science Center provides a site where boundaries between ?proper? and ? socially, morally, and economically pathologized? (Silk & Andrews, 2006, p. 322) bodies are defined, policed, and made visible through an ?informal science education? (Maryland Science Center, 2012 ). Promoted as a cultural amenity that ?contribute[s] to the economic vitality of a community?enhance[s] the quality of life and make[s] a community attractiv e to a knowledge-based workforce? (Association of Science-Technology Centers, 2012c ), science museums, like the Maryland Science Center, also shape who is allowed to see. Located at the intersection of civic, tourist, sporting, and medical destinations, the Maryland Science Center functions as a site of education, entertainment, and self-betterment for residents of, and visitors to, Baltimore. In particular, the museum?s body exhibitions, including their hosting of Body Worlds, provide opportunities for (paying) visitors to the museum to ? do their part? (Silk & A ndrews, 2006), be mindful of their fitness (Markula, 2004), and modestly witness (Haraway, 1997); and the exhibitions employ narratives of sport, physical activity, and health to do so. 165 Touch wonder: Interacting with your body at the Maryland Science Center. Figure 5.3. Maryland Science Center floor plans (Maryland Science Center, 2008). The locations of Your Body: The Inside Story and BodyLink & Wet Lab during the Body Worlds 2 exhibition are indicated with yellow dots.24 ?The Maryland Science Center features 14-full-size dinosaurs, an exploration of the day in the life of the human body, dozens of interactive experiments, national touring exhibits, and the five story IMAX Theater. Other attractions include The Kids Room and Davis Planetarium.? (60 word description, press guidelines; Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 7) The Maryland Science Center is a non-profit institution that operates on a budget generated through sales from admissions, memberships, and educational and related programming. While these sources account for nearly seventy percent of their total revenue, an additional $3 to $4 million is provided by public and private support, 24 Your Body: The Inside Story was relocated to the third floor of the Maryland Science Center during Body Worlds 2. The exhibition is usually located on the second floor; adjacent to BodyLink, on the harbor side of the museum. 166 including grants, corporate sponsorships, and private donor contributions (Maryland Science Center, 2008; Maryl and Science Center, 2009)25. Donors, Board of Trustees members, and sponsors represent prominent local and national science, technology, engineering, and medical corporations, including: Verizon, The Whiting -Turner Contracting Company, Constellation Energy, Northrop Grumman, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc, Martek Biosciences, Lockheed Martin, Met Life, BlueCross BlueShield). Additionally, ex officio Board of Trustees members include the Governor of Maryland, Mayor of Baltimore City, and the Baltimore and Howard County Executives. In combination, these private and public institutions support the Maryland Science Center?s position as an important resource for public understanding of science; for ?Baltimoreans?, citizens of Maryland, and the wider Mid-Atlantic region. Thus, the mission of the Maryland The mission of the Maryland Science Center, thus, positions science, and the understandings of, and through, it (i.e. scientific literacy), as essential to both economic growth and competitiveness, and responsible citizenry: The mission of the Maryland Science Center is to create awareness in everyone of the importance of science in our lives by engaging them with exciting educational experiences. It is also to motivate our youth to pursue careers in science and technology through community collaboration with academia, government, and industry. (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 1) 25 In 2008 and 2009 public and private contributions were fairly equal (approximately 15% of total revenue). However, in 2012, public support droppe d to 8% and private support surged to 28% (Maryland Science Center, 2012a); indicative of a neoliberal reduction in public funding to cultural and educational institutions. 167 Offering the ?only cultural resource in the region to focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) learning? (Maryland Science Center, 2012c, para. 1), the Maryland Science Center and its educational programs are well aligned with the State of Maryland?s Race to the Top STEM initiatives ( Maryland State Department of Education, 2010). Generated from a Governor?s task force report in 2009, and citing as its impetus President Obama?s ?declaration? that ?Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life as it has ever been? ( State of Maryland, 2009, p. 2), the recommendations emphasize: enhanced and aligned curriculum; increased teacher training and workforce; an increase in the number of STEM experiences and college graduates; further support of research and entrepreneurship to boost Maryland?s global competitiveness; and an extension of STEM resource availability. Therefore, the goal to make Maryland ?a national leader and globally competitive in STEM education, pre-K through 20, in STEM workforce development, and in STEM -based economic growth and job creation? (State of Maryland, 2009, p. 5 ) is reflected in the Maryland Science Center?s goal to ?build a science and technology literate workforce?, and in their sentiment that ?tomorrow?s economic prosperity depends on today?s educational progress? (Maryland Science Center, 2012b, para. 4). As President Reiner and Chairman St. John explain in their introduction to the Maryland Science Center?s 2009 annual report ?What Matters??, We matter to students?to parents, who are providing experiences that will enable their children to develop lifelong skills and prepare for productive careers?to educators?to our neighbors, as we contribute valuable 168 knowledge and economic impact to our community. (Maryland Science Center, 2009b, p. 2) Thus, the Maryland Science Center? s donors, sponsors, trustees, employees, and 500,000 annual visitors are implicated in the production of making science matter, making matters of fact, and, through the museum?s exhibitions such as Your Body and BodyLink, producing bodies that (do not) matter (Butler, 1993; Silk & Andrews, 2006). (Inter)active bodies. While Rose (2007) cites tactile technologies and the ?almost universal rule that you cannot touch the exhibits? (p. 189) as one of the most important disciplines of museum and gallery spaces, the Maryland Science Center encourages visitors to ?Touch Wonder? (their institutional motto) through educational, entertaining, and interactive exhibits. While the concept of science museums grew out of 17th century cabinets of curiosities (Asma, 2003 ) science centers in their current iteration are a 20th century phenomena built around hands- on education ?designed to illustrate fundamental scientific principles or industrial processes? (p. 1, press kit) and ?the populist spirit of the times? (Association of Science- Technology Centers [ ASTC ] , 2009). Leaving the contemplative spaces of the National Portrait Gallery behind, interactivity is the primary viewing and pedagogical practice at the Maryland Science Center. Here, ?unruly entertainment? rather than ?orderly appreciations? are visitor behaviors approved by the museum and its staff (Rose, 2007, p. 182). As a member of the Association of Science- Technology Centers, the Maryland Science Center is 169 committed to ?furthering the public understanding of science through experiential learning? (ASTC, 2012, para. 1). Though the interactive exhibits and hands - on experiences of science centers are geared toward the enjoyment and education of children, ?visitors of all ages become adventurous explorers who together discover answers to the myriad questions of how the [body] world works ? and why? (ASTC, 2011 b, p. 1). Thus, the Maryland Science C enter prioritizes learning by seeing and doing, and asks visitors to use their bodies to know their bodies. In particular, its permanent exhibitions Your Body: The Inside Story and BodyLink26, utilize physical activity and active bodies to display, demonstrate, and interact with particular discourses of health and illness; guiding visitors along the path to better bodies through greater knowledge of it. While these exhibitions were displaced by Body Worlds, and did not act as an interpretive technology in a direct sense (i.e. interpretations of Body Worlds were not shaped through their simultaneous viewing), they are, nonetheless, important visual (con)texts that shape the visualities, interpretive repertoires, and discursive understandings available to visitors during their visit to the Body Worlds exhibition at its site of audiencing ? the Maryland Science Center. (See Figure 5.3 ) 26 Cells: The Universe Inside Us opened in the space between Your Body: The Inside Story and BodyLink in 2009, after Body Worlds closed, and after my primary data collection. Made possible in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Met Life Foundation, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services , the exhibition ?includes the latest research in cellular and molecular biology, and its relationship to human development, aging, and health? (Maryland Science Center, 2009a, para. 2) and continues the Maryland Science Center?s ?commitment to health and biology? (Maryland Science Center, 2008a, p. 11). 170 Your (amazing) body: The inside story. Figure 5.4. Your Body: The Inside Story. A Maryland Science Center exhibition located on the 2 nd floor; (left to right) (J. Sterling, personal photos, February 16, 2009). Every ordinary day amazing things are happening in your body. Step inside and explore how all parts of your body work together to let you eat, sleep, walk, talk, laugh and grow. Listen to your heartbeat. Test your balance and brain power: It?s all about you! (Your Body: The Inside Story introductory text panel; field notes). Located on the second floor of the Maryland Science Center, the focus of the Your Body: The Inside Story exhibition is ?disease prevention and the promotion of healthy lifestyles? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 3). Loosely organized around the five senses of hearing, sight, touch, smell and taste, the exhibition?s claims to truth are presented to visitors through display, interpretive, and tactile technologies. Through a variety of text panels, text labels, images, v ideos, and interactive stations, visitors learn about how the body (should) work. The exhibition?s text panels and labels initially introduce visitors to how ?your body? works, acquainting them with anatomical systems (e.g. skeletal, digestive, cardiovascular) and bodily ?functions? through short, bolded, factual 171 statements. For example: ?Your bones make a frame for your body?; ?Digesting dinner can take more than a day?; and ?Your heart is the strongest mu scle in your body? ( Your Body , text labels, field notes). These interpretive technologies then go on to explain the ?amazing? and complex interconnectedness of the human body, allowing visitors to ?explore how different organs and systems work together ? and how the brain controls everything ? in the human body? (Maryla nd Science Center, 2012e, p. 3). For example, an interactive station timing how long visitors can stay balanced on a tilting platform explains ?how all parts of your body work together? as follows: Whenever you sit or take a step, a liquid inside your ear moves and sends a signal to your brain. Your brain also reads signals from your eyes, feet and muscles to keep you balanced so you don?t get d izzy or fall down. ( Your Body , text label, field notes ). A text panel at the exhibition?s entrance , also states that ?all your parts work together? ( field notes). Featuring the image of a skateboarder mid -trick (see Figure 5.3), the text explains ?when you take a step or ride a skateboard you don?t have to think about what you?re doing. But every motio n you make involves your heart, lungs, muscles, bones and senses. It?s all controlled by your amazing brain?. Finally, a text panel featuring a soccer player (see Figure 5.4 ) defines ?your body? as ?the most complicated and well-tuned machine on earth? (t ext panel, field notes ). Explaining that ?every minute, it does amazing things to help you breathe, eat, move and interact with the world?, the text panel succinctly summarizes the exhibition?s sentiment ? ?Your body is amazing? (t ext panel, field notes ). T hus, Your Body ?s 172 textual interpretations objectively frame the human body as mechanical, complex, amazing, and in need of better understanding. In doing so, the exhibition situates science as the way to know ?your body? and science centers as expert ?interpreters? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 1). Additionally, images of the human body ? outside, inside, and in action ? provide visual interpretation for the Your Body exhibition. Geared towards educating a younger audience, representational exhibition imagery primarily displays young people (from babies to teenagers) doing ?amazing? with their bodies every ?ordinary? day (Your Body text panel, field notes). Similar to the skateboarder who indicates the how ?your parts works together?, a boy eating pizza creates a relatable point of reference for visitor?s guessing ?grumbles of digestion? at one the exhibition?s interactive stations. Furthermore, physically active bodies are a feature of Your Body?s interpretive repertoire. From the soccer goalie on the entry text panel (see Figure 5.4 ), to a skateboarder, soccer player, cyclist, runner, and gymnast, active bodies and physical activity are a primary way that the exhibition shows how the body works, and highlights the importance of physical activity to ?disease prevention and the promotion of healthy lifestyles? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 3). In particular, exhibition truth claims are strengthened by the display of ?extraordinary footage taken inside the human body? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 3).27 Merging exhibition and scientific imaging technologies, Your Body, 27 Another visual technology of interpretation employed to scientifically image(ine) the active body is The Human Body ? one of the Maryland Science Center?s rotating IMAX features. Shown during the tenure of Body Worlds 2, the movie ?revels the human body in a way never seen before ? telling the incredible story of a single day in the lifetime of the [sic] you and me? (Maryland Science Center, 2012d, para. 1). 173 and science museums generally, often communicate information about human anatomy, physiology, and biomechanics (?the way we work?) through images that visualize the invisible. For example, one of the ?core experiences? in the exhibition is a ?Heart and Lung room? where ?visitors are surrounded by the sounds and vivid imagery of blood flowing through a beating heart? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 3). Elsewhere, visitors can see images of white blood cells attacking bacteria, or watch a video of a scratch healing, a blood clot forming, or food traveling through the digestive tract (field notes). Yet another station provides an interactive ?exquisite corpse? that challenges viewers to identify the visible difference between a man, woman, and a boy by correctly aligning the upper, middle, and lower sections of thermally-imaged figures (see Figure 5.4). Thermal imaging and x-ray technologies are additionally utilized to track a cyclist?s (and his dog?s) daily ride on a large screen (see Figure 5.4). Projected across a large screen near the entrance to Your Body , visitors can control the speed and direction of the animation, and take note of the inside of the body at work. As a visual lay language of science, scientific imaging and images provide an authoritative account of your body?s inside story. While textual, visual, and to a lesser extent audio, experiences provide visitors with opportunities to look, see, hear, and know about their bodies in new ways, Your Body ?s main interpretive technologies are its interactive displays. These interactive displays, primarily engaged with through tactile technologies, are the primary way that visitors explore ?their own working bodies? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 3). These displays and kinesthetic experiences are designed to teach, test knowledge (either existing or newly acquired), confirm the information provided by the museum 174 and science as truthful, and qualify visitor?s bodies as (ab)normal or (un)healthy. Beyond physical activity as a visual or textual interpretive trope, then, visitors are required to be (inter)active within the exhibition, and in the monitoring of their own bodies. For example, visitors can test their heart rate at an exhibition station outside of the ?Heart and Lung room?. Illustrated with the image of a (fit) woman running along a beach in a sports bra, shorts, and tennis shoes, the text states that ?exercise makes your heartbeat strong? and explains: when you exercise, your heart pumps faster and harder to send extra blood and oxygen to your working muscles. Over time, exercise makes your heart muscle stronger, so it can pump more blood and oxygen with each beat. A stronger heart means a slower heartbeat! (field notes) The station then instructs the visitor to find their resting heart rate, to step up and down on the stairs for several seconds (or ?until you feel tired?), then retest. Asking ?Did it take long to get your heart working harder??, the display lists the average heart rates (from high to low, and worst to best?) of a newborn baby, child, woman, man, pro tennis player, Olympic swimmer, and marathon runner for visitors to compare their results to. Other interactive stations invite users to become part of the exhibition text, asking open-ended questions and providing tools for leaving messages. Discussing reactions to fear, a station in the back of the exhibition offers pencils and display cards for the visitors and asks: ?What are you afraid of? When have you felt the most afraid? Write or draw your answers on a card? (field notes). While some of the respondents may not have taken their contributions as seriously as the museum would 175 have liked, the range of answers ? ?dieing [sic], nothing, being fat, spiders, falling down from a high place, dogs, spiders, snakes and sharks, tom cruise, scar[sic] movies, sharks, being starved (for an hour), doing my homework? ? provides an ongoing dialogue between the museum and its visitors, and a forum for public panopticism. Another station discusses the changes ?your body? goes through, and how some of these changes are visible and some are not (field notes). Once again, the station asks for visitor input. In response to the question ?What is changing on you??, visitors write that they are getting taller, their hair is growing, their hair is getting thinner, their skin is getting wrinkly, their belly is expanding (with a sad face drawn next to it), and their pants are getting small (with a sad face drawn next to it). Next to the display, a giant magnetized growth chart invites visitors to chart their height. However, while the text label explains that ?everyone grows at a different rate?, it also asks visitors to look for differentiating patterns. Utilizing blue and pink magnets to delineate male and female visitors, the chart maps heights from 1 years of age to 18+, normalizing sexual difference and visualizing outliers. These stations are both kinesthetically interactive, and interactive in the ways they ask viewers to reflect on their bodies and compare them with the (normalizing) information provided by Your Body and the Maryland Science Center, and persons who have visited the exhibition before, and most likely with, them. Finally, some of Your Body?s displays offer opportunities for visitors to ?connect their daily activities to healthy habits? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 3) through interactive, computerized tests. For example, you can monitor your stress levels to ?see how focused and calm you can be!?, test you r calcium IQ, and find out 176 how old you really are (field notes). These stations are particularly neoliberalizing, as they ask a series of questions which put the focus, and onus, for ?disease prevention and the promotion of healthy lifestyles? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 3) on the individual. For example, in asking ?How old are you really??, genetic influences are acknowledged, social contexts are ignored, and individual responsibility is promoted when the text panel states: Day by day, your choices count. You can?t control your family history. But the choices you make about food, exercise, smoking and behaving safely can help you enjoy life and keep your body strong. Try this quiz and see how your choices affect your body [emphasis added]. (field notes) The computer program?s initial screen explains the difference between the ?number of years that have passed since we were born? and ?your real ?Health Age??, which ?depends on how we spend our days, the choices we make about lifestyle, and the potential risks or benefits that those choices can bring us?, and explains that the test ?will help you see whether your choices are making you old or young? by showing you how they compare (field notes). Seliger?s (1986) ?Stop Killing Yourself: Make Stress Work for You? provides the basis for questions in the ?health test? that follows, where visitors are quizzed about their: 1) marital status; 2) smoking habits; 3) emotional states; 4) job (or school) satisfaction; 5) stress levels; 6) anger management; 7) stress management; 8) eating habits (red meat and fried foods versus fish, chicken, or vegetarian); 9) frequency of vegetable consumption; 10) alcohol consumption; 11) use of recreational drugs; 12) sleep quantity and quality; 13) annual mileage driving a car; 14) seat belt compliance; 15) weight; 16) blood pressure; 17) 177 frequency of illness; 18) diabetes; 19) heart health and depression; 20) genetic predispositions (in regards to heart disease and cancer); 21) and, exercise habits. Based on my answers to the exam, my health age was 3 years younger than my ?chronological? age, and the program suggested that I lose weight and keep my heart healthy through exercise and diet, and decrease my frequency of illness, to ?improve my health age?. Thus, in addition to constructing the (active) body as complex and in need of understanding, and science as the way to understand it, the Maryland Science Center and its exhibitions position health, illness, and wellness as the motivation for knowing ?your body?. Furthermore, it places the responsibility for knowing and (not) taking care of ?your body? on the individual, urging visitors to ?Take care of your body. It?s where you live? (text panel, field notes). Adopting health as a primary focus, the BodyLink exhibition continues these trends throughout the second floor. BodyL ink : Doing your part in science . Figure 5.5. BodyLink & Wet Lab. A Maryland Science Center exhibition located on the 2nd floor (J. Sterling, personal photos, February 16, 2009). Your Part in Science: Scientists now understand many of the things that make each of us unique, from our genetics to our lifestyles. What are the social, legal and ethical issues that come with this explosion of medical information? Whom do we trust to make decisions that will affect our future health and quality of life? (BodyLink text panel, field notes). 178 Located adjacent to Your Body: The Inside Story on the second floor of the Maryland Science Center, BodyLink is ?a human biology and health update center? (entry text panel, field notes) focused on ?health, genetics, and biotechnology? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 4 ). One of the Maryland Science Center?s ?link? exhibits (i.e. SpaceLink & TerraLink ), BodyLink ?makes medical and health news clear and relevant?[and] provide s the latest updates and developments on the world of medicine and medical technology? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 4) , The compact exhibition is arranged into three distinct spaces. The entrance of the exhibition features displays and interactive stations. Behind is a glass - walled Wet Lab, and a study space and reference library. Together, the exhibition allows visitors to ?discover and appreciate the wonders of cutting- edge medical research through interactive activities, stunning imagery and facilitated demonstrations? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 4 ). As an extension of Your Body , BodyLink prioritizes science as an authoritative source, and invites visitors to learn about, and monitor their (un)healthy bodies through, it. However, BodyLink additionally explores the role of (bio)technology in medical advances, positions experimental research as objective, and probes the ethics of medical research. Thus, in addition to the neoliberalization of visitors to the Maryland Science Center, BodyLink also participates in their (bio)medicalization (cf. Clarke, Mamo, Fishman, Shim & Fosket, 2003) . Though less interactive, BodyLink continues Your Body ?s focus on health and physical activity. Visitors are welcomed to the exhibition with a display that ?showcase[s] the negative effects of cholesterol on the blood vessels? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 4 ). The display features a man posed in mid- stride, and 179 situates models of healthy and unhealthy arteries and hearts next to each other to visualize their difference (see Figure 5 .5). The display?s text asks ?How do clogged arteries affect the flow of red blood cells? How do healthy hearts work?, and outlines preventative measures, such as exercise, and decreased sun exposure. Also foregrounded in the exhibition are displays of advances in medical diagnostic technology, such as the ?fantastic voyage? (field notes) of pill cameras ?that explore inside the human body? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 4 ), Affymetrix?s GeneChip? . The encased displays contain examples of the technology, briefly explain their uses, and use videos to show them ?in action? (field notes). While not complex, or interactive displays, to reference Baxandall (1991) again, ?to select and put forward any item for display, as something worth looking at, as interesting, is a statement not only about the object but about the culture it comes from? (p. 34). Thus, their inclusion in the exhibition indicates the significance of biotechnologies to science, medicine, and medical research. Body Link ?s exploration of medical research continues in its ?What?s your part in science?? questionnaire (field notes). On o ne of two interactive computer stations, its purpose is to query visitor?s views on medical research by asking the following questions: 1. We often share qualities with people in our family. What is one thing you have in common with someone in your family? 2. What most influences the person we become? 3. If you could choose one characteristic for your child, what would you choose? 180 4. If genetic testing was available, would you like to know what diseases you might develop in your lifetime? 5. What do you think describes the relationship between animals and humans? 6. Who should decide the rules that affect our health? Each of the questions offer visitors a range of answers that challenges visitors to examine their views on the ethics of medical research, and the role of science in their lives. For example, answers to the question ?What most influences the person we become?? are: (a) the genes we are born with; (b) the environment we grow up in; and, (c) genes and environment are both equally important. Additionally, the answers to the question ?Who should decide the rules that affect our health?? are: (a) doctors; (b) every individual; (c) lawmakers; (d) insurance companies; and, (e) all of the above. At the end of the questionnaire, answers are arranged for visitors to view by most recent (the last five visitors) and most popular. An examination of the answers depicts a clear trust and acceptance of medical research by visitors to the museum. For example, ?yes, I would like to know about any disease I might get? was the most popular answer for the question ?If genetic testing was available, would you like to know what diseases you might develop in your lifetime??. With 270 ?votes?, the answer was a clear favorite over ?yes, but only if I could change the course of the disease? (120), ?I do not want to know about diseases I might die from? (117), and ?yes, but only if there is a cure for that disease? (90).28 Equally, visitors chose intelligence (220) over sex (91), height (25), and not choosing (190), or having the 28 The numbers provided are as of my visit to the exhibition in February 2009, when I was the 620th visitor to participate in the questionnaire. 181 ability to chose (148), when asked about what characteristic they would chose for their child if they could. However, visitors? overwhelming selection o f ?every individual? (264) and doctors (168), over lawmakers (22), or insurance companies (16) when asked ?Who should decide the rules that affect our health?? demonstrates both a trust in medicine and its practitioners, and a desire (or expectation) to have a part in science. BodyLink?s other computer- assisted display allows visitors to ?Discover how your genes make your body unlike any other? (field notes). Featuring a young boy in a lab coat superimposed over microscopic cellular images, the welcome screen invites visitors to ask ?How do I compare?? by pushing a chromosome motif button. Given two options for each subsequent screen?s question, visitors must select which of the images genetically- determined traits most closely resembles them. These include: being able to roll your tongue into a ?U? shape, bend your thumb backwards, spread your fingers in a ?V?, and move your pinky without moving your ring finger; or, having folds in your eyelids, a hairline shaped like a ?V?, blue eyes, freckles, red hair , dimples, a cleft in your chin, free- hanging earlobes, or a ring finger that is longer than your index finger. Similar to the medical research questionnaire, the software compares each visitor?s answers against previous museum visitors. Rather than focusing on consensus or popularity, however, the program utilizes genetics to ?prove? individuality. Keeping track of visitor?s answers along a personalized genetic record, the percentage of traits that match other museum visitors is adjusted after each answer, then tallied at the end to declare to visitors ?You are unique!....you are a very unusual person!...you are one of a kind!?. BodyLink, thus, augments Your Body?s 182 theme of individuality by defining the ?unique aspects of each person?s body? (Maryland Scien ce Center, 2013e, p. 4) through the science of genetics (?things you can?t change?), rather than ?your lifestyle choices? (things you can change). Rather than having visitors compare themselves to expected behaviors and idealized norms, however, BodyLink ?s computer- assisted questionnaires source responses from visitors to construct a consensus. Then, taking part in science, visitors are disciplined through a direct visitor- to- visitor comparison. BodyLink ?s Wet Lab and reference library continue the exhibiti on?s emphasis on medical research, biosciences, and their role in advancing health and healthy bodies. In the Wet Lab visitors get to ?learn to use real laboratory tools and do experiments that scientists might perform in their research labs? (field notes). Kitted with white lab coats and shiny laboratory equipment (Figure 5.5 ), the Wet Lab is where visitors can ?Imagine yourself a scientist?, where scientist are situated as knowledge- makers, where science is prioritized as the way to learn about the human body, where STEM - careers are encouraged. The reference library and study area also advances science and medical research as a way to know, and take care of, ?your body?. Strewn across kidney - shaped tables, and propped between nose- shaped bookends, information is made available to curious, science- seeking visitors. These include, reference books on genetics, molecular biology, and chemistry; guides such as Saving Your Skin (Kenet and Lawler, 1998), and Earl Mindell?s Anti - Aging Bible (Mindell, 1996); issues of journals Nature and Science ; children?s books on common colds, the five senses, nutrition, and The Holes in Your Nose (Yagyu, 2005); and pamphlets promoting physical activity from area organizations. 183 Constructed through exhibition technologies (e.g. layout, display, tactile, and interpretive), the Maryland Science Center?s Your Body: The Inside Story and BodyLink are institutional visualizing technologies themselves. They are visual events that are utilized by the Maryland Science Center to interface wit h their visitors, and carry out their mission to ?create awareness in everyone of the importance of science in our lives? (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, p. 1). The importance of science is extended to healthist notions of personal responsibility through the museum?s health sciences exhibitions, where visitors are instructed to know their bodies scientifically in order to better take care of them. The display of the IfP ?s Body Worlds exhibition at the Maryland Science Center (and within its health sciences galleries) represents a symbiotic collaboration that strengthens both institutions? missions to educate the public, about the (un)healthy human body, through science. The following sections will examine the I fP?s mission(s), process of visualization (dona tion and plastination), and exhibitions, to contextualize Body Worlds in its site of production, and align the sites of production and audiencing. Real human bodies: Suspending decay and animating cadavers at the Institute for Plastination. ?Behind the dioramic re-creation of nature lies an elaborate world of practice? (Haraway, 1997, p. 236). Gunther von Hagens? established the I fP in 1993 after his plastination practice exceeded the space and technical requirements available at the University of Heidelberg?s Institute of Pathology and Anatomy, where von Hagens? initiated the 184 development of his ?pioneering? invention (IfP, 2013g; IfP, 2013f). While the Body Worlds exhibitions are the IfP?s most well-known products, they emerge from a two- pronged mission; to produce and disseminate plastinated human specimens for ?basic and continuing medical training as well as [emphasis added] for the general medical education of the public? (IfP, 2013g, para. 2). The first of the IfP?s aims ? plastination for science and medical research ? are focused around ?improving overall anatomical instruction? and ?popularizing and developing plastination techniques? (IfP, 2013g, para. 3, 5). To serve its goals for enhanced anatomical educational, the IfP distributes its plastinates to natural history museums, and university institutes of anatomy, pathology, and forensic medicine; and its specimens are produced, and utilized, for practice surgeries and student training (IfP, 2013j). von Hagens and the IfP have also been key in the development, popularization, and professionalization of plastination. Since its invention in 1977, the use of plastination?s polymers, equipment, and technology has been distributed to ?more than 400 institutions in 40 countries? for use in medical instruction (IfP, 2013f, para. 11).29 Additionally, plastination has been professionalized through its biennial International Plastination Conference (since 1982), and the International Society for Plastination and its Journal of Plastination (since 1986) (IfP, 2013g; International Society for Plastination, 2013). Finally, the IfP is directly involved in basic and 29 In addition to the IfP and von Hagens Plastination (Gubener Plastinate GmbH), von Hagens has been involved in the establishment of a number of enterprises to assist with the global production, sale, and distribution of plastinates and plastination technology, including: BIODUR? products (Germany, 1978); the Plastination research center at the State Medical Academy in Kyrgyzstan (Bishekek; 1996); and, Von Hagens Dalian Plastination Ltd. (China, 2001; now defunct). (IfP, 2013f). 185 continuing medical education at its Plastinarium home in Guben (Germany). As the headquarters for von Hagens Plastination (Gubener Plastinate GmbH ), the Plastinarium houses a sales room and plastination laboratories, and offers anatomy, plastination, and surgical training courses at their Anatomical Teaching Center (Gubener Plastinate GmbH, 2013 ). In addition, and as part of the IfP?s mission to educate non-medical professionals, the Plastinarium hosts a permanent exhibition, provides public access to its laboratories, and is home to the IfP?s body donation program, and the production of their Body Worlds exhibitions. Since the Body Worlds exhibitions (and in particular Body Worlds 2 ) are the focus of this chapter, this section will explore the second of the IfP?s missions; to provide general medical and health education to the public (IfP, 2013g, para. 4). Controlling the production of Body Worlds from death to display, the IfP constructs a formidable discourse around public and personal health through its unified collection, visualization, and exhibition practices. Not only is the IfP the producer of this chapter?s visual event ( Body Worlds 2 ), and its individual visual texts (plastinates), but von Hagens and the IfP also control the donor program that supplies the bodies on display in Body Worlds , and the visualizing technology (plastination) that ?halts decomposition?and preserves [them] for didactic ete rnity? (IfP, 2013f, para. 2). In addition, the IfP produces and circulates an extensive, cohesive, and repetitive, rhetoric about its exhibition mission and practices through institutional websites, press releases, publications, research, and exhibition collateral (e.g. catalogue, DVD, 186 brochures, postcards).30 Unable to access the producers or site of production directly, this section will explore the ?elaborate world of practice? (Haraway, 1997, p. 236) that lies in the spaces behind the display of Body Wor lds 2 at the Maryland Science Center through an analysis of institutionally disseminated information about the IfP?s exhibition practices. 30 Indicative of the cohesiveness of the IfP?s messaging, and the strength of its institutional discourse, many of the references I make to the IfP?s mission, plastination process, donor program, and exhibition practices throughout this chapter could have been cited identically, or similarly, from any of IfP?s materials. This interchangeability is equally true of their exhibition?s interpretive texts. 187 Exhibiting with intent. Figure 5.6. Body Worlds exhibition collateral; collected during visits to (left) Body Worlds 1 at The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia ( 2006), and (right) Body Worlds & The Mirror of Time at the O 2 bubble in London (2009). ?You wouldn't think people would line up to see dead bodies - and pay for the privilege. But that?s exactly what?s happening?? (Walker, 2008, para. 1). Gunther von Hagens? Body Worlds, The Original Exhibition is a multi-show traveling exhibition of plastinated human cadavers, inspiring controversy and acclaim since 1995. Initially organized as a single exhibition of static cadavers in Japan, Body Worlds has since grown to include 8 simultaneously (and globally) touring exhibitions. Boasted as ?the most successful traveling exhibitions of all time? (IfP 2013d, para. 3), the Body Worlds exhibitions have been on display 106 times since its first exhibition in Japan in 1995, and the 24 countries and 75 cities they have visited 188 have welcomed 32 million people (2013l).31. In particular, the exhibition has found an eager audience in the United States where it has been on display 39 times since its debut in Los Angeles in 2004. Only Germany, the home of von Hagens and the IfP, has welcomed the exhibitions in the double-digits ? displaying Body Worlds variations 21 times, in addition to the permanent exhibition at the Plastinarium in Guben.32 The 39 exhibitions in the United States have been hosted by institutions in 26 cities, as a number of locations have hosted more than one Body Worlds exhibition. For example, the California Science Center in Los Angeles followed the exhibition of Body Worlds 1 in 2004 with Body Worlds 2 in 2005, and Body Worlds 3 in 2008. The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago has hosted Body Worlds 1 , 2 , and 3 , and premiered the American debut of Animals: Inside Out in 2013. Additionally, institutions in Philadelphia, Houston, Denver, Saint Paul, Phoenix, Portland, San Jose, and St. Louis have hosted the exhibitions twice each. Assessing the success of the exhibitions as a sign of our times, van Dijck (2005) explains ?e vidently, in our increasingly medicalized society, people?s interest in the human body has risen in proportion to their interest in its normally hidden dimension? (p. 43). The IfP has meet the rising global interest in this type of surveillance by creating interchangeable exhibitions that can diversify their approaches to health education, showcase their advances in plastination technology, and keep institutions, and visitors, coming back 31 As of March 15th, 2013. See Appendix B for a full l ist of the exhibitions and their host cities and countries. 32 Body Worlds has been exhibited in 22 other countries from one or two (e.g. most recently, Puerto Rico, South Africa, Finland, and Guatemala), to eight (Canada) times. 189 for more. Capitalizing on the renewed, and internalized focus, of the human body in neoliberalism, Body Worlds has found an eager customer in US science institutions, and their sponsors, who welcome the exhibition?s shared health and science education missions, and are more than willing to take advantage of the ?body worlds effect? in regards to increased attendance, expanded audiences, and brand enhancement (IfP, 2008, para. 3). Plastination?s (new) gross anatomy lessons.33 ?Plastination unveils the beauty beneath the skin, frozen in time between death and decay? (von Hagens as cited in von Hagens & Whalley, 2007, back cover). ?Yet here I was learning something important about the living body from a dead body? (Pronger, 1995, p. 428) Plastination was invented by Gunther von Hagens in the 1970?s out of his frustration with the limitations of medical specimen preservation and preparation (IfP, 2013e). Traditionally encased within plastics, von Hagens experimented with the 33 The gross anatomy lesson is in reference to Gunther von Hagens?s ?anatomist?s hat? styled after Rembrandt?s painting The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, and Pronger?s (1995) article Rendering the body: The implicit lessons of gross anatomy. Embracing Western ideals of indivi dualism, von Hagens explains his reason for wearing the hat on the Institute for Plastination?s website: ?Rembrandt?s painting of the anatomist, Dr. Andreas[sic] Tulp, portrays the habit of anatomy artists of the Renaissance to wear a hat ? which they would not take off, even during dissections. In doing so, they demonstrated their independence from the social norms of their time?I am a democrat and individualist with all my heart. The strength of our Western democracy lies within the promotion of individua lism, based on the maxim, ?live and let live?? (von Hagens as cited in 2013a, para. 1-2). 190 injection of plastics into specimens until he successfully patented the process in 1977. Described as a ?relatively simple process designed to preserve the body for educational and instructional purposes? (IfP, 2013 k, para. 1), plastination involves five steps: 1) Embalming and anatomical dissection; 2) Removal of fat and water; 3) Forced impregnation; 4) Positioning; 5) Curing. This series of steps halts the decay of tissue, sculpts the donor body into an anatomical specimen, replaces body water and fat with a reactive polymer (e.g. silicone rubber), and hardens the specimen into their selected position. This process varies, somewhat, depending on the type of specimen that is being created from a donor body. For example, in ?sheet plastination?, a donor body is ?deep frozen and cut into slices of 2 to 8 mm in thickness (1/12 to 1/3 inch)?, and a polyester or epoxy resin is used for the impregnation process instead of silicone (IfP, 2013 k, para. 7). The plastination of an entire body, however, can take up to 1 year, or 1500 working hours to complete (IfP, 2013k ). Thus, plastination is a visualizing technology ? a series of processes that allows the (dead) body to be seen in particular, objective, and objectified ways. Plastination acts as a visualizing technology in the Body Worlds exhibitions in two ways. First, as a technique that produces a medical image, and commands a medical gaze (Foucault, 1973), plastination presents the anatomical body as natural and authentic; ?as it actually is? (Pronger, 1995, p. 436). Secondly, the cellular rigidity caused by the process of plastination, enables scientists at the IfP to manipulate donor bodies into ?visually arresting plastinate[s] ? the ideal method for displaying a preserved body in a way that sheds light on the functions of its structures? (IfP, 2013i , para. 3). Creating a ?new? approach to teaching anatomy the 191 IfP prepares (e.g. dissects, positions, hardens) its ?gestalt? whole body plastinates (von Hagens & Whalley, 2007) and individual ?components of interest? to ?reveal structural relationships that would have otherwise remained hidden [in traditional anatomic dissections]? (IfP, 2013i, para. 2), and show visitors to the exhibition what they?re made of (Figure 5.6 ). Thus, in addition to the explicit lessons that plastination makes available for medical students and museumgoers ? ?the structure and names of the body?s parts? (p. 431) ? plastination also teaches the implicit lessons of gross anatomy; the body as ?(a) an object, (b) a machine, (c) completely accessible to the scientific gaze and therefore the needs of technology, and (d) something separate and useful to a disembodied mind or spirit? (Pronger, 1995, p. 436). Made possible by the ?generosity? of its donors (IfP, 2013l), and the visualizing capabilities of plastination technology, Body Worlds is a ?collaboration, a joint quest toward enlightenment between donor, anatomist and visitor? (von Hagens, as cited in IfP, 2011) 192 Displaying Body Worlds 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! t2! 3! t4! t5! 6! 7! 8! t9! t13! q15!10! 16! 14!11! 17! 21!20! 19! t18! t23! 22! 24! v25! 28! 27! t26! q29! t31! 30! v32! t33! 34! t35! v36!t39! 38! t37! v40! 41! t43! 44! t42! 45! t46! t54! 52! q48! 50! 51! q53! q12! 47! 49! No. Visual Texts & Technologies Title/Description 1 Entrance 1a Tactile Rules sign 1b Audio Audio counter 1c Video Video screen t2 Text panel Welcome to the art of Body Worlds 2 3 Plastinate Skeleton t4 Text panel Who am I? t5 Text panel Flexing the three pound gem 6 Specimen Brain 7 Table vitrine 7a Specimen Frontal cross-section of the thigh bone 7b Specimen Sagittal cross-section through the knee of a newborn baby 7c Specimen Infant skull 7d Specimen Infant skull 8 Tribute In memory of the body donors t9 Text panel The body donor & their enduring legacy 10 Plastinate Muscleman with skeleton and child, 2000 11 Table vitrine 11a Specimen the ear-brain connection 11b Specimen ossicles 11c Specimen castings of the cochlea and semicircular canals 11d Specimen separated temporal bone with dissected inner ear q12 Quote Your mind will be like its habitual thought; for the soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts ? Marcus Aurelius (121-180), Roman emporer and philosopher t13 Text panel Consciousness ? The mind in action 14 Table vitrine 14a Specimen Vertebral column 14b Specimen Torso with severely deformed spinal column and body wall 14c Specimen Surgical intervention for a fracture (osteosynthesis) 14d Specimen Shoulder joint 14e Specimen Elbow joint 14f Specimen Hand specimen 14g Specimen Ankle specimen with ligaments q15 Quote Your body is the harp of your soul. And it is yours to bring forth sweet music from it our confused sounds. ? Kalil Gibran (1883- 1931), Lebanese American artist, poet, and writer 16 Plastinate The Hand Shake, 2002 17 Plastinate The Ringman, 2002 t18 Text panel Personality ? Pathways in the Brain 19 Table vitrine 19a Specimen Knee 19b Specimen Knee with severe arthritis 19c Specimen Hip joint 19d Specimen Artificial hip 19e Specimen Pins and needles 19f Specimen Lower extremity with knee joint prosthesis 20 Text panel The Perpetual Student 21 Plastinate The Orthopedic Body, 1997 22 Plastinate Central and Peripheral Nervous System, 1995 t23 Text panel Memory ? The Archivist 24 Table vitrine 24a Specimen Brain with spinal cord 24b Specimen Childs brain 24c Specimen Brain in an open skull 24d Specimen The brain hemispheres 24e Specimen Brain stem specimen 24f Specimen Dissected brain with nerve fibers and basal ganglia 24g Specimen Brain specimen showing lateral ventricle 24h Specimen Series of horizontal slices of the brain v25 Video Synapses No. Visual Texts & Technologies Title/Description t26 Text panel Lights, Neurons, Action 27 Table vitrine 27a Specimen Blood vessel configuration of cerebral arteries 27b Specimen Brain with a massive hemorrhage following a stroke 27c Specimen Brain slices with a massive hemorrhage following a stroke 28 Plastinate Man at leisure, 2002 q29 Quote Life comes to us in fragments, a world in pieces the eye must reconstruct. A different kind of logic ? every brain assembles its own. ? Emily Ruth Hazel (1984 ?), American poet 30 Specimen Central and Peripheral Nervous System t31 Text panel The Infant Brain ? Psychedelic Splendor v32 Video Infant and toddlers t33 Text panel The Teen Brain ? The Young and the Restless 34 Plastinate The Skateboarder, 2005 t35 Text panel Brain Development in Children and Teenagers v36 Video The brain as it ages t37 Text panel Smells like teen spirit 38 Plastinate The Ponderer, 2005 t39 Text panel The Adult Brain ? Peak Condition v40 Video "Advice" quotes (e.g. pick up a new sport, love and be loved) 41 Plastinate The Autopsy Body, 2003 t42 Text panel The Aging Brain ? Coping with Less t43 Text panel Alzheimer?s ? The Long Goodbye 44 Specimen Alzheimer disease: Degeneration of the cerebral cortex 45 Specimen Brain slices t46 Text panel Intelligence ? more than IQ 47 Table vitrine 47a Specimen Lungs 47b Specimen Thoracic organs of a child 47c Specimen Diaphragm q48 Quote Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. The 14th Dalai Lama (1935 ? ), head of State and Spiritual Leader of the Tibetan people 49 Specimen Thoracic and Abdominal Organs with Lung cancer 50 Table vitrine 50a Specimen The naso-oral cavity 50b Specimen Larynx 50c Specimen Goiters 50d Specimen Lung with tubercular lesion 51 Table vitrine 51a Specimen Lung of non-smoker (and lung slice of non-smoker) 51b Specimen Lung of a smoker 51c Specimen Coal-miners lung 51d Specimen Horizontal cross-section of the thoracic cavity 51e Specimen Thoracic cavity (chest) cross-section showing smoker?s lungs and lung cancer 51f Specimen Cross-section of the thoracic cavity with emphysema 52 Plastinate The X-lady, 2005 q53 Quote Memory is the cabinet of imagination, the treasury of reason, the registry of conscious, and the council chamber of thought. Saint Basil the Great (330-379), Greek Churchman t54 Text panel Think like a woman Figure 5. 7 . Body Worlds layout ? Room 1; primary (white) and supplementary visual texts (light red) and technologies. Maryland Science Center floor plans (Adapted from Maryland Science Center, 2011). 193 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 55! 60! 61! 62! 63! q64! 59! t58! 56! 57! No. Visual Texts & Technologies Title/Description 55 Intervention I Quit Station 56 Informational Exhibition sponsors panel (e.g. Toyota; Fox 45) 57 Plastinate Relative Proportions, 1999 t58 Text panel Music ? striking the right cord 59 Informational Ask the Expert Desk 60 Plastinate Camel with baby camel, 2003 61 Plastinate Hanging cross sections 62 Plastinate Filly , 2002 63 Table vitrine 63a Specimen Heart muscle 63b Specimen Heart; open longitudinally 63c Specimen Vascular system of an enlarged heart (compensatory heart hypertrophy) 63d Specimen Heart valves 63e Specimen Aortic valve infection (endocarditis) 63f Specimen Heart with artificial valve 63g Specimen Heart with small tumor in left ventricle 64 Quote The mind manifests itself by looks and words. For the soul is our dwelling-place, our eyes are its windows and our lips its messengers. Khalil Gibran (1883-1931), Lebanese American artist, poet, and writer Figure 5.8. Body Worlds layout ? Room 2; primary (white) and supplementary (light red) visual texts and technologies. Maryland Science Center floor plans (Adapted from Maryland Science Center, 2011). 194 ! 65! 103! 67! t66! t69! 68! 70!t71! 72! 84! 83!82! 81! 75! 73! 87! q85! 86! 88! 92! 89! q95! 93! 94! 91! 96! 99! 98! t97! 76! t74! 78! t77! v79! t80! t90! 104! t100! 101! q102! No. Visual Texts & Technologies Title/Description 65 Table vitrine 65a Specimen Configuration of cardiac muscle 65b Specimen The inner appearance 65c Specimen Infarction in the apex of the heart 65d Specimen Chest cavity showing heart attack 65e Specimen Thoracic cavity cross-section 65f Specimen Cross section to the thoracic cavity with a normal sized heart t66 Text panel Creativity ? The Brain on Fire 67 Plastinate The Yoga Lady, 2006 68 Plastinate The Head-Diver, 2006 t69 Text panel The Roller Coaster of Emotions 70 Table vitrine 70a Specimen Healthy aorta opened 70b Specimen Opened aortas with arteriosclerosis 70c Specimen Aorta with aneurysm (closed and cut open) t71 Text panel Love struck 72 Plastinate The Baseball Player, 2005 73 Table vitrine 73a Specimen Placenta 73b Specimen Placenta (rear view) 73c Specimen Placenta of twins t74 Text panel Wonders of human development 75 Plastinate Woman Bearing Life, 1996 76 Embryos (weeks 4-8) 7a Specimen Beginning of 4th week 76b Specimen Middle of 4th week 76c Specimen End of 4th week 76d Specimen Beginning of 5th week 76e Specimen Middle of 5th week 76f Specimen Beginning of 6th week 76g Specimen End of 6th week 76h Specimen End of 7th week 76i Specimen Middle of 8th week 76j Specimen End of 8th week t77 Text panel A work of staggering genius begins with a single cell 78 Embryos (weeks 13-33) 78a Specimen Fetus inside uterus ? 3rd month 78b Specimen 13th and 14th week 78c Specimen 19th ? 20th week 78d Specimen Fetus in 5th month ? special col., bonus 78e Specimen 22nd week 78f Specimen 28th week v79 Video Embryonic and fetal development 80 Text panel Fetal development No. Visual Texts & Technologies Title/Description 81 Specimen The nervous system and digestion 82 Specimen Organs 83 Plastinate The Expanded Body, 2005 84 Table vitrine 84a Specimen Stomach 84b Specimen Lining of the stomach 84c Specimen Secretions of the liver and pancreas 84d Specimen Section of the small intestine with lining 84e Specimen Caecum 84f Specimen Section of the large intestine q85 Quote The energy of the mind is the essence of life. Aristotle (384-322 BC), Greek Philosopher 86 Vessels 86a Specimen Blood vessel configuration of the heart and lung arteries 86b Specimen Configuration of the renal arteries of veins 86c Specimen Blood vessel configuration of the posterior trunk wall 86d Specimen Blood vessel configuration of the arm 87 Table vitrine 87a Specimen Liver 87b Specimen Gallstones 87c Specimen Shrunken liver 87d Specimen Abdominal and head cross-sections with extensive tumor growth 87e Specimen Body slice through upper abdomen 87f Specimen ody slice at the level of the upper abdomen with multiple tumors inside the liver 88 Plastinate The Ballet Dancer, 2005 89 Plastinate Sagittal 3-D Slice Body, 1999 t90 Text panel Stress ? The agitated brain 91 Table vitrine 91a Specimen Liver slices with metastases 91b Specimen Spleen 91c Specimen Enlarged spleen due to a blockage in the portal vein due to liver cirrhosis 91d Specimen Enlarged spleen due to leukemia 91e Specimen Body slices with skin cancer metastases 91f Specimen Sagittal slice through a female pelvis with massive constipation 92 Plastinate The Flying Skier, 2002 93 Plastinate The Soccer Player, 2005 94 Plastinate Obesity Revealed, 2005 q95 Quote The eye ? it cannot choose but see; we cannot bid the ear be still; our bodies feel where?re they be, against or with our will. ? William Wordsworth (1710-1880), English romantic poet; We do not see things as they are; we see thing as we are. ? The Talmud. Record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, custom & history 96 Plastinate Elegance on Ice, 2005 t97 Text panel Driven crazy by cravings ? The addicted brain 98 Table vitrine 98a Specimen Kidneys with urinary tract (male and female) 98b Specimen Kidneys opened frontally 98c Specimen Kidney with double ureters 98d Specimen Adrenal glands 98e Specimen Kidney cysts 98f Specimen Shrunken kidney 98g Specimen Tumor at the urinary end of the kidney (hypernephroma) 98h Specimen Polycystic kidney (opened lengthways) 99 Table vitrine 99a Specimen Male reproductive organs 99b Specimen Testes 99c Specimen Bladder with prostrate gland 99d Specimen Bladder with distended prostate gland (prostatic hyperplasia) 99e Specimen Female reproductive organs 99f Specimen Ovarian tumors 99g Specimen Myomas 99h Specimen Mammary gland 99i Specimen Breast cancer (mammary carcinoma) t100 Text panel After night falls ? as you dream it 101 Plastinate The Angel, 2005 q102 Quote You many forget the one with whom you have laughed, but never the one with whom you have wept. ? Khalil Gibran (1883-1931), Lebanese American artist, poet, and writer 103 Exit 103a Text panel Body Donation for Plastination 103b Visitors Comment books 104 Spaces Behind Body Worlds shop Figure 5. 9 . Body Worlds 2 layout ? Room 3; primary (white) and supplementary (light red) visual texts and technologies. Maryland Science Center floor plans (Adapted from Maryland Science Center, 2011). 195 At the Maryland Science Center, more than 20 whole bodies presented in unique and insightful poses offer visitors an in-depth view of the intricately designed human body, while plastinated individual organs and transparent body slices reveal comparative anatomy focusing on wellness and disease. (Maryland Science Center, 2 008b, para. 3) Gunther von Hagens? Body Worlds 2 & The Brain ? Our Three Pound Gem, The Original Exhibition of Real Human Bodies34 was on display at the Maryland Science Center from February 2nd to December 1st, 2008. The Baltimore institution welcomed the exhibition anticipating the success previous hosts had garnered with Body Worlds 2 in Los Angeles, Denver, Boston, Chicago, and San Jose . Supported by corporate sponsors LifeBridge Health, and CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, Body Worlds welcomed its 100,000th visitor an ? unprecedented? 66 days after it s opening (Maryland Science Center, 2008b, para. 1). By the exhibition?s end, the Maryland Science Center had welcomed 327,000 visitors35, ?making it far and away the most visited exhibition ever to come to [th e Maryland Science Center?s] exhibit halls? (Maryland Science Center, 2008a, p. 11). Taking advantage of recent expansion efforts to ?create an environment in which the most popular touring exhibitions would flourish?, Body Worlds 2 is a visual event and institutional technology contracted by 34 Hereafter referred to simply as Body Worlds 2. Though Body Worlds has been used throughout this chapter as a general reference to any of the Institute for Plastination?s variously themed, but interchangeable exhibitions, the use of Body Worlds 2 in this section situates the analysis of this particular iteration, in its particular site of audiencing. 35 In comparison, the Maryland Science Center averages 500,000 visitors annually (Maryland Science Center, 2012e). The record attendance for Body Worlds has also been compared to the 120,000 visitors to the Titanic exhibition hosted by the museum in 2005, Baltimore?s population (620,000), 6 sellouts of Oriole Park?s 49,000 seats, and the annual attendance at the Baltimore Museum of Art (270,000) (Gunts, 2008). 196 the Maryland Science Center to provide ?another tool [they] use to make the connections between science and our [healthy] everyday lives? (Maryland Science Center, 2008a, p. 11). In addition to filling its new rotating exhibition space in the Legg Mason Gallery, Body Worlds 2 temporarily overran the health sciences display spaces on the second floor, and, consequently, took over their role in educating museum visitors about ?disease prevention?the promotion of healthy l ifestyles, and?the process of renewal and change that our bodies experience over time (Maryland Science Center, 2012e, press kit, p. 3). Body Worlds 2?s exhibition technologies and effects of t ruth . Figure 5.1 0 . Thematic organization of Body Worlds 2 at the Maryland Science Center. Maryland Science Center floor plans (Adapted from Maryland Science Center, 2011). Entrance to Body Worlds 2 required the purchase of a $24.00 ticket, available online or at the museum.36 Doled out in fifteen minute increments, visitors queued in the museum?s entrance hall until designated museum warders guided them up to the second floor, and through a set of turnstiles to the entrance of the 36 Tickets, and audio guides, were discounted for children ($18), seniors and students ($23), and groups of more than 15 people ($20). The ticket price included gener al admission to the Maryland Science Center during museum hours. Admission to the Body Worlds 2 exhibition after museum hours ?specially extended to attract visitors without children ? costed $19.00. 197 exhibition. Dominating the second floor of the Maryland Science Center during its tenure, Body Worlds 2 featured 29 whole body plastinates, and 126 plastinated specimens. These primary visual texts were distributed throughout 3 distinct exhibitions spaces, and divided into 15 rooms by heavy black floor to ceiling curtains (Figures 5.7 ? 5.9 ). Similar to traditional anatomy and physiology approaches, the 15 rooms introduce visitors to ?how their own bodies are constructed? ( IfP, 2012b, para. 2), working from the inside out (Figure 5.11 ) . As the IfP explains: The exhibitions are structured in such a way that visitors can experience it much as they would a three dimensional textbook: anatomy as the foundation of the body is laid out in an educational and elucidating fashion. Visitors can envision how their own bodies are constructed as they walk through the exhibitions, starting with the human skeleton and the way muscles are structured, on to the intestines and special specimens on the nerves and blood vessels, all the way to the way a baby develops in the uterus. ( IfP, 2012b, para. 2). While the exhibition doesn?t overtly announce the theme of each room, the grouping of whole body plastinates and specimen vitrines, the spatial organization of individual specimens within their display cases, and the exhibition?s interpretive text panels and labels, work together to organize the exhibition by anatomical systems. 37 The first room in the exhibition introduces the feature specimen, the brain, 37 My designation of the various systems adopts the same language that Whalley (as cited in von Hagens & Whalley, 2007) utilizes in her section on ?The Human Body ? Anatomy and Function? in the Body Worlds exhibition catalogue. 198 gives tribute to body donors for their ?contribut[ion] to the medical enlightenment of lay people?.clear vision and tremendous generosity? ( The body donor & their enduring legacy text panel, field notes), and introduces visitors to the bones of the ?body?s internal framework? ( Skeleton , text label, field notes). The first three rooms of the exhibition (Rooms 1, 2, and 3) focus on the muscles and bones that make up the locomotive system, and enable body movements. Rooms 4 and 5 explain the nervous system, and situates the brain at the helm of human development. Rooms 6 and 7 feature the respiratory system, and display one of Body Worlds ?s most consistent and popular specimens, Lung of a smoker . Exiting the first portion of the exhibition, the museum?s breezeway transitions visitors between the two main exhibition spaces. Here, Body Worlds , the American Lung Association of Baltimore, and Yu l Brynner, ?one of the brightest of Hollywood Stars? (text label, field notes) capitalize on the opportunity to enact exhibition- influenced lifestyle changes at the I Quit Station . This intermediary space is sparsely populated with an assortment of exhibition specimens and texts, including a text panel about music, and the comparative anatomy lesson provided with the Camel with baby camel, 2003 and Filly, 2002 plastinates. Focused on the heart, the exhibition picks up in earnest again in the foyer of the Legg Mason Gallery, the Maryland Science Center?s temporary exhibition space. The first two rooms of the third area of the exhibition (Rooms 9 & 10) are focused on the cardiovascular system and discuss how the heart works, what happens when it doesn?t work, and how to take care of it so it keeps working. Cordoned off in its own space, the exhibition protects unaware or unwilling visitors from the 199 ?sensitive nature? (field notes) of embryonic and fetal development (Room 12).38 The digestive system, including the stomach, and small and large intestines, is on display in the next two rooms (Room 13 &14). Finally, Room 15 of the exhibition addresses the kidneys and urinary tract, and, separate from prenatal development, the reproductive organs. As visitors exited Body Worlds 2 they were invited to leave comments, and gather information about donating their body, before being deposited in the exhibition shop to purchase videos, catalogues, postcards, and other exhibition collateral to relive, and/or share, their healthist experiences, and further ?envision how their own [biologica l] bodies are constructed? (IfP, 2013d, para. 2) . The arrangement of the exhibition by anatomical systems is a technology made truthful by the ?explicit? ontological lessons of modern anatomical sciences ? ?the body described by anatomy exists; when students learn anatomy, they learn the structure and names of the body's parts? (Pronger, 1995, p. 431). In Body Worlds 2 the visitors are the students, and the exhibition is the ?three dimensional textbook? (IfP , 2013d , para. 2). However, as an exhibition, in a museum, visitors come ?to look at visually interesting objects?. If this were not so [the museumgoer] would have stayed at home and read a book [about anatomy ]? ( Baxandall, 1991, p. 34). Thus, the visitors to Body Worlds 2 are rendered doubly receptive (Duncan, 1991); to the truth regimes of modern scientific discourse, and the authority of exhibition layout and display technologies. 38 This ?reproductive? room is age - restricted in other Body Worlds exhibitions, such as T he Mirror of Time in London , where, in additional to fetus specimens, a copulating plastinated (heterosexual) couple are on display (field notes). However, the inclusion of ?full- body plastinates with exposed genitals? (IfP, 2013l, para. 10) throughout the exhibitions is cited as a concern in regards to the appropriateness of Body Worlds for children. 200 Within the exhibition, whole bod y plastinates, individual plastinated organs, and transparent body slices were arranged to provide optimal viewing of the complex anatomical feats on display, and for the large number of visitors in attendance. Whole body plastinates were individually posed on stainless steel platforms, and situated along the curtained room divisions, though not so close they restricted opportunities to one view or one viewer. Rather, a 360 - degree view was encouraged by double- sided labels so that visitors could appreciate the full complexity of the human body, and easily access the interpretations provided. The 126 individual organs and transparent body slices were grouped together in 18 plexiglass vitrines. Protected from any possible prodding, these closed display cases were positioned along the center of rooms, and often placed end- to- end to double the length of the viewing terrain. Double - sided texts propped next to the specimens allowed visitors to look and learn from either side. The individual staging, and literal highlighting of the whole body plastinates, prioritizes their function in the exhibition; to promote the wonders of plastination, and the human body. However, it is the selective grouping, and spatial organization, of individual specimens within their display cases that provide ?additional implications of relation? (Baxandall, 1991, p. 34), earmarks the thematic progression of the exhibition?s rooms, and reinforces the exhibition?s mission to ?show the effect of poor health, good health and lifestyle choices? (IfP, 2013l , para. 3). In addition to reinforcing an anatomical approach to bodily knowledge through the systemic grouping of specimens in display cases, the organization of normal next to abnormal specimens, and healthy next to unhealthy specimens, 201 visually defines abject bodies and exaggerates the effects of unhealthy habits. For example, in a vitrine highlighting the spinal column and skeletal joints, Vertebral column and Torso with severely deformed spinal column and body wall are situated next to each other. Their text labels, equally, emphasize their respective (dys)functions. The normal form and function of the vertebral column is explained first: ?The human spine is a double S-Shaped curve. This allows the body to stand upright. The spine has 32-35 vertebrae separated from each other by intervertebral discs. These act as natural shock absorbers? ( Verterbral column , text label, field notes). The deformation and dysfunction of the vertebral column is explained next: ?Bones may be deformed for several reasons?The distortion here is due to a genetic bone disorder. The internal organs size and shape had to adapt to the unusual twisted torso. A deformed torso partly affects lung function? (Torso with severely deformed spinal column and body wall , text label, field notes). Responsibility for visible defects and malfunctioning is shifted to the individual when, for example, a healthy liver and a liver shrunken by cirrhosis and alcohol consumption are displayed in the same vitrine, or when sagittal cadaver slices of an obese 300-pound person and a slim 120- pound person are placed next to each other to show visitors how ?the inner organs are literally drowning in fat? ( Obesity Revealed , audio, field notes). Thus, the spatial organization of plastinates in the exhibition, and within their display cases, work with layout and interpretive technologies to turn the panoptic gaze inward. Tactile technologies, additionally, play a role in the truthful presentation of plastinates, and the disciplining of visitors bodies, enabling them to ?see and [not] touch with the right conventions? (Haraway, 1997, p. 85). 202 Do not touch wonder. Body Worlds deviates from the Maryland Science Center?s mission to learn by ?touching wonder? and conforms to Rose?s (2007) premise that, ?one of the most important disciplines of museum and gallery spaces for visitors is the almost universal rule that you cannot touch the exhibits? (p. 189). The exhibition has strict policies regarding interaction with(in) the exhibition, and its rules were listed at the entrance to the Body Worlds 2 (see Figure 5.3 ): ?NO re -entry, NO food or drink, NO cameras or photography, DO NOT lean on cases or touch the specimens, TURN OFF cell phones, NO restrooms in the exhibit? (field notes; cf. IfP, 2013l ).39 In contrast to the unmonitored expectation that visitors would not touch the objects at the National Portrait Gallery, Body Worlds 2 rules were strictly enforced by the additional security personnel (i.e. warders) hired for the exhibition (Gunts, 2008; museum staff, personal communication, February 18, 2008 ). Additionally, other visitors contributed to the monitoring of proper exhibition etiquette, and intervened on behalf of Body Worlds when they felt the rules were being violated.40 These tactile technologies work in concert with the exhibition?s display and layout technologies, and in particular with those technologies that create an environment where the ?unruly entertainment[s]? of the Maryland Science Center are 39 Though the Institute for Plastination claims that visitors will be able to touch ? a select group of plastinated organs to better understand both the human anatomy and the process of Plastination ? (IfP, 2013l, p ara. 9) within the exhibition, the only time I had this opportunity in my many visits was to the Body Worlds 3 exhibition in Denver. 40 Perhaps the most overt example I saw of this was when a vis itor smacked away the hand of a child (not hers) as she reached out to touch the Muscleman with skeleton and child plastinate, and the strong words that ensued between the visitor and the woman the child was attending the exhibition with. 203 shifted into the ?orderly appreciations? needed for contemplative viewing (Rose, 2007, p. 182). The dimmed lights, spotlit specimens, new age music, and noise absorbing curtains subdues the exhibition space, and its visitors; "c uriosity brings people in?.But as soon as they see the first figure, the talk ing stops and a kind of a hushed reverence takes over (Davis as cited in Thalman, 2008, para. 12). Thus, the ?Body Worlds effect? extends beyond the commercial success that the exhibition brings to the museum, and also applies to the reverent respect for the awesome human body, and, consequently, the responsibility for caring for it, that is bestowed upon its visitors. Different from the gross anatomy lessons that Pronger (1995) describe ? where students can ?move the intestines around? (p. 427) and manipul ate the muscles of the hand and fingers to make them move (p. 437) ? this tactile work has already been done, in a lab, in spaces behind the exhibition. The manipulation, fragmentation, and, ultimately, objectification of the body remains on view, however, and the ways the visitors can anatomically know the body are restricted to looking at the expanded plastinates, and reading the exhibition? s interpretive texts; both authored, and authorized by the IfP . Body Worlds 2 features a number of different visual and textual interpretive technologies, including: text labels, audio guides, text panels (29), videos (6), and quote banners (7). The text panels and quote banners are illustrated, and provide further interpretation through images and captions. These interpretive technologies are utilized by Body Worlds ?s creators in two distinct ways. The text labels and audio guides interpret the exhibition?s visual texts (i.e. plastinated bodies and organs), and the text panels, videos, and quote banners tie the visual texts to the theme(s) of the 204 larger exhibition (i.e. the brain), and individual rooms (i.e. systemic). Together, the visual and textual interpretive technologies of Body Worlds 2 complement the layout, display, and tactile technologies discussed above, and work with them to construct the exhibition?s claims at truthful. The following section will address how the interpretive texts are rendered as truthful, before discussing the truth claims they make in the final section of the chapter, Displaying Health(ism ) at the Maryland Science Center. As the primary exhibition texts the plastinates and specimens are each accompanied by text labels. The labels for the whole body plastinates feature the name and date of the plastinate (i.e. The Skateboarder , 2005), and reinforce the plastinate as an artistic object by using traditional titling conventions. Explicitly addressing the manipulation of the cadaver, and the purpose for its pose and manipulation, the text labels for the whole body plastinates further objectify, fragment, and mechanize the human body. For example, The Skateboarder ?s text explains ?This skateboarder?s upside down trick offers an insight into the anatomy of the buttocks. There are three gluteal muscles. The gluteus maximus?is flapped back to show the sciatic nerve? (The Skateboarder , text label, field notes). Finally, the text label features an image of the plastinate, where the anatomical features that the plastinate was manipulated to make visible are labeled, and the explicit lessons of anatomy are reinforced. In reference, once again, to The Skateboarder , the following frontal anatomical highlights are labeled: flexor muscles of toes, achilles tendon, sciatic nerve, rectus sheath, obturator nerve, brachial plexus, ulnar nerve, extensor muscles of foot and toes, knee joint (opened), knee cap, collarbone, masseter muscle, temporalis muscle, biceps muscle, radial nerve, and the flexor muscles of hand and 205 fingers (The Skateboarder, text label, field notes).41 The use of scientific labeling and language to identify individual body parts reinforces the authenticity and objectivity of the information, and the objectification of the human body. Though less consistent, anatomical features of individual organs are pointed out by attaching a label to the plastinates. Afforded less space, the individual specimen text labels provide a descriptive title (e.g. Torso with severely deformed spinal column and body wall) and a brief description of its form and (dys)function. While not utilized by all visitors, the audio guides provide another interpretive technology for those who opt to pay the additional $5 for the ?experience even more?and enhance [their] visit to Body Worlds? (Audio counter text, field notes). The audio guides are ?designed for the layman? (IfP, 2013l, para. 15), and their information is accessed by punching in the number assigned to nearly every individual and whole body plastinate. Paired with text labels, the audio guides reinforce (sometimes verbatim) the information already provided, and extend interpretations by providing more details about form and function, and healthy habits. For example, the audio for The Skateboarder discusses the ?range of stunning tricks? available in skateboarding, and describes the raging ?neuron war? in the ?complex? and ?frustrating? adolescent brain to explain the participation of youth in the risky endeavors, such as skateboarding. In contrast to the labels that interpret the exhibition?s visual texts, Body 41 Anatomical features on the back of The Skateboarder plastinate are additionally labeled: e.g. (back) tendon of long extensor muscles of the toes, shinbone (tibia), kneecap, master muscle, mandible, temporalis muscle, long peroneal muscle, sciatic nerve, latissimus dorsi muscle, trapezius muscle, erector spinae muscle, deltoid muscle, radial nerve, extensor retinaculum. (The Skateboarder, text label, field notes). 206 Worlds?s text panels do not directly reference the plastinates. Rather, they supplement the exhibition?s primary texts (visual and written), by providing information that visitors can use to connect their (anatomical) bodies to their (neurological) brains, Body Worlds 2 ?s thematic focus. For example, the first text panel of the exhibition, Who am I? , provides a mirrored surface for visitors to examine themselves in, while they read the following text: It seems such an easy question to answer. We imagine a coherent inner self inhabiting and controlling our bodies. Yet there is no explanation for how this self receives info from the brain nor how it exerts control over it. We are not born with a sense of self, it emerges at around age two, as the neural networks develop in the brain. Later, our brains constantly interpret and create a feeling of self. For some, our sense of self is tied to a continual substance, for example, a non - material soul. (field not es) Though Who Am I? , and the exhibition?s text panels generally, claim to broaden scientific ontologies with their focus on the brain instead of the anatomical body, their scientization of the mind, and the self, sharpen them instead. The text panels receive 207 further scientific and interpretive support from visual technologies of interpretation, some more benign than others. For example, the text panel, Consciousness ? The Mind in Action uses the image, and metaphor, of an iceberg to compare conscious and unconscious thinking, explaining in the image?s caption that ?t he great mass of our thought is processed unconsciously? (i.e. under water) (field notes). The Body World 2 quote banners also feature decorative images in the form of black and white photographic portraits depicting various ages, sexes, and races (e.g. an elderly Hispanic man, an Asian child, a Caucasian baby, a Caucasian woman). Though these backdrop images bear little, if any, relation to the quotations from notable poets, philosophers, and spiritual leaders scrawled across them, their diversity does reflect Body Worlds ?s insistence on visualizing the unique inner features of real human bodies (IfP, 2013l , para. 5 ), and their flesh-covered faces provide a respite from the gruesome monotony of the exhibition?s skinless cadavers. Other visual interpretations take advantage of the objective authority of scientific imaging, images, and research to support the scientific truth claims of Body Worlds 2. For example, the text panel Brain Development in Children and Teenagers, features a MRI image of the brain, and an explanatory caption that reads: ?UCLA researchers traced how the brain develops in 3-20 year olds. As an infant brain develops, the grey matter in certain main areas (red) decreases in favor of connective white matter? (field notes). Thus, the image and caption prove the text label?s developmental claims by showing visitors scientific evidence. Next to the text label, The Brain as it Ages video runs a brain animation ?courtesy of Dr. Arthur N Toga, 208 Laboratory of Neuroimaging at UCLA? on a loop, providing further visible, and scientific, evidence of the changes in the developing, and aging, brain.42 While scientific imaging is unproblematically integrated throughout the exhibition, reference to scientific research is sporadic. Similar to Champions, the interpretive texts are largely devoid of authorship acknowledgements and citations. They instead provide scientific facts through the rhetoric of the modest witness ? ?the ?naked way of writing?, unadorned, factual?unclouded by the flourishes of any human author. [Where] both the facts and the witnesses inhabit the privileged zone of ?objective? reality through a powerful writing technology? (Haraway, 1997, p. 26). However, when authorship in acknowledged, either though citations of scientific research or descriptions of plastination manipulation, it serves to further the truthfulness of Body Worlds 2 , rather than disrupt its objectivity. Furthermore, the fragmenting manipulations made to the exhibition?s whole body plastinates, and the admissions proferred in their text labels, extend the anatomical objectification of the human body out of the (gross anatomy) lab, into exhibition spaces, and onto Body Worlds 2 visitors. 42 Though not part of the Body Worlds 2 exhibition at the Maryland Science Center, other Body Worlds exhibitions, or their host institutions, have supplied additional artistic visual technologies of interpretation. For example, Edward Muybridge?s locomotion photography and prints of scientific illustrations from the Renaissance at the end of the Body Worlds 1 in Philadelphia, torso casts at the start of the Body Worlds 3 exhibition in London meant to reinforce the uniqueness of the human form, and a food photography exhibition in between Body Worlds Vital exhibition spaces in Des Moines. 209 Learning from the walking dead. The final visual technology of interpretation I will discuss in this section, is the sport-themed positioning of many of the Body Worlds 2 plastinates. Like the Maryland Science Center, Body Worlds enlists physically active bodies as part of its visual, and scientific, interpretive repertoire. Of the 26 whole body plastinates on display in Body Worlds 2, half (13) are positioned in (in)active poses. In order of their appearance in the exhibition, they are: The Ringman, 2002 (17), The Orthopedic Body, 1997 (21), Man at Leisure, 2002 (28), The Skateboarder, 2005 (34), The X- lady, 2005 (52), The Yoga Lady, 20 06 (67), The Head-Diver, 2006 (68), The Baseball Player, 2005 (72), The Expanded Body, 2005 (83), The Ballet Dancer, 2005 (88), The Flying Skier, 2002 (92), The Soccer Player, 2005 (93), Obesity Revealed, 2005 (94), Elegance on Ice, 2005 (96). Additionally , other exhibitions I have attended have featured a basketball player, soccer goalie, javelin thrower, hurdler, torch bearer, cyclist, gymnasts, and archer ? to name a few. The poses of the plastinated cadavers on display in Body Worlds 2 serve a number of interconnected functions. To serve the ?educational aims? of the IfP , ?the athletic poses illustrate the use of muscle systems while playing sports? (IfP, 2013l, para. 8) . The use of these familiar animated poses facilitates the relation between visitors? and plastinates? bodies and movements, and allows Body Worlds 2 to present the human body and human movement as anatomical and biomechanical, and, anatomically and biomechanically ? correct? . Body Worlds 2?s textual technologies of interpretation assist in the body?s anatomical construction and objectification, but the 210 selective reconstruction of plastinated cadavers provides a visual technology of interpretation that strengthens its scientific truthfulness. Muscles are pulled back to reveal particular points of interest, organs are removed to reveal structures underneath, and muscles are tensed to show correct movement. Finally, the (in)active plastinate poses idealize the ways (gendered) bodies should look and move.43 Infused with plastics, and sans fat (removed during the plastination process) the fit bodies on display ?look incredibly well toned although many of the donors were elderly? (Kraft, 2009, p. GO1) , Thus, visual representations of the (in)active body figure prominently into visitors experiences in Body Worlds 2, where they can learn about (their) living human bodies from the walking, kicking, skating, skiing, and dancing dead. Displaying Health(ism) at the Maryland Science Center Thus far, this chapter has addressed the various institutional apparatuses and technologies that constitute, and carry out, the IfP and Maryland Science Center?s similar healthist agendas. These include: the missions of the IfP and the Maryland Science Center, which shape their respective ?collection? and exhibition practices; plastination as a visualizing technology, and the historical legacies of objective scientific imaging practices and sensationalist cadaver displays inform plastinate positioning, and authenticate and popularize Body Worlds ; and the technologies (e.g. display, layout, tactile, interpretive, and spaces behind) that confirm the IfP as experts, science as the way to know about the body, and visitors as a lay people in need of educating. The final section of this chapter transitions from the exhibition?s 43 In addition to the gendered positioning of plastinates (e.g. a male football player, a female ballet dancer) women plastinates are further visually differentiated by keeping, or reattaching, the areola and nipples during the dissection process. 211 effects of truth (i.e. how its claims are rendered truthful) to explore the claims put forward by Body Worlds ?s intertextualities, and how they limit the way visitors can literally, and figuratively, view their bodies. Situated in a neoliberal moment, Body Worlds 2 ?s primary visual texts (i.e. plastinates), and their visual and textual technologies of interpretation, are biopedagogies, engaged by the IfP to accomplish their health education mission, and teach visitors that health is their responsibility. Interpreting texts, constructing key themes, and looking for invisibilities. My analysis of the Body Worlds 2 plastinates and their interpretive technologies identified two major key themes: (1) ?What you?re made of?, and (2) ?The crucial word in the message is we?. The first key theme is supported by two sub-themes, both of which deconstruct the objective scientific interpretive repertoires of Body Worlds 2 . The first sub-theme, ?creating complex machines?, discusses the ways the exhibition defines the human body as complex, and situates science as a tool to decipher it [Creating complex machines]. Interconnected with the first, the second sub-theme addresses how Body Worlds 2 normalizes the ways human bodies (should) look and work [Form and (dys)function]. The second key theme of Body Worlds 2 references Silk & Andrews?s (2006) claim that ?the crucial word in the message is we ?, and discusses how the exhibition shifts corporeal responsibility to its visitors. Exploring neoliberalism?s focus on the individual, the two sub-themes explore how Body Worlds 2 educates visitors about the cause and effects of disease, illness, and poor health [(Ab)normal, (un)healthy, (in)active bodies], and provides them with care instructions and corrective strategies for their bodies [?Use it or lose it!?: Prescriptions for personal and medical modifications]. 212 ?What you?re made of?: The scientific construction of visible difference. Creating complex machines. ?Who should see Body Worlds? Anyone interested in learning what makes us human? (IfP , 2013l , para. 2). Though postmodernism has greatly disrupted the adage, ?seeing is believing?, the emphasis on authenticity in Body Worlds 2 (the original exhibition of real human bodies) suspends viewers? disbeliefs. Rather, the exhibition reveals ?what makes us human? by advancing objective, scientific, ways of seeing as ?the truthful representation of the body as it actually is, independent of culture? (Pronger, 1995, p. 436 - 7). As a trope in its scientific construction of the body, Body Worlds 2 represents humans as complex biological beings. While this complexity is apparent in the display of 126 unique plastinated specimens, and the intricate dissection and elaborate positioning of 27 gestalt plastinates, the human body?s remarkable feats and functions are detailed in the exhibition?s interpretive texts. At their most explicit, the interpretive texts refer to the human body, its parts, or its functions, as complex, genius, amazing, etcetera. As the focus of the exhibition, the brain is particularly celebrated. Visitors are welcomed to the exhibition by its entry text panel, Welcome to the Art of BODY WORLDS 2 , where they are invited to ?dwell on the special qualities of the human body, and the brain ? the amazing, unique, and irreplaceable three pound universe? (field notes). Further along in the exhibition, the text label for the Central and Peripheral Nervous System plastinate proclaims the brain as ?the most complex and mysterious organ in our body?, and 213 explains how Body Worlds 2 ?chronicle[s] the wonders and diversity of the brain and mind?.[and] aims to represent the brain?s individuality and complexity? ( field notes). Body structures and movements are also described as complex. For example, text labels explain to visitors how the surface muscle layers on The Yoga Lady plastinate were lifted to show the ?complexity of deeper layers? (field notes), and how The Angel plastinate?s open gluteus muscles show the ?complexities of the small pelvis? (field notes). The Baseball Player , The S occer Player , and Elegance on Ice plastinates and text labels demonstrate to visitors the complex ways muscles stretch and interact when bodies are in motion, and their audio describes the complex, split second, muscle coordination the brain orchestrates during rapid movements (field notes). Similar to Champions at the National Portrait Gallery, amazing feats are once again a feature of the exhibition. However, instead of the awe -inspiring endeavours of individuals, Body Worlds 2 features the natural(ized), biological functions of the objectified human body. Rattling off a litany of astounding corporeal achievements throughout the exhibition, the Body Worlds 2 audio, text panels, and text labels collectively imagine the human body as a complex, and remarkable, machine: ? ?absolutely tiny? ossicle bones perform the ?mammoth task? of transferring vibrations necessary for hearing (Ossicles, audio); ? bones can regenerate (Surgical intervention for a fracture (osteosynthesis) , audio); ? nerve signals travel 25 miles per hour ( Brain with spinal cord , text label); 214 ? reproduction is ?a work of staggering genius? (A work of staggering genius begins with a single cell , text panel); ? furrows that hide two-thirds of the brain?s surface, cover 16 square feet when they are spread flat (Child?s brain, audio; Brain in an open skull , text label; Brain slices, text label); ? the 200-450 million alveoli in each lung would cover 850-1300 square feet when spread flat (Horizontal cross - section of the thoracic cavity , text label); ? the villi of the small intestine could fill a one-bedroom apartment (Section of the small intestine with lining , text label & audio); ? although the brain accounts for only two percent of body weight, it consumes 20 percent of its blood supply (Blood vessel config uration of cerebral arteries text label); ? the heart is the size of a man?s fist and contracts over 2.5 billion times in a lifetime (Heart muscle, text & audio); ? 300 million sperm are produced in the testicles every day (Male reproductive organs, audio; Testes, text label) ? lungs breath in and out 20,000 times a day ( Lungs , audio); ? the body?s total blood volume is pumped through the kidneys 15 times an hour (Configuration of the renal arteries of veins , text label; Kidneys opened frontally, audio). (field notes) Constructing the human body as complex serves a number of purposes. First, the level of complexity depicted in Body Worlds 2 , and the overwhelming quantity of visual and textual ?evidence? that communicates this complexity (paired with the exhibition?s non-tactile, contemplative environment), produces a docile visitor. Visitors are less likely to question the interpreters, or interpretation, of such intricate knowledge, and more likely to suspend their ?subjective, experiential 215 understanding[s] of t he body? in favor of the ?objective, mechanistic, technological approach of gross anatomy? (Pronger, 1995, p. 440). Secondly, defining the body as a complex collection of remarkable moving parts further conceptualizes the body as a useful mechanistic objec t ?that needs to be trained to fit the larger machinery of society? (Foucault as cited in Pronger, 1995, p. 429). Together, representations of the body as a complex machine, maintain the invisibility of non- scientific understandings, and produce visitors as lay scientists harnessed with the responsibility to know more ?about how the body works and how it can break down, [so] they are more likely to choose healthy and sustainable lifestyles? ( IfP, 2013 l, para. 12). Form and (dys)function . To educate visitors about how the body breaks down, and what they can do to maintain a healthy and productive body, Body Worlds 2 first normalizes human form and performance. In conjunction with the exhibition?s portrayal of the amazing feats accomplished by complex bodies, basic life science knowledge about ?what the human body looks like and how it functions? (IfP, 2013l , para. 12) communicates bodily norms to visitors through the display and interpretation of healthy bodies, and body parts. In particular, form and function are addressed in tandem throughout the exhibition to normalize the structure, purpose, and processes of cells, organs, bones, muscles, and systems. For example, the text label for Vertebral column describes the form of the human spine, and vertebrae, followed by their function; ?The human spine is a double S - Shaped curve. This allows the body to stand upright. The spine has 32 - 35 vertebrae separated from each other by intervertebral discs. These act as natural shock absorbers? (field notes). 216 Additionally, its audio explains how the vertebral column enables normal movement, for example, ?let[ting] us twist and bend?while slamming a dunk? (field notes ). The process of fetal development is also standardized by a number of Body Worlds 2 texts that display or r eference developmental milestones such as length, weight, and developmental milestones from 30 hours to 33 weeks (e.g. Placenta specimen; Woman Bearing Life , 1996, plastinate; Embryos , plastinates; Fetal Development , text panel). For example, at 15 to 16 w eeks a fetus should measure 7 inches in length, weigh up to 7 ounces, and an ultrasound should be able to detect its gender[ sic] ( Fetal Development , text panel, field notes ). (Heterosexual) reproduction is additionally utilized by the exhibition to differ entiate, and normalize, male and female bodies. Since ?all but [their] reproductive systems a re essentially the same? (IfP, 2013l , para. 13), the display and description of reproductive organs and their functions becomes an important point of distinction i n the biological construction of sex. Despite the Institution for Plastination?s claim that differences between men and women are limited to the reproductive system, Body Worlds 2 provides a number of other biological departures. For example, in their des cription of the structure and function of the body?s 600 skeletal muscles, the text panels for both The Soccer Player and The Autopsy Body assign nearly half of men?s body weight to their musculature. Supported by the IfP?s (2013l ) preference for producing male whole body plastinates due to their more pronounced, and illustrative musculature (para. 13), The Autopsy Body text label additionally aligns exterior differences with inner, physiological, disproportions; explaining how ?[muscles] play a big role in the way 217 we look and make up the largest proportion of our tissue: roughly 23 percent of body weight in women and 40 percent in men? (field notes). Additionally, the Think Like a Woman text panel explains that men and women have different brain physiology (i.e. males have a larger hypothalamus), and ?think differently too, approaching intellectual problems in different ways? (field notes). The reproductive, skeletal, and neural differences promoted though Body Worlds 2?s textual interpretations, thus, work together with the selective dissection (e.g. the (dis)appearance of exterior sex organs) and gendered positioning of gestalt plastinates (e.g. a male soccer player versus a female yogi), to normalize biological differences between men and women. Importantly, however, the normalization of variations between the sexes, also denies variations within the sexes, and implies deviations from the norm as abject. Body Worlds 2?s descriptions of normal form and function homogenize the human body, despite the IfP?s (2013l) insistence that its real, plastinated specimens show visitors ?how each body has its own unique features, even on the inside? (para. 4). Body Worlds 2 does utilize a variety of donor bodies to exhibit the same organs and structures throughout the exhibition. However, instead of representing individuality, visible variations are constructed as deformities and dysfunctions, and defined in opposition to normal form and function. Normal specimens with names like Cross section to the thoracic cavity with a normal sized heart, and Healthy aorta opened, or unmarked simply as Lungs, are juxtaposed with displays and descriptions of abject bodies, and body parts, with names like Chest cavity showing heart attack and Cross-section of the thoracic cavity with emphysema, to exhibit the differences between normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, and active and inactive, 218 bodies. Furthermore, the responsibility for abject bodies is largely placed on individuals and individual lifestyle choices. As Whalley (as cite d in Kraft, 2009) explains "By walking through the exhibition and seeing these authentic specimens ... it becomes obvious our bodies are not just a divine gift or a bounty of nature. Our bodies are our lifelong responsibility and whatever we do to it, it matters" (p. GO1). Thus, the normalizing display and interpretation of complex specimens constructs a universal biological body for visitors to measure themselves against, and a neoliberalist, biopedagogical tool to discipline visitors? bodies with. ?The crucial word in the message is we? (Ab)normal, (un)healthy, and (in)active bodies. Nearly half (71 of 153) of Body Worlds plastinates either show or discuss various deformities, dysfunctions, and diseases. From relatively minor (e.g. s inusitis, toothaches, and constipation) to life threatening (e.g. strokes, heart attacks, prostate, ovarian, breast, and lung cancers) ailments (field notes), the exhibition makes the fragility of the complex body, and the need to care for it, clear. While the exhibition?s interpretive texts do acknowledge natural causes44 , Body Worlds 2 prioritizes ?unambiguous messages about various types of self-induced physical degeneration? (van Dijck, 2005, p. 47), and implicates visitors as the source of the (ill) health of 44 For example, breast cancer is the most common form of ?organic? carcinoma in women ( Breast cancer (mammary carcinoma) , text label); many older people ?naturally? experience emphysema, however in ?many cases? it is a result of years of smoking (Cross- section of the thoracic cavity with emph ysema, text label); obesity has some genetic causes ( O besity Revealed , audio); and arteriosclerosis can be hereditary (Aorta with aneurysm (closed and cut open), text label & audio) (field notes). 219 their bodies. Defined in opposition to normal form and function, and strengthened by the spatial arrangement of vitrine specimens (i.e. healthy specimens positioned next to unhealthy specimens), representations of (ab)normal, (un)healthy, and (in)active bodies ?remind visitors that the choices they make in life have repercussions beneath the skin? (Whalley as cited in Dobrin, 2009, p. E01). Accordingly, smoking, drinking, drug use, high stress, lack of sleep, excessive sun exposure, lack of exercise, and poor diet are crafted as individual choices, and these lifestyle choices are attributed to a host of (preventable) diseases. For example, the exhibition?s interpretive texts describe how: ulcers are caused by stress, nicotine use, and alcohol and coffee consumption (Lining of the stomach , audio); excessive drinking causes cirrhosis of the liver (e.g. Shrunken liver, 86c); drug addiction causes a perpetual state of depression, hypertension, and damage to the liver and kidneys (Driven Crazy by Cravings ? The Addicted Brai n, text panel); prolonged stress can damage the brain, cardiovascular organs, and increase the risk of strokes and depression (Stress ? The Agitated Brain , text panel); prolonged exposure to the sun or severe sunburn ? especially in children ? increases the risk of skin cancer (Body slices with skin cancer metastases , audio); sleep deprivation contributes to illness, obesity, and mental deficits ( After Night Falls ? As You Dream It , text panel); and diabetes is caused by obesity (Secretions of the liver and pancreas, audio). In particular, lung cancer, and the effects of obesity are targeted by Body Worlds as both caused, and prevented, by individual choices. Grouped together in the same display vitrine at the end of the first portion of the exhibition, the specimens Lung of non -smoker (and lung slice of non -smoker) , 220 lung of a smoker, coal-miners lung, horizontal cross-section of the thoracic cavity, thoracic cavity (chest), cross-section showing smoker?s lungs and lung cancer, and cross-section of the thoracic cavity with emphysema, make the differences between healthy and unhealthy lungs apparent. Hanging nearby, is the plastinated specimen Thoracic and abdominal organs with lung cancer. Collectively, the specimens, and their interpretive texts, tell visitors how the respiratory system functions ? how it filters particulates and exchanges oxygen and carbon monoxide through the 3 lobes of the right lung, 2 lobes of the left lung, bronchial passage, and alveoli (field notes). They also collectively exhibit respiratory system dysfunction. Targeting smoking as the leading cause of respiratory cancers and emphysema, the plastinated specimens and slices of blacked smokers? lungs visualize the damage of tar - soot deposits, and the text labels and audio regale visitors with tales self- induced degeneration: how smoking overwhelms the lungs? cleaning mechanism and destroys lung tissue; how damage caused by smoking leads to bronchial and lung cancers, and emphysema; and how lung cancer reduces ventilation and lung size, and is the leading cause of death between the ages of 45 and 70 (field notes). In addition to firmly associating smoking with decreased quality of life and lifespan, Body Worlds 2 also firmly connects smoking, and its cessation, to personal choice and health. Positioned over the Lung of smoker specimen, atop the respiratory vitrine, a sign urges visitors to ?Make a difference in your health. Pledge to quit smoking today? (field notes), and directs them to the I Quit pledge station. Body Worlds 2 is particularly overt in its surveillance and disciplining of obesity, and obese bodies. In fact, the exhibition makes a rare exception to its policy 221 of not disclosing the ?identity, ages, and causes of death of the individual Body Donors? ( The Body Donor & Their E nduring Legacy , text panel, field notes) to emphasize obesity as the cause of (early) death in Obesity Revealed . Rather, the IfP makes the donor?s personal information available on the specimen?s text label as part of their effort to ?show the effect[s] of obesity? (field notes). Situated next to a ?slim? plastinate weighing ?only 120 pounds?, the text label identifies the sagitally-sliced obese specimen as a 300 -pound man with an enlarged heart who ?died from a heart malfunction when he was only about 50 years old? (field notes). Outlining both the cause and effects of obesity, and connecting obesity to personal choices, the text label also explains how ?obesity often results from overeating and a chronic lack of exercise. It can cause many different illnesses but especially puts a strain on the heart? ( Obesity Revealed , text label, field notes). The Obesity Revealed specimen?s extensive audio interpretation further explains how the slice of a man ?suffering from obesity? shows the effects and risks of obesity (field notes). Capitalizing on the truthful objectivity of plastination, the audio points out the white deposits of fatty tissue as evidence of the body donor?s poor health; ?As you can see, fat has not only accumulated directly underneath the skin, but throughout the body. The inner organs are literally drowning in fat. Accumulation of fat of the sort you can see here involves a serious risk? (field notes). The audio goes on to describes the risks that too much fat (especially abdominal fat in men) entails, including diabetes, blood pressure, coronary disease, and heart attacks. The connections to, and claims about, obesity are supported by other visual and interpretive texts in Body Worlds 2 as well. Obesity is listed alongside of 222 smoking as one of the two most significant risk factors for heart attacks and their related causes (e.g. high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arteriosclerosis) in the exhibition?s cardiovascular displays (e.g. Opened aortas with arteriosclerosis , audio; The inner appearance, text label & audio; field notes ). Displays featuring the digestive system connect diabetes to overeating and obesity (e.g. Secretions of the liver and pancreas , audio; field notes). Inactivity and obesity are also connected to osteoarthritis through discussions of the skeletal system (e.g. Knee with severe arthritis, text label ). In particular, The Skateboarder plastinate?s text label links obesity to osteoarthritis, explaining that, ?Since the knee supports much of the body?s weight, obesity may make knee osteoarthritis more likely? (field notes). Finally, Body Worlds 2 utilizes Obesity Revealed to connect obesity to individual choice and responsibility. Commenting that the vast majority of obesity is ?sadly?due to a couch potato lifestyle rooted in overeating, high fatty food consumption and a chronic lack of exercise? , the first of Obesity Revealed ?s audio interpretations aligns ?today?s hectic lifestyle? with e ating too much, too fast ( Obesity Revealed , audio #670, field notes ). Explaining how ?obese or overweight people say they don?t know when to stop eating?, a second audio option instructs visitors to to (re)learn the signals of hunger and fullness that lifestyle choices disrupt ?so as not to gain weight? ( Obesity Revealed , audio #79, field notes ) . Thus, in addition to ? show[ing] the effects of poor health, good health and lifestyle choices? (IfP , 2012f, para. 3), Body Worlds 2 utilizes representations of (ab)normal, (un)healthy, and (in)active bodies to shift the responsibility for well - being ?fr om those in power to the citizen? and call on visitors to ??do their part?? 223 (Silk & Andrews, 2006, p. 317). Adapting Silk & Andrews?s (2006) analysis of Baltimore?s Believe campaign, ?the crucial word in the message [of Body Worlds 2] is we? (p. 317). The exhibition?s plastinated bodies purport to show ?what we [emphasis added] look like in a particular movement? (The Soccer Player, audio), and its text panels describe how ?our? brain ?enables us to think about how we think [emphasis added]? (Consciousness ? The Mind in Action, text panel) (field notes). The rhetorical construction of a collective ?we?, and ?our? universal body, connects visitors? bodies to each other, and to the (un)healthy plastinated bodies on display in Body Worlds 2. However, it is the rhetorical construction of a responsible ?you? that attributes visitors? actions to their, and the exhibition?s, (un)healthy bodies, and holds them accountable for their personal health; ?ditch your [emphasis added] pack at the I Quit pledge station? (Lung of a smoker, text label); ?stimulate your five senses?[and] ride your [emphasis added] bike to work? (Sayings video); ?it is in your [emphasis added] power to tap into [the brain?s] plasticity? (Flexing the Three Pound Gem, text panel) (field notes). ?Use it or lose it!?: Prescriptions for personal and medical modifications. ?Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions? (Body Worlds 2, banner quote from The 14th Dalai Lama (1935 ? ), head of State and Spiritual Leader of the Ti betan people, field notes). Working hand-in-(plastinated)-hand with the abjectifying practices of Body Worlds 2, is a focus on corrective practices. As the primary focus of Body Worlds 2, 224 personal care instructions for the brain are an exhibition priority. Explaining the ongoing transformation of the brain ?from birth to old age? and the need for its continued stimulation, Flexing the Three Pound Gem greets visitors in the first room of the exhibition with its directive to ?Use it or lose it!? ( text panel, field notes). Though the brain is prioritized throughout the exhibition, personal responsibility for the care and development of the infant, adolescent, adult, and aging brain is particularly evident in nervous system displays (Rooms 4 and 5 ). Similar to the Maryland Science Center?s (2009b) call for parents to provide ?experiences that will enable their children to develop lifelong skills and prepare for productive careers? (p. 2), Body Worlds 2 makes parents matter in the development of the infant and child brain. Repeating the sentiment to ?use it or lose it?, The Infant Brain ? Psychedelic Splendor connects neural development to early childhood education; The infant brain is genetically programmed to produce more synapses than it will ultimately use?.T he brain undergoes rapid neuron cell growth at different times and in different areas. This growth allows the child?s brain to create a mass of neural networks as it learns. Development then proceeds by keeping the synapses that are used and pruning away those that aren?t. For example, a very young baby can recognize more spoken sounds than in the language around it. The brain then restructures the networks to focus on sounds which are regularly heard. This recognition in early childhood increases our brains efficiency and applies one basic principal: Use it or lose it! (text panel, field notes). 225 Other technologies of interpretation in the nervous system rooms then connect neural networking and synapse pruning to a loving and enriching environment. Situated next to The Infant Brain ? Psychedelic Splendor, a video featuring babies at play explains how, ?Babies and toddlers are acutely sensitive, social beings. By engaging with the world and others they learn from their environment and experiences. Their learning is ideally supported by an enriching environment with lots of love and attention? (field notes). Additionally, the rooms? final text label, More than IQ, explains ?that children with a structured loving environment?are likely to use their potential to the fullest? (field notes). Accordingly, parent(s) are expected to raise their children in the right environment, with the right experiences, and the right kind of love of attention; and children are expected to respond by using their productive potential to the fullest. As the exhibit progresses through to the aging brain, visitors are once again warned how ?from birth to old age our mental abilities depend on the use of the brain and the readiness to challenge the mind to keep learning? (The Aging Brain ? Coping with Less, text panel, field notes). In addition, the exhibition encourages visitors to keep their adult brains in peak condition with a ?well-balanced diet, rich in vitamin and minerals? (The Adult Brain ? Peak Condition, field notes). The Adult Brain text panel also explains how the brain requires challenges to stimulate and strengthen it, ?just as our bodies need regular exercise? (field notes). Accordingly, prescriptions for challenging the aging brain are run across a video screen as visitors leave the nervous system displays; Pick-up a new sport; climb a mountain; stimulate your five senses with art, food, people, and ?nature? in its abundance; ride your bike to work; take a 226 dance class; get a pet; laugh a lot; indulge your curiosity to the max; kiss, hug, and touch your loved ones daily; read poetry; sleep at least seven hours every night; play an instrument; take alternative routes when you walk your dog; master crossword puzzles, sudoku or chess; love and be loved; become multi- lingual; let music accompany your life. (Sayings, video, field notes) Alongside of their efforts to educate visitors about the complexity of ?the three pound gem?, and confront visitors with the degeneration of The brain as it ages (video, field notes), Body Worlds 2 equips visitors with strategies for monitoring, disciplining, and bettering their brains. Shifting from an ?use it or lose it?, to an ?abuse it and lose it? approach, Body Worlds 2 extends their prescriptions for personal modifications to visitors? bodies. In concert with the causation assigned to poor lifestyle choices (i.e. smoking, drinking, drug use, high stress, improper rest, and excessive sun exposure, lack of exercise, and poor diet), personal habits are a point of intervention in Body Worlds 2. For example, alcohol consumption and nicotine use are both suggested as causes of ulcers. Likewise, changes to alcohol and nicotine habits are suggested as successful treatments for ulcers (Lining of the stomach, audio, field notes). Smoking cessation, a healthy diet, and regular exercise are prescribed to combat the two major risk factors for heart attacks (i.e. smoking and obesity), and keep the heart ?as fit as possible? (Opened aortas with arteriosclerosis, audio; The inner appearance, text label & audio; field notes). Exercise is also offered by Body Worlds 2 as an answer to the stresses of daily life, and a way to ?interpret and control stressors to bring peace to body and mind? (Stress ? The Agitated Brain, text panel, field notes). Yoga, in 227 particular, is offered as a meditative technique to train the parasympathetic nervous system, and calm and relax ?us? (The Yoga Lady, audio; Lungs, audio; field notes). Visitors are also informed that exercise is necessary for creative thought; that ?creative thought blossoms when our mind is in a relaxed state, and our body engages in physical activity? (Creativity ? The Brain on Fire, text panel; field notes). While Body Worlds 2 offers exercise as a panacea of sorts for poor health, smoking cessation is perhaps the most overt modification the exhibition asks of its visitors. The I Quit pledge station implores visitors to do just that ? quit smoking. Signposted at the Lung of a smoker specimen, the I Quit station is located in the second, transitional space of Body Worlds 2, immediately following the respiratory system displays. The IfP created the station in response to visitors leaving their cigarettes on top of the smoker?s lung display case (Spalding, 2009). Whalley (as cited in Spalding, 2009) explains how ?each rejected pack marked a victory by one person against nicotine addiction. Many visitors to the exhibition reported that they had tried everything but only stopped after seeing the smoker's lung? (para. 5). Providing visitors with a more appropriate receptac le, the I Quit station invites visitors to make a ?pledge to good health? by depositing their unused cigarette packs its clear, slotted, display case. Body Worlds 2 further guides visitors down the path of redemption with the I Quit station?s text label and video. Reprising the exhibition?s previous interpretive texts, the station?s text label declares smoking as the leading cause of cancer deaths, and the most preventable cancer. The label further explains to visitors that 87% of the 45 million smokers in the United States will develop lung cancer, and tells them ?TODAY you don?t have to become a statistic?. Finally, the I 228 Quit station rebroadcasts the American Cancer Society?s 1986 commercial of the late Yul Brynner, where he pleads with viewers ?Don?t smo ke. Whatever you do, just don?t smoke? ( field notes). Medical int(er)ventions. While Body Worlds 2 is primarily concerned with intervening into ?self- induced physical degeneration? (van Dijck, 2005, p. 47), the exhibition also promotes the life- altering potential of modern medical modifications. Embracing the postmodern, post - human cyborg in its most literal sense, artificial replacements for natural parts are affixed to Body Worlds 2 specimens, and biotechnologies and procedures are offered to visitors as interventions for a host of deteriorations, malfunctions, and failures. For example, slipped discs and trapped nerves can be corrected with surgery ( Vertebral column , audio; The Orthopedic Body , audio), and bone fractures can be repaired with ?screws, plates or wires? (Surgical intervention for a fracture (osteosynthesis) , text label) (field notes). Artificial hips and knees can replace joints worn from age or riddled with osteoarthritis ( Artificial hip, text label; Lower extremity with knee joint prosth esis, text label & audio), and artificial heart valves can replace those damaged by disease ( Heart with artificial valve , text label) (field notes). The Orthopedic Body plastinate, in particular, embodies the exhibition?s normalization of medical intervention, and advancement of medical invention. Fitted with orthopedic hardware during post- mortem procedures, the dancing plastinate demonstrates the restorative potential of surgical techniques. The text label, labeling, and audio interpretation for The Ortho pedic Body directs visitors to each of the 17 modifications, and their functions, in turn: 229 ? artificial joints replace the left knee, left hip, and left elbow; ? external fixations immobilize (or lengthen) the left wrist, and left shinbone; ? metal plates and pins internally stabilize (osteosynthesis) fractures of the upper right arm, and the upper and lower right leg (surgical forceps spread the muscles of the upper right arm, and lower left leg, apart to show the orthopedic repairs); ? worn vertebrae in the spinal column are stabilized with screws and connection pieces (surgical forceps spread the muscles of the back apart to show the orthopedic repairs); ? facial fractures of the jaw and orbit are stabilized with mini - plates; ? the jaw bone is partially removed and replaced; ? a piece of skull removed for cranial surgery is replaced, and affixed with mini- plates; ? a pacemaker is implanted on the right side of the chest. (field notes; von Hagens & Whalley, 2007) The IfP , thus, (re)creates a hybrid, cyborg, body from organic and technological parts, and promotes biotechnologies ?as ?natural? extensions [and extenders] of the living human body, just as the process of plastination prolongs the durability of the dead body? (van Dijck, 2005, p. 48 ). Furthermore, the exhibition?s promotion of medical technologies are ?representative of an instrumentalist conceptualization of medical technologies as benevolent tools? (Feenberg as cited in Butryn & Massucci, 2003, p. 138 ). Viewers to the Body Worlds 2 exhibition are introduced to medical in(ter)ventions through ? ?good? cyborg[s], a s signs of technoscientific progress? (Butryn and Massuci, 2003, p. 125) and encouraged to participate in their own technologization. The promotion of personal modifications and medical int(er)vent ions in Body Worlds 2, normalizes the (self- induced and ?natural?) breakdown of the human body, 230 and the need for its manipulation and repair to improve the quality, longevity, and productivity of human life. Thus, in addition to defining abject bodies as those whose forms or functions are outside the norm, persons who are unwilling to participate in the surveillance, care, and modifications of their bodies are also abjectified. Limited engagements: Complicating invisible complexities. ?In a dramatic moment students gaze into the body - which is impossible in virtually any other setting but the site of a terrible accident or in an operating theater - and see the ?truth? of the body as an object? (Pronger, 1995, p. 441). The most significant absence in Body Worlds 2 is the lack of complexities, alternative readings, and different ways of engaging with ?your body?, offered by the exhibition and its site of audiencing. Rather, where there are complexities, there are persuasions. Though the subjective dissection and positioning of plastinates (e.g. the absence of organs, or relocation of musculature) is made visible in exhibition texts, the gestalt plastinates are, nevertheless, presented, and consumed, as authentic, and anatomically, and biomechanically correct, through new anatomical lessons. Individuality is employed as evidence of authenticity, even though: the plastination process renders the bodies (nearly) visually identical; the repositioning and redressing of plastinates provides new, and often gendered identities; and, the use of one, or a few, anatomical specimens to address the way we all are, reduces the exhibition?s biodiversity, despite its insistence on our ?inner anatomical individuality? (Angel, audio, field notes). The mind/body dichotomy is supposedly addressed, but only 231 through the neuro-scientization of mindfulness. Though the anonymity of the donors is insisted upon, it is revealed, in the case of obesity in Body Worlds 2 , to remind visitors of the dangers of their daily habits. Social causes of illness (e.g. fast-paced culture) place blame on abject individuals, rather than illuminating, or, even better, intervening into, underlying social issues. Finally, one of the strongest complexities/persuasions in Body Worlds is the exhibition?s simultaneous democratization of biomedical knowledge, and creation of new experts. Like Pronger?s (1995) gross anatomy curricula, Body Worlds is part of ?a world that believes [the claim of the anatomical body] and has developed a host of medical, health and physical educative practices around it? and ?produc[es] people with anatomical knowledge that is useful in that system? (p. 431). In Body Worlds 2 at the Maryland Science Center, the exhibition is the practice, and the visitors are made useful in the surveillance of their own bodies by engaging with its particular form of health education. While Body Worlds will continue its global circulation of the IfP?s messages of health and wellbeing, it was in Baltimore, like all of its host cities, for a limited engagement. As President and CEO Van Reiner (as cited in Gunts, 2008) explains, ?Our purpose [for hosting Body Worlds ] is to show the wonder and wow of science to the general public?They come to see Body Worlds and they stay to see the rest of the science center. And they know the science center will be here when Body Worlds leave? (para. 29). Thus, the Maryland Science Center, and museums like it, are perhaps the sites we should be engaging with as scholars to examine the ?truths? of (in)formal, scientific learning. In a ?world replete with [medical] images? (Haraway, 232 1997, p. 202), the gross anatomy lab, operating theater, or site of a terrible accident are no longer the only places you can see into the body and ?see the ?truth? of the body as an object? (Pronger, 1995, p. 441). The advent, and widespread medical , and popular, use of scientific imaging eases access to our inner workings, and confirms our status as objects; Body Worlds offers ?living? dissections; and science museums provide ways of looking at, and knowing about, our ?true? selves. Therefore, science museums, and their exhibitions, serve as an informal gross anatomy lab where visitors have a ?chance to see the real things [emphasis added] in a safe and informative environment? (IfP, 2013l, para. 5 ). Operating in 43 countries world -wide, the Association of Science-Technology Center?s 459 science centers and museums welcome 95 million visits annually. Featuring as many as 37 (California), each US State has at least one member institution, and the 365 institutions in the US received over 65 million visitors in 2010 (ASTC, 2011a). Additionally, science museums provide informal learning opportunities in formal school settings, and offer home schooling resources, educational materials, and professional development for teachers. While the healthist discourse of Body Worlds has proved fairly impenetrable (other than the rogue photographers who violate their exhibition rules), the Maryland Science Center has recently hosted RACE: Are We So Different? ? an example of subversive science. Developed by the American Anthropological Association, with funding from the Ford Foundation and the National Science Foundation, RACE: Are We So Different? has been touring nationally since 2007, and was hosted by the Maryland Science Center from September 29, 2012 ? January 1, 2013 . While the exhibition?s 233 tenure at the museum was a limited engagement in terms of time, it challenged conceptions of the biological body, and the museum? s construction of it as such; and offered an alternative way for visitors to engage with their bodies. Instead of biology, the exhibition explores race through historical and cultural points of view. In particular, race is presented as a ?recent human invention? (American Anthropological Association [AAA], 2013, para. 6), and ?sorting people by physical differences? is contextualized within US histories (Maryland Science Center, 2012f, para. 7). B iological understandings of race are disrupted through the categorization of racial and ethnic categories as ?human -made? (Maryland Science Center, 2012f, para. 6). F ighting science with science, the exhibition explains; ?We now know that human beings are more alike genetically than any other living species. Scientifically, no one gene, or any set of genes, can support the idea of race? (Maryland Science Center, 2012f, para. 6). Finally, race is defined through lived experience, allowing visitors to ?discover that race and racism is not inside our heads, but in fact is built into our laws, traditions, and institutions? (Maryland Science Center , 2012f, para. 5). The Maryland Science Center?s hosting of RACE: Are We So Different? offers important interventions. Firstly, as I have discussed above, it presents alternatives to scientific understandings, and intervenes into differentiating, and destructive, scientific misconceptions. Rather than an alignment, and strengthening, of healthist missions, like Body Worlds, the hosting of the RACE exhibition at science centers disrupts scientific discourse. 45 Additionally, in the context of Baltimore, RACE 45 Twenty-five of the thirty-eight host institutions for the RACE exhibition are institutions of science, natural history, health, or medicine (AAA, 2011). Several have also hosted Body Worlds, including the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia), the Science 234 ?helps visitors understand what race is and what it is not. It gives them the tools to recognize racial ideas and practices in contemporary American life? (Maryland Science Center , 2012f, para. 3). Are these not tools better suited to fight Baltimore?s health inequalities, than ?informing, educating and engaging Baltimoreans to improve their health and the health of their communities? (Spencer, et al., 2011, p. 5) ? Center of Iowa (Des Moines), and the Oregon Museum of Scien ce and Industry (Portland). 235 Chapter 6 ? Creating Champions All at the University of Maryland Meeting Champions All. Arriving on campus with a throng of visitors, I wind through the Maryland Day crowds of families, alumni, staff, and current and prospective students, making my way to the first floor of Hornbake Library. Through the main columned entrance, the book-lined walls and hushed exhibition space of the University of Maryland Archives rests behind its glassed walls and monitored entry. Beyond the austere space of the (public) archives, behind employee-only doors, are its document- and artifact- lined shelves. Normally uncluttered, the quiet formality of the foyer is buzzing with activities today. Here, visitors can shade-in turtle coloring sheets, ?stump the curator?, and ?meet the turtle?. Greeting the archive staff at the other stations, I slip into a Maryland Day t-shirt, take my position by Champions All, and prepare to greet visitors ? ?Hello, I?m Jennifer Sterling. I?m the turtle(?s) artist.? ! Figure 6.1. Turtle Artist name tag; My name tag from a Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project event. 236 Introducing researching (with) Champions All. ?We are not suggesting we all abandon our offices and inhabit the spaces we probably know we should be in, but we are suggesting that such border crossings should be held alongside the classroom, the journal, the book chapter, and the conference presentation as key spaces in which intervention and understanding can take place within the project of PCS? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 12). In the fall of 2005 , a call for proposals was issued inviting artists to participate in the University of Maryland?s Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project, part of the institution?s 150 th Anniversary celebration planned for 2006. Aware that sport- related art leans heavily towards the commemorative and away from the critical, an entry to the project provided an opportunity to engage creative analytic practices, disrupt rational writing, and construct a critical poetic representation of physical culture (Richardson, 2000a, 2000b).45 This chapter discusses, and analyzes , the production of Champions All ? my submitted, selected, sponsored, completed, displayed, auctioned, and purchased design for one of the fiberglass- cast Testudo sculptures involved in the Project. Reflecting on my process(es) through an autoethnography, and laying bare my ?found? image (i.e. archival, community- contributed) selections, omissions, and 45 This awareness of sporting art was derived from a review of sporting art and visual culture I had conducted as part of a paper presented at the annual North American Society for the Sociology of Sport conference in 2005. Entitled ?Sporting Subjectivities: The Absence in Art?, the paper was presented as part of the ?Poetic Representations of Physical Culture and Diasporic Subjectivities? p anel proposed by Dr. Katherine Jamieson. 237 juxtapositions (i.e. collage), I examine my efforts as a ?cultural worker? and ?border crosser? (Giroux, 2001) , to connect representations of people, places, and events in a manner that prompts viewers to make critical connections and better understand the role of sport in contemporary society, and, in particular, at the University of Maryland. After examining the production of exhibitions in the previous chapters, exploring my own productions, processes, practices, and struggles as a creative cultural worker provides further insight into the practices and pitfalls of visualizing active bodies; and the role, and potential, of researching (with) the visual in PCS . Though not a linear process, this chapter will present my autoethnography of Champions All through a chronological accounting of the sculpture?s production and audiencing to make visible my own (re)imag(in)ing of active bodies: from its proposal and acceptance, to contract ?negotiations? and sponsor assignment; from archival research, to image and material selection; and, from its completion and ?parading? at the University Golf Course , to its purchase by, and display at, the University of Maryland Archives. Located within the University of Maryland?s 150 th anniversary celebration and campaign, contextualized in the high visibility, corporate culture of collegiate athletics, and embedded in practices of archivalization (Sekula as cited in Rose, 2007) and public art installations (i.e. community animal parades), this chapter offers a reflection on my participation as a ?turtle artist?, and my endeavor to be a border- crossing (public) intellectual who ?engage[s] in intertextual negotiations across different sites of production to assume their roles as an engaged critic and cultural 238 theorist? (Giroux as cited in Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 12). Practicing a (visual) physical cultural studies ?that matters? (Andrews & Giardina, 2008) , and accepting Haraway?s (1997) claim that ?changing the stories, in both material and semiotic senses, is a modest intervention worth making? (p. 45), Champions All deconstructs institutional sporting visual culture, and (re)constructs an alternate, contextualized , and dialectic version of the University of Maryland?s physical cultural community. Making Maryland I: Celebrating 150 Years When it comes to people, some would prefer not to call attention to their age. Not so with us. This upcoming academic year marks the University of Maryland?s 150th Anniversary ? giving us plenty to celebrate. (University of Maryland, 2006a , n.p.) Chartered in 1856, the 2005 -2006 academic year marked the University of Maryland?s 150 th anniversary. The University celebrated its ?birthday? by revisiting its history, promoting its successes, and presenting its prospective plans to past, present, and future members of its community, through institutionally organized events and rhetoric. As the Anniversary?s ?signature event? (Coordinating Committee, 2005, p. 5), the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project was designed ?to extend the anniversary celebration into the community with art that is accessible to everyone? (University of Maryland [UM] , 2006d , para. 1) . This section will situate the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project, and my proposal for it, within the University of Maryland, and its 150 th Anniversary celebration. In particular, I will first align the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project, and its animal parade genre, within the themes and 239 guiding principles of the 150 th Anniversary Celebration Year . After contextualizing the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project within its institutional intentions, I will discuss the proposal guidelines, contractual obligations, sponsorship involvement, and personal (PCS) politics that influenced my proposed, and final, design. Cheering the turtle: Anniversary antics and animal parades. Figure 6.2. 150 th Anniversary collateral. ?Cheer the Turtle? stickers featuring images from the University of Maryland Archives. ?How does the University plan a celebration that recognizes 150 productive, innovative, and pioneering years that were packed with historical milestones and achievements?? (Coordinating Committee, 2005, p. 3). In wishing the University of Maryland ?Happy Birthday!? , then University President, C.D. (Dan) Mote Jr . proclaimed: Our 150 - year history projects a dramatic transformation of the University' s mission and contributions. It's quite a story?. It's time to celebrate this history and especially the University's contributions to the people and State of Maryland. Our future portends even greater service to the State as we become a model research university for the 21st century." (UM , 2005 , para. 4). 240 Embod ying the University of Maryland as both socially benevolent and research- focused, Mote?s statements portray s the inherent contradictions at work in today?s capital- focused neoliberal institutions of education, and in the Anniversary?s theme, and celebrations. Hesitant to claim that they had already arrived, the 150 th Anniversary Coordinating Committee (2005) released the theme, ?Celebrating the University of Maryland: A Model of the Modern Research U niversity?, for the 150 th Anniversary, with an emphasis on the word model. Task ing participating campus groups with organizing activities to ?highlight the University?s excellence and innovation ? the Coordinating Committee (2006) suggested promoting the following characteristic to ?showcase how the University personifies the qualities of The Modern Research University ?: ? Ranks among the elite but is not elitist ? Has a bright and engaged student population ? Has alumni who are do- ers in society ? Has diversity that reflects society at- large ? Focuses education on enlightened citizenry and societal impact ? Commits to access and outreach as a land grant institution ? Has congenial and collegial staff and faculty ? Benefits the state, region, and nation ? Connects and engages in society ? Focuses on the future. (p. 6 ) 241 Organized around these qualities, t he University of Maryland hosted a number of major and minor events to mark their 150th Anniversary, including a symposium and ongoing forums on The Modern Research Univers ity , a historical photo exhibition in the Union Gallery, and the production of an anniversary photo book, (Maryland: Reflections on 150 Years ), and documentary (?Keeping the Promise?) . However, the largest, and longest-running, signature event for the 150th Anniversary was the Fear the Turtle Sculpture exhibition and auction. Continuing their role as a benevolent University, and consistent with their interest in promoting their academic prowess, the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project , adapted the proven ?animal parade? format (e.g. Chicago?s Cow Parade, or Baltimore?s ?Crabtown Project? ), and the athletic programs? ?fighting turtle? mascot, to advance both its brand, and its philanthropic interests. Answering the c all: Proposing Champions All . The University of Maryland launched the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project and its call for artists in the fall of 2005. Calling for ?an array of artistic interpretations bursting with the spirit of creativity and ingenuity that has been at the heart of the university from its earliest beginnings until today? (UM, 2006b ), the call invited proposals to transform 50, 4.5 x 3.5, 100 pound, pre-fabricated fiberglass sculptures of Testudo ? the University of Maryland?s beloved terrapin mascot ? into works of art to be displayed and sponsored by various individuals, university, local, and state entities (e.g. businesses, organization s). The call was not limited to artists from campus, or even artists for that matter. Rather artists, designers, campus and community groups, alumni, faculty, staff, students, departments, and student 242 organizations were all eligible to propose a design (UM, 2006b) To submit a proposal, ?artists? had to submit a digital file of their design, and a statement explaining their interest in public art (generally), and the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project (specifically). After submission, proposals were evaluated by the Fear the Turtle Artistic Review Committee for their ?overall creativity with consideration given to visual attractiveness, creativeness of themes? particularly those connecting with University of Maryland pride and state pride [emphasis added] ? and durability and quality of design materials? (UM, 2006b ). The call for artists also provided guidelines for content and materials. Discouraging the use of the turtle sculptures for personal use (i.e. for purposes other than the promotion of the University and its Anniversary celebrations), the call explained ?designs must be appropriate for family viewing, free of political, religious or sexual messages and content disparaging of third parties? (UM, 2006b ). In addition to family-friendly content, and foreshadowing the way the Project intended visitors to interact with the sculptures, the materials proposed to carry out the design were supposed to be able to withstand outdoor climate conditions, and be safe and durable enough for the public to touch. Finally, direct references to specific products, company names, or brands were forbidden, despite the University of Maryland?s own pervasive engagement with the branding of their corporate sponsors. Designs could, however, include the University of Maryland trademarks as long as their usage followed institutional guidelines, and gained institutional permission. The restrictions and allowances around (non)institutional branding, and the celebratory, apolitical, tone of the call for artists and the 150th Anniversary, virtually guaranteed 243 that the University would welcome proposals that would: maintain the primacy of the University (and State), and its brand, in their design; that depictions of the University would be positive; and, that individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in submitting a design, or sponsoring a turtle sculpture, would have limited opportunities to utilize the University, or their symbols (e.g. Testudo) for their own personal, or political, profit. Despite the limitations inherent in the call for artists, I chose to submit a proposal for the project to practice a PCS ?capable of taking sides? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 23). My proposal for Champions All, thus, answered two calls. In answering the University?s call for artists, I was also answering Silk & Andrews?s (2011) call to work outside of the classroom by participating in a poetic practice that ?engages its [viewers] in frankly interpretive labors? (Richardson, 1991, p. 177), and impacting a community I had the ?potential to touch? (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 5) ? my/our own community at the University of Maryland. To meet these goals, I chose to frame my proposal around sociologist, and former University of Maryland Professor, C.W. Mills?s concept of the sociological imagination; a concept that I had organized discussions about the role of sport in society (and vice versa) around for years as a Teaching Assistant for Dr. David Andrews?s KNES 287: Sport in American Society course.46 I aimed to extend the teaching theater, and my academic scholarship, into public places by situating University of Maryland?s sporting history, in the conditions of its making (institutional, national, and global confluences); to be, and make others ?aware of the ideas of social structure and to use it with sensibility?.to possess the 46 An image of C. Wright Mills is included on Champions All to connect the design to his concept of the sociological imagination, and him to the University. 244 sociological imagination?? (Mills, 1959, p. 12) . Rather, I hoped to fulfill the promise of the sociological imagination in my assumption that ? knowledge of the social context leads people to understand their own experiences and gauge their ? own fates?? (Mills, as cited in Richardson, 1991, p. 177). Negotiating institutional guidelines, and adapting University histories, I submitted the following critically commemorative proposal, and , one month later, was notified that my design had been accepted for the Project. !! Figure 6.3. Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project proposal process; (left) proposal design template, and (right) proposed design for Champions All . Front The front of the Terrapin will be made up of pictures that will form the Maryland ?M?. The pictures will be of those people (and structures), past and present that help to make up the sporting community at Maryland. Some of them may be well known but many of them go about their involvement in sport with little notice. When possible, input from the individuals/teams being represented will be sought so that the image will be a reflection of their own choosing. Permission to use their likeness will also be obtained from those who will be included. The following is a tentative list of who/what may be incorporated into the design: Sporting structures (i.e. Cole Fieldhouse) All-Americans Academic All-Americans Hall of Fame Athletes Olympians Coaches Fans Club Sports Intramural Champions Athletic Administration and Staff Alumni of (Athletic) Note M Club Terrapin Club Maryland Sporting Traditions Athletes included in Comcast?s Walk of Fame National Champions Gymkana Queen Eli zabeth II Marching Band 245 Back The back of the Terrapin is meant to connect Maryland?s sporting milestones (with an emphasis on racial and gender diversity) with major political, social, cultural and economic occurrences in the United States, and at the University, from its beginning in 1856 to present day. The border of the Terrapin is made up of presidential pictures, technological and scientific advances (i.e. Ford?s Model T the Wright brothers? airplane), and Olympic Games of note. Without being overtly political, the chronological placement of past (and current) presidents connects World and National events with those occurring simultaneously at the University; both influencing and being influenced by the world around it. Within the border of the shell, a chronological montage, similar to that seen in the Comcast Walk of Fame further connects Maryland?s sporting history with social issues of the time; advancing with, after or even before legislative mandates. At the center of the shell is the University of Maryland logo placed within a rendering of the sundial located in the center of the McKeldin mall. The sundial points to the present but cast a shadow on the past. A chronological listing of proposed images, which will make up the montage is as follows (most Maryland photos can be attributed to the University of Maryland Archives ? when possible images matching Maryland ?firsts? will be used): Maryland Agricultural College Seal Old Liners 1st Korean Student, Penn Su Baseball Football (1908 ? Byrd in center) Susan B. Anthony NCAA Seal/Logo Men?s Track and Field Logo M. Tennis Team M. Basketball M. Lacrosse M. Rifle 1st Women enrolled, Miss Hook & Miss Vaux Male cheerleaders 1st Chinese student, C.C. Chen 19th Amendment (text) University of Maryland Seal Southern Conference logo W. Rifle W. Cheer Testudo (military) M. Soccer Boxing (Alperstein) Wrestling M. Golf M. Gymnastics logo ACC logo Jackie Robinson 1st African American student, Hiram Whittle Brown vs. Board of Education (text) Martin Luther King First African American Athletes Testudinette W. Basketball W. Track W. Volleyball W. Field Hockey W. Gymnastics Title IX (text) W. Lacrosse W. Swimming W. Tennis Testudo Logo W. Soccer 5 Maryland Campus Logos W. Softball W. Golf Outdoor Recreation Center Wall Competitive Cheer W. Water Polo Wheelchair athlete 246 In addition to the descriptions attached to the designs, I would like to add the following: The title ?Champions All? invokes the championing of civil rights seen in the advancement of athletics at Maryland (back), as well as the champions in all of us, as we partake in the sporting community at the University (front). The wheelchair athlete imagery included on the back of the shell helps to raise awareness of possible future directions for the Uni versity of Maryland in the pursuit of equality through sport and physical activity. The turtle itself (outside the shell) will be painted to mimic the Testudo statues, which helped to mark the beginning of our beloved mascot, and are now campus icons and good luck charms. Materials will include compatible spray paint, enamel, clear coat and adhesive. The adhesive will be used to collage (two dimensional) materials to the sculpture. Archival images will be used as collage and Xerox transfer to assist in main taining historical accuracy from a content standpoint and providing a unique layering effect as a medium. The finished product would be a mixed media approach, using spray paints, brush strokes, Xerox transfer, and collage to attain the desired effect. If this proposal is chosen, I will provide a request form for permission to use the University of Maryland logo. As a doctoral student, working with the approval and guidance of my advisor, I feel that this project is very important. I am a former artist, tu rned aspiring academic, and I am taking on art in the arena of sport as a resource, pedagogical tool, and inspiration. After speaking with my advisor about the possibilities of this project, we are both excited about what it could add, not only to a probable dissertation topic but to our program in general and the area of physical cultural studies as a whole. As sport sociologists we try to reconnect sport with society, and the impact they have on each other. As critical cultural studies theorists, we hope to be active in promoting social change in the areas we research. I believe public and community art, and sport imagery in a wider sense, has this potential. I hope, if I am chosen for this project, that I can provide a positive representation of Universit y of Maryland athletics by taking a critical look at how they have changed through, with, and ahead of the times. Signing on: Contract negotiations and s ponsorship . Having my proposal accepted by the Fear the Turtle Artis tic Review Committee was only the first of two major hurdles on my way to realizing Champions All. Eac h of the selected proposals had to also be selected by a sponsor. Sponsors could help ?spread the call of ?Fear the Turtle?? (University of Maryland [ UM], 2006c, para. 4) by sponsoring a turtle sculpture for $4000, or owning it outright for $7500. The higher sponsorship level also secured the sponsor priority consideration 247 as a display location. The money from sponsors would cover the cost of the Testudo sculpture, and the artists? $1000 e xpense honorarium. In return, sponsors were recognized on a plaque locate d on the base of each sculpture, at the 150 th Anniversary Fundraising Kick -off Gala, and in all of the project?s collateral, including the Fear the Turtle Sculpture?s : webpage and vir tual gallery; magazine (e.g. Terp Magazine ) and newsletter features; ?locator maps?; and, calendar. All told, the University promised sponsors exposure to over 1,315,000 members of its extended community (UM, 2006c ). Despite the rules governing product placement within the sculpture?s design, sponsors were able to directly affiliate their individual, organization, or company names with the Project, and in association the University, and reap the perceived benefits of increased exposure. Additionally, sponsors had the opportunity to discuss, and possibly influence, the ?details of the design? (T. Scian, personal correspondence, November 4, 2005). I received news about the sponsor who had selected my design, and my ?Fear the Turtle Public Sculpture Project Agreement? at the same time. The University of Maryland Golf Course had purchased Champions All, and would act as the sponsor, display site, and eventual owner for the sculpture.47 I was elate d to learn that my sculpture had been purchased, and that it would stay at the University of Maryland ? and at a sporting facility, no less. Happy with the site and sponsor, I schedule d a meeting with my contact at the golf course. Though they were happy enough with my 47 After I learned that the College of Health and Human Performance (now the School of Public Health) would be sponsoring one of the sculptures, I contacted them to let them know that I had proposed one of the selected designs, and that it was available for sponsorship. However, the school eventually sponsored, and purchased, ?Metalli Terp?, still on display in their newly renovated foyer. 248 design, the future home of Cham pions All did influence my final image selections. Although I had already planned to include images of the golf course as one of Maryland?s many sporting sites, I agreed to include more images of the Golf Course , and golf alumni, in my planned design to accommodate the interests of my sponsor. Both artist and sponsors entered into an agreement with the University regarding ownership and rights to the physical form, and image, of the sculptures. The University would retain ownership of the physical form until after the auction, when it would be transferred to the successful bidder. Conversely, the turtle artists never had any right to the physical form, and had to ?transfer and assign all rights, title to and interests in the design to the university? (UM, 2006b, para. 15). Howev er, the University did provide each artist, and sponsor, with a: fully paid, nontransferable right and license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and create derivative works based on the artist's design or to use images of the design as a sample of their work or philanthropic commitment or other similar noncommercial purposes. (UM, 2006b, para. 15) In addition to ownership and intellectual property rights, the ?Fear the Turtle Public Sculpture Project Agreement? outlined my contractual commitments , including: my ?parental/guardian? responsibilities to care, store, protect, and deliver the ?Turtle Form?; my (in)ability to make changes to my design without the approval of the Project Review Committee; and my guarantee that I would be the ?sole creato r? of my turtle?s design, which dissuaded an extensive collaboration. The contract also outlined the disbursement schedule for my honorarium; my first installment of $500 249 dollars would be within 30 days of receiving my signed contract, and the last $500 after the receipt of the decorated turtle form. Negotiating the proposal guidelines, contractual obligations, and the contexts of the sponsor and display location were just the first in many negotiations I made throughout the project. In the following section, I will outline the ways I negotiated aesthetic and political choices in my selection, and collage, of archival yearbook images; and, the ways I negotiated the (un)contested terrain of the Project?s institutional context, where my design, and myself, had to represent both the University of Maryland and my PCS politics. Making Maryland II: Creating and Circulating Champions All While I have explored the ?possibilit[ies] of visualities other than those of dominant institutions? (Rose, 2007, p. 176) in my previous chapters, my intention with Champions All was to modify the dominant sporting visualities of the University of Marylan d. Thus, this section will critically reflect on my own research practice (Rose, 2007), and visualizing technologies, through an examination my construction of Champions All?s collages. In particular, I will discuss the processes of locating, selecting, delimiting, cropping, and recontextualizing (through the juxtapositions of collage), which informed my final design (see Appendix C f or images of the completed design). 250 Curating images, constructing collage, and making connections. Figure 6.4. Champions All in process; (left) photographic studies of the McKeldin Testudo sculpture (bottom; J. Sterling, personal photograph , February 15, 2006), and scale painting technique and image mapping (top; J. Sterling, personal photograph, March 23, 2006 ); (center) Champions All in progress in the Art & Learning Center (J. Sterling personal photograph, March 23, 2006 ); (right) Champions All complete in the Art & Learning Center (J. Sterling person al photograph, April, 14, 2006). Once I was matched with my sponsor, and received the first installment of my $1000 honorarium, I returned to the University of Maryland Archives to continue the research that had informed my proposal, and look for images that would represent each of the concepts, and contexts, I had outlined. Recognizing the Archive?s ?filing cabinet? as an important institutional technology (Rose, 2007), it, nonetheless, became my authoritative source for both institutional history, and its visual forms, during my completion of Champions All. As an ongoing, and image-rich record of the University of Maryland?s past(s), often told from the point of view of students, the University of Maryland?s yearbooks located within the Archives, also became my primary source of visual material for my Champions All collage. Finally, as photography was the primary technology to capture University events and history in 251 the yearbooks, photography became the primary form of representation on my sculpture. Much like my coding processes in the previous chapters, I immersed myself in the yearbooks ? searching page by page, and year by year, until I either found something that I was looking for, or happened across something that re- informed my image decisions. 48 While I searched deductively for images that could depict the historical snapshots I proposed for my design, I allowed inductive findings to shape my final narratives as well. For example, I was pleasantly surprised to find, not only the team photos I was looking for, but also a range of images I could use to tie the University, and its sporting history, to social events (e.g. support for troops in Desert Storm, definitions of women?s sport). In my search for images to mark varsity sporting ?firsts?, I was also not all that surprised to find a discrepancy in the type of images (i.e. in action versus static) depicting men and women in sport. Thus , I opted to use static teams photos for all of the team representations. In addition to being the most common form of teams photos across the yearbooks ? from the first images in the 1800s to the turn of the 21 st century ? the dedicated use of the posed team trope balanced the visual discrepancies between men and women (not) in action. As a final strategy for offsetting this imbalance, I included an image of a woman in action, playing basketball, and placed it next to a static team photo of men?s basketball from the same period. It should be noted here as well, that I was unable to locate any team images in the yearbooks from the recently formed (though now disbanded) varsity 48 Since conducting my research, the Archives has created the University AlbUM, an online repository of digitized yearbooks (digital.lib.umd.edu/album.jsp) . 252 sports of competitive cheerleading and women?s water polo; and had to solicit images from student-athletes in those sports to include them in my visual narrative. I also solicited images from students and club teams to illuminate the diversity of sporting, and fan, engagements taking place at the University of Maryland. While some of the images for the fan-focused and club-dedicated front of Champions All were selected from the yearbooks to perform historical (dis)continuities (e.g. fan celebrations, sporting facilities, coaching staff), as the purpose of the collage on the front of the shell was to visualize the range of sporting practices and places often missing from institutional accounts, I solicited many of the images of fans from students in courses I was teaching at the time, and contacted each of the University of Maryland Club teams to request recent photos for use on Champions All. While I received many images from some people and teams, and only one from others, I made sure that I included at least one image from everyone that submitted something to me. My commitment to honoring their participation in the project, thus, had an impact on my delimiting strategies (Figure 6.5 & Figure 6.6). 253 Figure 6.5. Delimitation of images for Champions All (front); (top to bottom) ? all images > images collected but not printed > images printed but not utilized in the final design. 254 Figure 6 .6 . Delimitation of images for C hampions All (back); (top to bottom) all images > images collected but not printed > images printed but not utilized in the final design. 255 Figure 6.7 . Image recontextualization; (left) image within the context of its yearbook page, (right) image cropped for use on the front of Champions All , and the image?s location on the ?M? border on the front of Champions All (J. Sterling, personal photograph, April 14, 2006). My selection of collage as a genre, and visualizing technology, allowed me to include a large number, and variety of images; key to my being able to sufficiently encompass the breadth of the University of Maryland?s physical cultural communities. Additionally, collage allowed me to place images next to each other to create context(s) and intertextualities. My juxtapo sition of images on the turtle (and later in the construction of an interpretive guide), are informed by Haraway?s understanding of hypertext as a narrative device used to ?construct a story? (Haraway, 1997, p. 230). However, Haraway?s stories are: not ?fictions? in the sense of being ?made up.? Rather, narratives are devices to produce certain kinds of meaning. I try to use stories to tell what I think is the truth ? a located, embodied, contingent, and therefore real truth (p. 230) . While Haraway is referencing the multiple- page chart she has constructed in her book, the metaphor works well for the contingent connections between my (nearly) 200 images as well; where visitors to Champions All had to engage in the ?epistemological and political game of hypertext [ that] commits its users to the search for relationships in a fungus- like mangrove or aspen forest where before there seemed to be neat exclusions and genetically distinct, single- trunk trees? (Haraway, 1997, p. 256 231). In the end, I felt I had achieved my goals. Balancing the constraints of the project, and my PCS politics, I had produced a sculpture for public consumption that had an air of celebratory complicity with an under lying critical ?menace?. T he guilt I felt about ?selling out? was overcome by providing the ?possibility of visualities other than those of dominant institutions? (Rose, 2007, p. 176). However, it still had to be audienced. ?50 Nifty Turtles?: Promoting the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project. Figure 6.8 . Champions All certificate. Provided to turtle artists following the ir completion of designs. After its completion in the Spring of 2006, Champions All was transported to its new home at the Uni versity of Maryland Golf Course, as part of a legion of turtle sculptures distributed across the campus and region ?to highlight the university?s connections beyond the campus? (UM, 2006 b, para . 2). ?High visibility locations? were selected for the 6 month (April through September, 2006 ) display period based 257 on the ?interest of the sponsors and the owners of the venues and the suitability of particular venues for particular sculptures (UM, 2006b, para. 16); during which ongoing programming and coverage would focus the public?s attention, and interaction, with the sculptures. Situated at the center of a flower bed, in the middle of the University of Maryland Golf Course?s circle drive, and within the context of its ?terrapin buddies?, and the University of Maryland?s 150th Anniversary, Champions All was ready to receive its first visitors. 258 Figure 6. 9 . Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project ?locator map?; (Terp Magazine, 200 6 , 3 (3), front cover foldout). 259 Though the Golf Course is located on the University of Maryland campus, it is set apart from the main campus, across busy Route 193, and subsequently does not see the number, or diversity, of visitors that campus-situated turtles may have see. Thus, unlike Champions at National Portrait Gallery and Body Worlds at the Maryland Science Center, display and layout technologies were not as effective in shaping readings of Champions All through University?s narratives. However, Champions All, and the rest of the Project?s turtle sculptures were viewed within the context o f institutional and event missions, and through indirect interpretive technologies including University-circulated media coverage, events, and collateral ( e.g. maps, flyers). To explore the ways in which the sculptures and information about them, shaped viewing practices and ?inTERP retations? of Champions All, this section will examine the post -production promotional materials for the Project; viewer interactions with the sculptures; and, finally, my constitution as a turtle artist, and University representative, from the completion of Champions All to its auction. InTERPretations. While Champions All was not provided with any direct interpretive company, it was in the contextual company of the ?varied personalities and themes embodied in the university and its community? (UM , 2006c , para. 1) represented in the designs of the other 49 turtle sculptures (Figure 6.9) . Given the intent of the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project, and the proposal mandates, it is not surprising that the 50 proposals selected, and paired with sponsors, were celebratory in nature, and institutionally, regionally, and State focused. Similar to the commissioning of portraits hanging in the National Portrait Gallery, the capacity for ?aesthetic transport? Silver (1995) is 260 limited when artwork ?has been commissioned and paid for by the sitter (or the sitter?s loved ones or institution), especially when it is made clear that the portrayal must be flattering?? (p. 66). Equally, like commissioned portraits, the designs ?in nearly every case present[ed] an approved view of the sitter?.more the ?authorized? than the ?unofficial? biography? (Sturgis and Clayson, 2000, p. 137). In particular, the allowance for the appropriate use of the University of Maryland?s trademarks (and denial of other branded references), and the judging criteria based around University and S tate pride, guaranteed a reference to either the University, or the State, of Maryland in almost every design (beyond the obvious use of the University?s muscular mascot as a template). Furthermore, the reappropriation of the State of Maryland flag in the University of Maryla nd?s official spherical logo, allowed artists to make an easy visual, and conceptual, leap between the State and its flagship university. For example, the designs for ?My Maryland? and ?Metalli Terp? prominately featured the Maryland flag/University of Maryland logo and colors across the front and back of the shells. Additionally, ?My Maryland?s? description explains how the use of this motif combines ?school pride and state pride in one inspiring statement? (UM, 2006d ). Extending the conne ction from school, to state, to nation, the ?Maryland Pride? terrapin sculpture featured a US flag on the front of the shell, and a Maryland flag on the back; and ?Ma ryland in My Back Yard? featured a Maryland flag on the back , outlined by an American flag on the shell?s exterior. Designed by a University neighbor , ?Maryland in My Back Yard? also featured Byrd stadium, McKeldin Mall, Memorial Chapel, and Tawes Theater on the front of the testudo sculpture. This mosaic practice of conflating various instituional and/or state 261 symbols into a conglomeration of celebratory commemorations was commonplace in the selected designs, and their titles ( e.g. ?Maryland M osaic?, ?Mosaic of Maryland?); and often featured sport as part of its ?mixed? messaging. For example, ?Maryland Mosaic? (not to be confused with the similarly labeled and designed ?Mosaic of Maryland?) ?reflect[ed] the connection between the university and the state? through a ?tapes ty of photos and illustrations of state symbols and images of life and landscapes from city, to farm, to bay? on the back of the shell, in addition to the black-eyed susan on this sculpture?s head, and the legs colors and patterns of the Maryland flag/Univ ersity of Maryland logo wrapped around the sculpture?s legs . The front of the shell ?reflects university pride? and includes represenations of Univeristy of Maryland athletics (e.g. a basketball player, and a cheerleader). Also, in addition to academic college gonfalons, state flag symbols, and the UM brick design of the Reckford Armory, the ? Mighty Turtle of Maryland? ?incorporat e[d] the spirit of athletics by gripping a Duke Blue Devil in one hand and the Florida State spear in the other. The North Carolina Tarheel ram and FSU feathers lie underfoot? (UM, 2006d) . Sports were also additionally part of the designs of ?Tuxudo? ; ?A Turtle Celebration? ; and, ?Mutant Ninja Turtl e?, which holds a lacrosse stick in one ?hand?, and a bo ok in the other. Besides Ch am pions All , there were a number of other turtles dedicated to celebrating University of Maryland athletics. ?27 Sports, 1 Team? displayed the honeycombed logo of the University varsity athletic programs and ?capture[d] the spirit of the University of Maryland Athletics Department, with icons of the 27 varsity sports presented equally? (UM, 2006d). ?LAX Terp? was ? ready for action on 262 the lacrosse field?, replete with a helmet ?modified to fit? and an ?actual? long stick (UM, 2006d) . ?Terps Basketball Legend s? featured former (men?s) basketball ?greats?, Juan Dixon, Joe Smith, Tom McMillen, Len Elmore, Walt Williams, John Lucas, Steve Francis, Keith Booth and Gary Williams; and is ?clad? in a Maryland basketball uniform (UM, 2006d) . ?Big Terp on Campus? is ?stylin? a classic letterman sweater? (UM, 2006d). And, finally, ?Super Fan? (and the similarly styled ?Turning into Super Terp?) depicted the transformation Maryland athletics brings about in its fans; ?a mild mannered alumnus before the sporting event ? once the whistle blows he turns into Super Fan. Sporting Superman hair and business attire, his unbuttoned shirt reveals his true identity: Super Fan? (UM, 2006d). While the sporting Testudo sculptures did offer some variation (i.e. they did not represent varsity athletes), they all championed the University of Maryland?s varsity athletics, and lacked any reference to women athletes or athletics; other than the ?27 Sports, 1 Team? sculpture, which offered a misguided platitude on the equality of each of the University?s 27 sports. While the layout of the Fear the Turtle Sculpture ?exhibition? was not a direct interpretive technology, Champions All was viewed, and interpreted, through the same celebratory lens as the other sporting, and variously themed, turtle sculptures. Though the Fear the Turtle sculptures were commissioned from various individuals, the strict guidelines made it difficult to create ?visualities other than those of dominant institutions? (Rose, 2007, p. 176), both in the representations cre ated and the ways they were viewed. Other than ?Testuda?, the UM Pride Alliance?s cross - dressing, gender ambiguous turtle, and my (perhaps too subtly) critical sculpture, 263 there were a lot of variations on ?Maryland?, but no real deviations from it. Additionally, interpretive flexibility was made even more difficult by the University?s promotion of the Project. Fear the Turtle Sculpture Scavenger Hunt. While coverage of the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project was consistent throughout the 8 months between proposal submissions and the University?s receipt of the completed turtles, it increased considerably in both quantity, and interpretive guidance, in the lead up to, and following, the dispersal of the Testudo Sculptures to their exhibition locations. Timing their release with the University?s annual Maryland Day, a ramped up media presence, increased collateral, and the organization of a number of sculpture-related events, shaped the available readings of the project, and by association, Champions All . To announce their arrival, and to encourage (a particular kind of) viewer engagement, the University printed calendars and (free) limited editions posters of select turtle sculptures; hosted a virtual gallery and online ?top 10? voting; and, most significantly, and in concert with the printing and dissemination of its ?locator maps?, launched a ?Fear the Turtle Sculpture Scavenger Hunt?.49 Co-sponsored by WUSA 9 television, and WJZ 13 radio, the scavenger hunt produced visitors to the sculptures as key celebrants in the University?s anniversary, 49 Champions All was featured in the ?2007 Fear the Turtle Sculpture Calendar?, but was not featured in the limited edition posters, and did not receive enough popular votes to make the Project?s top 10 list. The limited edition posters featured: Out Standing in His Field; Taste the Tradition; Kertle; Celestial Event Turtle; and Terps Basketball Legends. The 10 most popular sculptures were: 1) Taste the Tradition; 2) Celestial Event Turtle; 3) Bustin? Out of the Shell; 4) Out Standing in His Field; 5) Metalli Terp; 6) Shell Full of Hell; 7) Thanks for All the Fish; 8) Kertle; 9) Diamonds of the Chesapeake; 10) Terps Basketball Legends. (UM, 2006d). 264 by encouraging them to view all the sculptures, and rewarding them for taking their photo with as many sculptures as possible (University of Maryland, 2006e). Pictures with all 50 turtles would make visitors eligible to win one of the sculptures, a ?special Fear t he Turtle prize package?, and a copy of Maryland: Reflections on 150 Years ? the University?s 150 th commemorative photo book. Photos with at least 40 sculptures would secure 20 randomly selected visitors a DVD copy of ?Keeping the Promise? ? the University?s 150 th commemorative film. Finally, photos with between 30 and 39 turtles had the chance to win a University of Maryland 150 th Anniversary Fear the Turtle T- shirt. As the primary way the University advertised the Project, and the visitors (beyond the usual golf course crowd) engaged with the Champions All , the scavenger hunt, and its insistence on photography as proof of the visit, produced a particular way of engaging with the sculpture. Thus, in addition to the scavenger hunt rewarded sponsors and locations with increased foot traffic, it also (almost) guaranteed a superficial, rather than contemplative, interaction with the sculptures (Figure 6.10). Paired with the somewhat unapproachable positioning of Champions All (e.g. surrounded by freshly planted flowers in the middle of the Golf Course?s circle drive), my sculpture was difficult to interpret as much more than a decorate accessory for a fleeting photo opportunity. 265 08/30/2007 11:33 PMThe University of Maryland | Fear the Turtle Sculptures | Gallery Page 1 of 1http://128.8.151.193/sculptures/gallery/view.cfm?pic_ID=158 Back to Gallery I'm on a turtle! With the crew team. Submitted by: Rikki Rabbin Shown with: Champions All Title: Champions All Artist: Jennifer Sterling Sponsor: University of Maryland Golf Course Location: UM Golf Course Description: Pictures of people and structures, past and present, from Maryland's sports community form the shape of the 'M' on front. Varsity, intramurals, coaches, fans, bands and more are included. The back connects UM sporting milestones from 1856 in a photomontage, with major world events of the time including U.S. presidents and scientific advances. - PDF map of all 50 Sculptures. - Vote for your favorite sculpture! Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project | Privacy Policy Copyright 2006 University of Maryland | Contact us with comments, questions and feedback 08/30/2007 11:34 PMThe University of Maryland | Fear the Turtle Sculptures | Gallery Page 1 of 1http://128.8.151.193/sculptures/gallery/view.cfm?pic_ID=120 Back to Gallery Mark W. at UMD Golf Course. Terps are #1. Submitted by: Warren Beers Shown with: Champions All Title: Champions All Artist: Jennifer Sterling Sponsor: University of Maryland Golf Course Location: UM Golf Course Description: Pictures of people and structures, past and present, from Maryland's sports community form the shape of the 'M' on front. Varsity, intramurals, coaches, fans, bands and more are included. The back connects UM sporting milestones from 1856 in a photomontage, with major world events of the time including U.S. presidents and scientific advances. - PDF map of all 50 Sculptures. - Vote for your favorite sculpture! Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project | Privacy Policy Copyright 2006 University of Maryland | Contact us with comments, questions and feedback 08/30/2007 11:33 PMThe University of Maryland | Fear the Turtle Sculptures | Gallery Page 1 of 1http://128.8.151.193/sculptures/gallery/view.cfm?pic_ID=162 Back to Gallery Physics is phun! Submitted by: Carole Cuaresma Shown with: Champions All Title: Champions All Artist: Jennifer Sterling Sponsor: University of Maryland Golf Course Location: UM Golf Course Description: Pictures of people and structures, past and present, from Maryland's sports community form the shape of the 'M' on front. Varsity, intramurals, coaches, fans, bands and more are included. The back connects UM sporting milestones from 1856 in a photomontage, with major world events of the time including U.S. presidents and scientific advances. - PDF map of all 50 Sculptures. - Vote for your favorite sculpture! Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project | Privacy Policy Copyright 2006 University of Maryland | Contact us with comments, questions and feedback 08/30/2007 11:32 PMThe University of Maryland | Fear the Turtle Sculptures | Gallery Page 1 of 1http://128.8.151.193/sculptures/gallery/view.cfm?pic_ID=270 Back to Gallery My sister with one of her favorite turtles Submitted by: Laura Shown with: Champions All Title: Champions All Artist: Jennifer Sterling Sponsor: University of Maryland Golf Course Location: UM Golf Course Description: Pictures of people and structures, past and present, from Maryland's sports community form the shape of the 'M' on front. Varsity, intramurals, coaches, fans, bands and more are included. The back connects UM sporting milestones from 1856 in a photomontage, with major world events of the time including U.S. presidents and scientific advances. - PDF map of all 50 Sculptures. - Vote for your favorite sculpture! Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project | Privacy Policy Copyright 2006 University of Maryland | Contact us with comments, questions and feedback 08/30/2007 11:36 PMThe University of Maryland | Fear the Turtle Sculptures | Gallery Page 1 of 1http://128.8.151.193/sculptures/gallery/view.cfm?pic_ID=358 Back to Gallery M and Susie enjoying the weather with a few champions! Submitted by: Ann Tonggarwee Shown with: Champions All Title: Champions All Artist: Jennifer Sterling Sponsor: University of Maryland Golf Course Location: UM Golf Course Description: Pictures of people and structures, past and present, from Maryland's sports community form the shape of the 'M' on front. Varsity, intramurals, coaches, fans, bands and more are included. The back connects UM sporting milestones from 1856 in a photomontage, with major world events of the time including U.S. presidents and scientific advances. - PDF map of all 50 Sculptures. - Vote for your favorite sculpture! Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project | Privacy Policy Copyright 2006 University of Maryland | Contact us with comments, questions and feedback 08/30/2007 11:31 PMThe University of Maryland | Fear the Turtle Sculptures | Gallery Page 1 of 1http://128.8.151.193/sculptures/gallery/view.cfm?pic_ID=731 Back to Gallery Go TERPS! Submitted by: Rob Buss Shown with: Champions All Title: Champions All Artist: Jennifer Sterling Sponsor: University of Maryland Golf Course Location: UM Golf Course Description: Pictures of people and structures, past and present, from Maryland's sports community form the shape of the 'M' on front. Varsity, intramurals, coaches, fans, bands and more are included. The back connects UM sporting milestones from 1856 in a photomontage, with major world events of the time including U.S. presidents and scientific advances. - PDF map of all 50 Sculptures. - Vote for your favorite sculpture! Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project | Privacy Policy Copyright 2006 University of Maryland | Contact us with comments, questions and feedback Figure 6. 1 0 . F ar the Turtle Sculpture Scavenger Hunt . Photographs with Champions All (UM, 2006d); M en?s Crew team member Rikki Rabin next to her photo on Champions All (top; arrow provided by Rabin). Despite the preferred method of viewing, however, visitors did interact with Champions All in (un)anticipated, and (un)welcome ways. While perusing the pictures that had been uploaded to the Fear the Turtle Sculptures virtual gallery as part of the scavenger hunt, I spotted the image uploaded by Rikki Rabin, a coxswain for the Men?s Crew club team that had provided me with photos for the Champions All turtle (Figure 6.10 ; top). In the photo, she has positioned herself near where the picture of her (as part of the team) is located; and has drawn directional arrows and captioned the photo ?I?m on a tu rtle! With the crew team? , to indicate her inclusion, and participation, in Champions All and the Project. Though anecdotal, Rikki?s submission of the photo reflected the general sentiment of the club teams, and other solicited photography, about their inclusion. Thus, while I was disappointed by the 266 lack of engagement and ?close looking? that I had expected from my careful juxtaposition of images, I felt that my goals of inclusivity, participation, and broadening awareness of the breadth of University physical culture had been achieved. Conversely, the attention paid to Champions All by ?taggers? was also unanticipated, but was not necessarily welcome. Though I didn?t mind Champions All being selected as part of a subversive artistic practice (as that was what I was already trying to achieve), I did mind the additional contractually obligated work that it created for me prior to the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project Auction ? the final event of the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project . Representing Maryland. In addition to creating a particular viewing subjectivity, the launch of the Fear the Turtle Sculpture exhibition, also crafted turtle artists into university, and state, representatives. At the beginning of the project my fellow designers and I were thanked for taking care of ?our terrapin buddies? and were invited to ?join the celebration? at ?the university?s big community open house?, Maryland Day, (T. Scian, personal communication, March 8, 2006). At Maryland Day we were asked to mingle with the ?spe cial guests in the President?s Hospitality Suite who want to meet the artists behind these wonderful creations? (T. Scian, personal communication, April 24, 2006). During the summer, we were provided with complimentary copies of the Terp Magazine sculpture feature, with a letter detailing the spread of the ? excitement and energy of the Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project? across the region; and the ? great positive feedback from all quarters: from public officials to regular citizens, from long-time Terp fans to new found friends who appreciate the creativity 267 that went into developing each sculpture? (C. Robinson, personal correspondence, June 22, 2006 ). At the end of the project, we were invited to perform our ?turtle artist? subjectivity once again, in the lead up to, and at, the auction. As ?one of those who helped bring these beautiful sculptures to life?, we were invited to ride on a truck bed full of turtles, ?wave to the crowd?shake pom poms, throw candy? , and generally be part of a ceremonial final turtle parade that would transport the sculptures from the Pocomoke storage facility to the auction block at the Riggs Alumni Center. After arriving at the Center, the sculptures would be ?available for last hugs and photos? before being auctioned the following day (C. Robinson, personal communication, October 10, 2006). 50 Finally , at the auction itself, we were prompted by an invitation, and summoned by an email, to help with our sculpture?s sale, and student scholarship fundraising efforts: This will be a really special event. You?ll be distinguished among all the guests with a classic artist beret that we?ll provide. We ask that you be on hand near your turtle during the Bidders? Reception to share your design inspiration and craftsmanship techniques with potential bidders to encourage their enthusiasm for claiming one for their own. We want to make sure each of our fabulous turtles finds a new home.? (C. Robinson, personal communication, September 21, 2006) 50 While this might sound a little over the top, by this time we had invested nearly a year in the project, and everyone involved in the Project had grown quite close to our ?terrapin buddies?, and to each other; even the university representatives became defined by their association with the project. For example, an additional line had been added to the email signature in the above correspondence from C. Robinson ? a.k.a. The Turtle Lady. 268 Thus, in creating a representation of the Universit y of Maryland with my design, I also became a representative of the Universi ty. Like the negotiations I had perfo rmed throughout my Champions All endeavor, in donning a beret at the auction, I negotiate d my academic and institutional missions. While I par ticipated in some of the above events, and not others, each was an opportunity to represent the Unive rsity as a turtle artist, and an opportunity to represent the PCS program as a critically engaged public intellectual. In talking to potential bidders at t he auction, I could explain to them the critical purpose of the design that had seemingly gone unnoticed. As one of six turtle artists interviewed for a feature on ?Testudo?s Troops? in the Maryland Newsline, the College of J ournalism?s online student newspaper, I was , again, able to describe my design intentions; to draw attention to the breadth of physical culture at Maryland that it embodied; point out the growth of womens? teams, and discuss the need for contextualizing sport in society. However, as an artist for one of the sculptures that ?inspired a new sense of Maryland pride across the campus and throughout the community? (C. Robinson, personal communication, October 10 , 2006), I had to wonder if I had been made complicit . Champions All Redux: Bringing It All Back Home The final ?chapter? in the Champions All ?saga? was its reconstruction, auction, and eventual repositioning at the University of Maryland Archives. The redux in the title for this final section refers to the second version of Champions All , recreated after Champions All ?the original? poorly weathered the torrential rains of Hurricane Ernesto over the summer in 2006; and its second, and permanent, ?home? 269 and current site of audiencing. The second part of the title, not only refers to th e (fitting) return of the images to the archives from which they came, but also alludes to Grossberg?s (1997) collection of essays on cultural studies, and my attempt to ?care and to join in the collective labor of [physical] cultural studies? (p. 32), through my continued interaction with Champions All at mine, and my program?s institutional home ? the University of Maryland. On the auction block. Despite my careful selection and use of materials, and the succe ss of similar materials on other turtles, Champions All limped back to University of Maryland?s Pocomoke building in need of repairs. As the University of Maryland Golf Course had relinquished its claim to Champions All, I had two weeks to complete my contractually obligated repairs prior to its auction.51 T he detailed scaling I had painted on the body of Testudo had managed fairly well, but the collage that covered the front and back of the shell was badly damaged from weather, and needed to be redone. Freed from the constraints of its future location, I was able to modify my image selection to neutralize my initial non-representative inclusion of golf; update images that were already out-dated (e.g. the football field had been renamed Chevy Chase Bank Field at Byrd Stadium); and, reconstruct a slightly remodeled variation of Champions All to present to possible new owners at the upcoming auction. 51 The Univer sity of Maryland Golf Course did not end up owning any of the sculptures. 270 Figure 6.1 1 . Bidders? reception and auction guide; collected at the Fear the Turtle Sculpture auction, Samuel Riggs IV Alumni Center , October 19, 20 06 (University of Maryland, 2006) . Replete with my ?classic artist beret?, and my ?turtle artist? name tag, I attended the Fear the Turtle Sculpture project auction, which took place with much pomp and circumstance on October 19, 2006. Benefitting student scholarship, the turtle sculptures were arranged into live, and silent, auction categories (Figure 6.11) ; and, Champions All was part of the event?s silent auction. The University of Maryland Archives had contacted me prior to the auction to inquire abo ut the availability of Champions All , as they were considering purchasing one of the sculptures for their collection, and display, at the Archives. At the time, Champions All was still owned by the Golf Course. However, when I was notified that my sculpture would, indeed, be sold at the auction, I contacted the Archives. While there was no guarantee that they would win the auction, I hoped that they would ? for many reasons. First of all, I had become close with the University Archivists over the course of the Project. I spent a lot of time in the archives, and they spent a lot of time with me. Furthermore, I knew they would take care of Champions All . Most significant, however, the purchase of Champions All by the Archives would ensure 271 continued public access, in the home of its original context ? the University of Maryland, and the Archives. Figure 6.12 . Bid paddle. Collected at the Fear the Turtle Sculpture auction, Samuel Riggs IV Alumni Center, October 19, 2006 . (Re)contextualizing champions at the University of Maryland. Figure 6.13 . Champions All at the University of Maryland Archives; ( left; J. Sterling personal photograph, April 13, 2010); (center, J. Sterling personal photograph, May 15, 2010 ) ; (left) at Maryland Day (J. Sterling personal photograph, April 29, 2010) . The Archives welcomed Champions All with a customized, moveable base, and new viewing position ? on guard at the Archives?s main entrance. Plaques on the surface of the base denote both its original sponsor ? the Golf Course ? and the numerous donors that made the purchase of Champions All at the auction a possibility. Invited to join Champions All and the Archives staff at Maryland Day in 2007, I have attended again, whenever possible, to continue my engagement with 272 Champions All and, visitors to it. However, I obviously can?t stand along side the sculpture all the time to tell people about my intentions, which remain invisible even now; out of the context of the Anniversary celebration and Fear the Tur tle Sculpture Project , and in context of it new site of audiencing. Despite my best efforts, my complicit- yet- critical visual narrative is still missed by visitors to the Archives and Champions All. ?Is it possible?, as Harrison (as cited in Phoenix, 2010) asks, ?for photographs to narrate independent of written or oral word?? (p. 96 ). Returning to Baxandall (1991), ? Because it h as been offered for inspection?. It is spotlit for some purpose. [The viewer] may or may not find it attractive but for any of a number of reasons? [they read] the label or catalogue entry with a view to learning about it. (Baxandall, 1991, p. 34) . However, as there is no label or catalogue entry ? as of yet ? for Champions All , there is nothing for the viewer to learn. Thus, I have constructed the following chart as a textual narrative device for my visual narrative device (Haraway, 1997 ), which hopefully ?constructs a story? (p. 230) in a way that still allows for ?frankly interpretive labors? (Richardson , 1991, p. 17 7) , while making viewers? searches through the mangrove forest more fruitful. 273 Ch am pio ns Al l! ! Comp lete d in 2006 , C ha m pio ns Al l w as p ar t o f the Un iver sity o f M ar yla nd ?s 15 0t h Ann iver sa ry F ea r the Tu rt le Scu lptu re p ro ject . The d es ign ut ilize s ar ch iva l i m ag es a nd s tu dent ph ot og ra ph s to rep re sent the m an y co mp onent s of p hy sic al cu ltu re a t the Un iver sit y. Fr om fa ns to fa na tic s, cu rr icu lum to c oa che s, tr ad iti on s to tr ad em ark s, an d sp iri t s qu ad s to s po rt s club s, the c ol lag e emb od ie s the pe op le a nd p lace s th at h av e co ns tructe d an d co nt in ue to c re ate M ar yla nd ?s sp or tin g hi st or y an d cu ltu re . ! A rt ist : Jenn ifer Ster lin g! Ph .D . Stu dent , P hy sic al Cu ltur al Stu di es ! Dep ar tment o f K ine sio lo gy , Sch oo l o f P ub lic He alt h! Un iver sity o f M ar yla nd , C ol le ge P ar k! 1 W . Bas ketball National Champions (2006 ) 35 Missy Meharg ( W . Field Hoc ke y coach ) 69 Te rr apin fans (1969 ) 2 Equestrian Club (2006 ) 36 Ga ry Williams (M . Bas ketball coach ) 70 Te rr apin fan (1985 ) 3 Te rr apin fans bonfi re (2006 ) 37 Queens Game (1957 ) 71 Midnight Madness (1970 ) 4 Te rr apin fans (2006) 38 Tom McMillen (O lympian ; 1972 ) 72 Lefty Driesel (M . Bas ketball coach) 5 Te rr apin fans bonfi re (1966 ) 39 Sasho Ci ro vski (M . Soccer coach ) 73 Tailgaiting (1988 ) 6 Fencing Club (2006) 40 UMD golf course (1959 ) 74 Fear the tu rtle (2001 ) 7 Te rr apin fans (2006) 41 Pam W ar d (Alumni ; 1984 ) 75 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 8 Sailing Club (2006 ) 42 Tim Brant (Alumni ; 1973 ) 76 Te rr apin fans & T estudo (2006 ) 9 M . Lac rosse Club (2006 ) 43 Black Belt Club (2006 ) 77 Dance team (2006 ) 10 Ch evy Chase Bank Field at By rd Stadium (2006 ) 44 Te rr apin fans (1951 ) 78 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 11 Comcast Center (2002 ) 45 Te rr apin fans ( (1966 ) 79 Te rr apin fans , The C re w (2006 ) 12 Shipl ey Field (1954 ) 46 Te rr apin fans bonfi re (1949 ) 80 Ralph Friedgen (M . F ootball coach ) 13 K ehoe T rack at Ludwig Field (1995) 47 Touchd own canno n 81 Br enda Friese ( W . Bas ketball coach ) 14 Te rr apin fans (1969 ) 48 Testudo (1990 ) 82 Te rr apin fans (1987 ) 15 Champions All a rtist (2006 ) 49 Cole Fieldhouse (1971 ) 83 Te rr apin fan (1963 ) 16 Ma ryland Racing (2002 ) 50 Cole Fieldhouse (1955) 84 Te rr apin fan (1988) ) 17 M . C re w Club (2006 ) 51 Bu rton Shipl ey (M . Baseball coach ) 85 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 18 Pr esident Mote & T er ry Flanne ry (Mar keting ) 52 Jim K ehoe ( Track & Field coach ) 86 Football trademark (2006 ) 19 Bas ketball trademark (2006 ) 53 Cadet Band (1909) 87 Testudo (2006) 20 D r. Jane Clark (Dept . of Kinesiolo gy ) 54 Te rr apin fans (1976 ) 88 W . Rug by Club (2006 ) 21 D r. Je rr y W renn (Dept . of Kinesiolo gy ) 55 Te rr apin fans (1931 ) 89 Spirit Squad (2006 ) 22 Cycling Club (2006 ) 56 W . T ennis Club (1925 ) 90 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 23 Outdoor Rec Center climbing wall (2001) 57 Inte r-fraternity bas ketball (1928 ) 91 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 24 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 58 Ph ysical Education Dept . (1957 ) 92 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 25 Te rr apin fans (1966 ) 59 Rec Center (1992) 93 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 26 T ailgaiting (2006 ) 60 During the game (1952 ) 94 Te rr apin fan (2006 ) 27 M . Bas ketball National Champions (2002 ) 61 Sophomo re tug-o-war (1940) 95 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 28 W . C re w Club (2006 ) 62 Te rr apin fans (1920 ) 96 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 29 Ir ene Kn ox (O lympian ; 1932 ) 63 D r. C . Wright Mills (Sociolo gy Dept. ) 97 Cole fieldhouse (2003) 30 UMD me rchandise (2006 ) 64 Fr ed Funk (Alumni ; 1980 ) 98 During the game (2006 ) 31 Squash Club (2006 ) 65 Te rr apin fans (1967 ) 99 Ma rching Band (2006) 32 M . W ater Polo Club (2006 ) 66 Cole Fieldhouse (1955) 10 0 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 33 M . Baseball Club (2006 ) 67 Te rr apin fans (1920 ) 10 1 Te rr apin fans (2006 ) 34 W . Soccer Club (2006 ) 68 Athletic T raining (1971) 10 2 Testudo (1933 ) UMD T raditions & T radem ar ks UMD People & Place s UMD Fa ns UMD Club Spo rt s 10 2! 1 W . B as ketb al l N at io na l Ch amp io ns ( 2006 ) 35 M is sy M eh ar g (W . F ie ld H oc ke y co ach ) 69 Te rr ap in la cr os se fa ns ( 1969 ) 2 Eque str ia n C lub ( 2006 ) 36 G ar y W ill ia m s (M . B as ketb al l c oa ch ) 70 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an ( 1985 ) 3 Te rr ap in fa n ro it (2006 ) 37 Q ueen' s G ame ( 1957 ) 71 M id ni ght M ad ne ss ( 1970 ) 4 Te rr ap in s occer fa ns ( 2006 ) 38 To m M cM ill en ( A lum nu s; O lymp ia n) 72 Lefty Dr ie se l ( M . B as ketb al l c oa ch ) 5 Te rr ap in fa n bo nf ir e (1966 ) 39 Sa sh o C ir ov sk i ( M . S occer c oa ch ) 73 Te rr ap in t ai lg ai tin g (1988 ) 6 Fenc in g C lub ( 2006 ) 40 U M D g ol f c our se ( 1959 ) 74 Fe ar the tu rt le ( 2001 ) 7 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (2006 ) 41 Pa m W ar d (A lum nu s; Sp or ts ca ster ) 75 Cheer in g fr om h ome ( 2006 ) 8 Sa ili ng C lub ( 2006 ) 42 T im Br ant ( A lum nu s; Sp or ts ca ster ) 76 Te rr ap in b as ketb al l f an s (2006 ) 9 M . L ac ro ss e C lub ( 2006 ) 43 Bl ack Be lt C lub ( 2006 ) 77 D ance te am ( 2006 ) 10 Ch evy Ch as e Ba nk F ie ld a t By rd St ad ium ( 2006 ) 44 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (1951 ) 78 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (2006 ) 11 C omc as t Center ( 2002 ) 45 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s ( (1966 ) 79 "The C re w " so ccer fa ns ( 2006 ) 12 Sh ip le y Fi el d (1954 ) 46 Te rr ap in "Be at Du ke!" b onf ir e (1949 ) 80 R al ph F ri ed gen ( M . F oo tb al l c oa ch ) 13 K eh oe T ra ck a t Lu dw ig F ie ld ( 1995 ) 47 To uch do w n ca nn on 81 Br en da F ri es e (W . B as ketb al l c oa ch ) 14 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (1969 ) 48 Te stu do ( 1990 ) 82 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (1987 ) 15 Ch am pio ns All a rt is t (2006 ) 49 C ol e Fi el dh ou se ( 1971 ) 83 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an ( 1963 ) 16 M ar yl an d R ac in g (2002 ) 50 C ol e Fi el dh ou se ( 1955 ) 84 "Spec ia l K " fo otb al l f an ( 1988 ) 17 M . C re w C lub ( 2006 ) 51 Bu rt on Sh ip le y (M . B as eb al l c oa ch ) 85 Te rr ap in b as ketb al l f an s (2006 ) 18 Pr es id ent M ote & T er ry F la nne ry ( M ar ket in g) 52 Jim K eh oe ( Tr ack & F ie ld c oa ch ) 86 Fo otb al l tr ad em ark ( 2006 ) 19 Ba sk etb al l tr ad em ark ( 2006 ) 53 C ad et B an d (1909 ) 87 Te stu do ( 2006 ) 20 D r. Ja ne C la rk ( Dept . o f K ine si ol og y) 54 Te rr ap in b as eb al l f an s (1976 ) 88 W . Ru gb y C lub ( 2006 ) 21 D r. Je rr y W renn ( Dept . o f K ine si ol og y) 55 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (1931 ) 89 Sp ir it Squ ad ( 2006 ) 22 Cyc lin g C lub ( 2006 ) 56 W . T enn is C lub ( 1925 ) 90 Te rr ap in b as ketb al l f an s (2006 ) 23 O ut do or Rec Center c limb in g w al l ( 2001 ) 57 Inte r- fr atern ity b as ketb al l ( 1928 ) 91 Te rr ap in b as ketb al l f an s (2006 ) 24 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (2006 ) 58 Ph ys ic al E duc at io n Dept . ( 1957 ) 92 Te rr ap in b as ketb al l f an s (2006 ) 25 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (1966 ) 59 C ampu s Rec re at io n Se rv ice s (1992 ) 93 Te rr ap in b as ketb al l f an s (2006 ) 26 Te rr ap in t ai lg ai tin g (2006 ) 60 Dur in g the fo otb al l g ame ( 1952 ) 94 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an ( 2006 ) 27 M . B as ketb al l N at io na l Ch amp io ns ( 2002 ) 61 So ph om or e tu g- o- w ar ( 1940 ) 95 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (2006 ) 28 W . C re w C lub ( 2006 ) 62 Te rr ap in b as eb al l f an s (1920 ) 96 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (2006 ) 29 Ir ene K no x (A lum nu s; O lymp ia n) 63 D r. C . Wr ig ht M ill s (S oc io lo gy Dept .) 97 C ol e fie ld ho us e (2003 ) 30 U M D me rch an di se ( 2006 ) 64 Fr ed F unk ( A lum nu s; Pr o G ol fer ) 98 Dur in g theb as ketb al l g ame ( 2006 ) 31 Squ as h C lub ( 2006 ) 65 Te rr ap in a lumn i f oo tb al l f an s (1967 ) 99 M ar ch in g Ba nd ( 2006 ) 32 M . W ater P ol o C lub ( 2006 ) 66 C ol e Fi el dh ou se ( 1955 ) 10 0 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (2006 ) 33 M . B as eb al l C lub ( 2006 ) 67 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (1920 ) 10 1 Te rr ap in fo otb al l f an s (2006 ) 34 W . S occer C lub ( 2006 ) 68 Ath let ic T ra in in g (1971 ) 10 2 Te stu do ( 1933 ) Figure 6.13. Champions All guide (front). 274 The b ack o f C ha m pio ns All fe atu re s Un iver sity o f M ar yla nd Va rs ity a th let ics , a rr an gin g M en' s a nd W omen' s te am s b y the ir fir st y ea r o f c ompet iti on in c lo ck w ise , ch ro no lo gic al she ll sect io ns . The p re sent Un iver sity o f M ar yla nd se al is cente re d on the she ll, an d pr ev io us se als , a nd n ot ab le Un iver sity e vent s a nd per so ns , a re inte gr ate d in the c ol lag e to inte rc onnect M ar yla nd 's in st itut io na l a nd sp or tin g hi st or ie s. The e dg e of the she ll pr ov id es a v isu al time line o f Un iver sit y, na tio na l, a nd intern at io na l e vent s a nd fi gu re s th at rep re sent c ivi c, po lit ica l, ec on om ic , a nd techn ol og ica l s hi fts , w hi ch b oth sh ape d, an d w er e sh ape d, by the w or ld o f s po rt s.! 1856-190 0 32 W . Rifle T eam (1922 ) 63 Bil ly Jones (1964 ) 1 George Cal ve rt (college P resident ; 1859 ) 33 M . Cheer (1917 ) 1970-197 6 2 Pr esident Lincoln (1861-1865 ) 34 Adele Stamp (1927 ) 64 N O W 3 Penn Su (1st international student ; 1887 ) 35 W . Fieldhouse (1935 ) 65 Bil ly Jean King (1973 ) 4 College cha rter (1856 ) 36 W . Club Bas keball (1925 ) 66 W . C ross Count ry 5* Civil war (1861-1865 ) 1920-193 0 67 W . V oll eybal l 1900-191 0 37 1928 O lympic s 68 W . T rack (1971 ) 6 Ma ryland Agricultural College seal ( year? ) 38 Babe Rut h 69 W . Lac rosse (1977 ) 7 1896 O lympics (Athens ) 39 Babe Didrickso n 70 Testudinett e 8 Susan B . Antho ny & Elizabeth Stanto n 40 Jesse O w en s 71 W . Swimming (1976 ) 9 Jack Johnson (B ox er ) 41 Milita ry T estud o 72 W . Hoc ke y (1971 ) 10 Hen ry Fo rd & Model T (1908 ) 1930-195 0 73 W . Gymnastics (1973 ) 11 Compa ny 'A' (1900 ) 42 Jackie Robinson (Baseball ) 74 W . Bas ketball (1971 ) 12 Ph ysical training (1901 ) 43 DNA (1953 ) 75 W . T ennis (1976 ) 13 The gymnasium (1898 ) 44 Hiram Whittle ; Elaine Johnso n 1976-200 3 14 M . T rack & Field (1898 ) 45 M . B oxing (1931 ) 76 McKnight (1976 ) 15 M . Baseball (1865* ) 46 M . Soccer (1938 ) 77 Skateboa rder (1978 ) 16 M . F ootball (1882 ) 47 Coed Cheer (1925 ) 78 1984 O lympic s 17 M . T ennis (1898 ) 48 M . W restling (1940 ) 79 Len Bia s 1910-192 0 49 M . Golf (1940 ) 80 Dese rt Stor m 18 Jim Thorpe ( Track & Field athlete ) 50 Gymkana (1946 ) 81 2001 O lympic s 19 Elizabeth Hook (1st w oman studen t 1950-196 0 82 W . Socce r 20 Charlotte V aux (1st w oman 2 year deg ree student ; 1916 ) 51 Althea Gibson (late 50s ) 83 W . Softbal l 21 State College of Ma ryland (1916 ) 52 First mic rochip (1958 ) 84 W . Gol f 22 M . Lac rosse (1910 ) 53 Te rr apin ast ronaut (1963 ) 85 Testud o 23 M . Rifle (1911 ) 54 Terps on TV (1958 ) 86 W . W ater Pol o 24 M . Bas ketball (1904 ) 55 D r. Ha rr y By rd (1942 ) 2003-200 6 25 Ha rr y By rd (Student athlete ; 1904-1908 ) 56 Dean Adele Stamp (1950 ) 87 * Serg ey Brin (Alumni ; Google ) 26 The Stadium (1925 ) 1960-197 0 88 Pr esident Bush ( year ) 27 Battalion (1904 ) 57 Texas W estern (1966 ) 89 W . Cheer (2003 ) 1920-193 0 58 1968 O lympic s 85 Debbie Y ow (Athletic Di rector ) 28 Suffrage Ma rc h 59 Vietnam W ar (1970 ) 86 Para lympic s 29 Getrude Ederle (Swimmer ) 60 Elmo re Hunter (1965 ) 87 UM Sea l 30 Uni versity of Ma ryland seal (1920 ) 61 Da ryl Hill (1962 ) 31 M . C ross Count ry (1920s ) 62 Swimming (name?) (1957 ) UMD Athletic s UMD E vents & People W or ld & US Athletic s W or ld & US E vents & Peopl e 18 56 -1 90 0 32 W . R ifl e Te am ( 1922 ) 63 Bi lly Jo ne s (U M b as ketb al l; 1964 ) 1 Ch ar le ls C al ve rt ( M A C P re si dent ) 33 M . Cheer ( 1917 ) 19 65 -2 00 3 2 Abr ah am L inc ol n (US P re si dent ; 1861 -1865 ) 34 A de le St amp ( De an o f W omen ) 64 N at io na l O rg an iz at io n fo r W omen ( N O W ) 3 Py on Su ( M A C s tu dent ) 35 W . F ie ld ho us e (1935 ) 65 Bi lly Je an K in g, Ba tt le o f the Se xe s (1973 ) 4 C ol le ge ch ar ter ( 1856 ) 36 W . C lub B as keb al l ( 1925 ) 66 W . C ro ss C ount ry ( 1978 ) 5 C iv il w ar ( 1861 -1865 ) 67 W . V ol le yb al l ( 1978 ) 37 1928 O lymp ic s (1 st W . T ra ck & F ie ld e vent s) 68 W . T ra ck ( 1975 ) 6 M ar yl an d A gr icu ltur al C ol le ge ( M A C ; 1856 ) 38 Ba be Ruth ( Pr o Ba seb al l P la yer ) 69 W . L ac ro ss e (1975 ) 7 1896 O lymp ic s (f ir st M od ern G ame s) 39 Ba be D id ri ck so n (P ro G ol fer ) 70 Te stu di nette ( 1980 ) 8 Su sa n B. Anth on y; El iz abeth St ant on ( Suffr ag is ts ) 40 Je ss e O w en s (T ra ck & F ie ld O lymp ia n) 71 W . S w imm in g (1980 ) 9 Ja ck Jo hn so n (W or ld b ox in g ch amp io n) 41 M ili ta ry T es tu do ( 1935 ) 72 W . H oc ke y (1972 ) 10 Hen ry F or d (In du str ia lis t) 19 35 -1 96 5 73 W . G ymn as tic s (1982 ) 11 C omp an y 'A' ( 1900 ) 42 Ja ck ie R ob in so n (P ro B as eb al l P la yer ) 74 W . B as ketb al l ( 1974 ) 12 Ph ys ic al tr ai ni ng ( 1901 ) 43 D is co ve ry o f D N A s tructu re ( 1953 ) 75 W . T enn is ( 1977 ) 13 The G ymn as ium ( 1898 ) 44 H ir am Wh itt le ; E la ine Jo hn so n (U M s tu dent s) 14 M . T ra ck & F ie ld ( 1898 ) 45 M . B ox in g (1931 ) 76 D ott ie M cK ni ght ( W omen' s Ath let ic C oo rd .) 15 M . B as eb al l ( 1865 ) 46 M . S occer ( 1938 ) 77 U M Sk ateb oa rd er ( 1978 ) 16 M . F oo tb al l ( 1882 ) 47 C oe d Cheer ( 1938 ) 78 1984 O lymp ic s ("H ambu ger O lymp ic s" ) 17 M . T enn is ( 1898 ) 48 M . W re st lin g (1940 ) 79 Len B ia s (U M b as ketb al l; 1986 ) 19 00 -1 93 5 49 M . G ol f ( 1940 ) 80 G ul f W ar ( 1990 -1991 ) 18 Jim Th orpe ( Tr ack & F ie ld O lymp ia n) 50 G ymk an a (1946 ) 81 2002 O lymp ic s (1 st p os t 9/ 11 G ame s) 19 El iz abeth H oo k (1 st w om an 4 -yr d eg ree ; 1920 ) 82 W . S occer ( 1990 ) 20 Ch ar lo tte V aux ( 1s t w om an 2 -yr d eg ree ; 1916 ) 51 A lthe a G ib so n (Ch amp io n tenn is p la yer ) 83 W . S oftb al l ( 1996 ) 21 St ate C ol le ge o f M ar yl an d se al ( 1916 ) 52 Fi rs t m ic ro ch ip ( 1958 ) 84 W . G ol f ( 2001 ) 22 M . L ac ro ss e (1910 ) 53 Te rr ap in s pa ce tr av el ( 1963 ) 85 Te stu do ( 1996 ) 23 M . R ifl e (1911 ) 54 Terp s on TV ( 1958 ) 86 W . W ater P ol o (2003 ) 24 M . B as ketb al l ( 1904 ) 55 D r. H ar ry By rd ( U M P re si dent ) 20 03 - 25 H ar ry By rd ( Stu dent a th lete ) 56 A de le St amp ( De an o f W omen ) 87 Ser ge y Br in ( G oo gl e co -fo un de r; A lu m us ) 26 The St ad ium ( 1925 ) 88 G eo rg e W . Bu sh ( US P re si dent ; 2000 -2008 ) 27 Ba tt al io n (1904 ) 57 Fi na l F our a t C ol e Fi el dh ou se ( 1966 ) 89 W . Cheer ( 2003 ) 58 1968 O lymp ic s (T om m y Sm ith ; J ohn C ar lo s) 90 Debb ie Y ow ( Ath let ic D ir ect or ) 28 W omen' s Suffr ag e M ar ch 59 V ietn am W ar ( 1955 -75 ) 91 Pa ra lymp ic s (TBD ) 29 G etru de E der le ( O lymp ic & Ch anne l s w immer ) 60 El m or e Hunter ( U M tr ack & fi el d; 1965 ) 92 U M Se al 30 Un iv er si ty o f M ar yl an d se al ( 1920 ) 61 D ar yl H ill ( U M fo otb al l; 1963 ) 31 M . C ro ss C ount ry ( 1922 ) 62 Jo hn W ill ia m s (U M s w imm in g; 1964 ) Figure 6.15. Champions All guide (back). 275 C hapter 7 ? C onclusion: Adventurous Settlers : The Role of the Visual in Dodging Meteor s and Asking Like a Cat in Physical Cultural Studies ??the ground has been staked, the foundation laid, and scaffolding erected, and diverse and adventurous settlers have moved on in? (Richardson, 2000b, p. 17). I have started my conclusion with the hopeful ?non-prediction? for the future of creative analytical practices in ethnography that Richardson (2000b) closes her call for new writing practices in the Sociology of Sport Journal with. Eleven years later, Silk & Andrews (2011) pin ?future hope? to the scholarship of Richardson as an avant-garde scholar (along with Denzin, and Giroux) ?who has not been afraid to situate herself within storied writing and address abuses of power inherent in disciplinary constraints, academic debates, departmental politics, social movements, community structures, research interests, familial ties, and personal history? (p. 23). The work for creative futures in PCS has indeed had the ground staked, the foundation laid, and the scaffolding erected (Richardson, 2000b, p. 17). However, are PCS scholars diverse and adventurous settlers? Have we stood in the path of methodological meteors, or dodged them (Richardson, 2000b)? How can researching (with) the visual develop the PCS project? Why not ask ?like a cat? (Richardson 2000b, p. 17) for what I/we want? And, why not ask for it, with a metaphor? Re decorating: Blue prints for creative futures . If the ground has been staked, the foundation laid, the scaffolding erected, and adventurous PCS scholars are ready to move in, isn?t it time to redecorate? Following 276 Grossberg (2006), ?Does [a visual physical] cultural studies have [creative] futures??. To avoid a decorative (Rojeck & Turner, 2000), ?[physical] culture studies-in-name- only? (Carrington as cited in Andrews & Giardin a, 2008), or illustrative, approach to the visual that has previously plagued studies of sport and physical culture, PCS needs to redecorate. Not only in that it looks at the visual, and how it looks at the visual, but how the visual is integrated into all aspects of the PCS project ? from curriculum and teaching, to data collection and interdisciplinary, or participant, collaboration; as ways knowing, and ways of making seen. To continue the metaphor, this is no simple spring cleaning. It is not a fresh coat of paint, or even new hardwood floors ? or a less expensive laminate flooring option. This is the dusty demolition of restructuring spaces ? turning garages into offices, and tearing down walls to open up floors plans, increase flow, and encourage interaction. After all, what?s the point of taking down (disciplinary) walls, when we remain inside their boundaries; or redecorating if we?re not going to have people over. Finally, we need to choose sustainable (research) products for our redecoration, those that will provide a better immediate and long-term environment for its resident-researchers, and society as a whole. Following Mirzoeff (1999) ?if [physical] cultural studies is to have a future as an intellectual strategy, it will have to take the visual turn that everyday life has already gone through? (p. 7). PCS is already a home I feel very comfortable in. However, redecorating with the study of visual culture makes it a more interesting place to reside; and, a more approachable, more inviting place for others to visit, or even come stay for a while. I?m excited to continue the redecorating; to locate new artwork to hang in our home 277 (perhaps one of Warhol?s Athletes Series ); to examine our diverse existing collections (i.e. researching the ways active bodies are visualized in Kinesiology lab spaces); and to curate new exhibitions, both literally, and metaphorically, in my continued pursuit of a visual physical cultural studies. 278 Appendix A ? Champions Champions Portraiture Timeline !"#$#%&$' !"#$% "#&% "#'% "'%% "'"% "'(% "')% "'*% "'+% "'$% "'&% "''% (%%% (%"%,!, "'%+ "''# "')$ "''' "')$ "'$" "'"$ "#+' "#&&!"'(+ "'(+ "'(+ "'$% "''" "'"* "'*$ "'$& -./,01.2345678 "#'" "'++ 9763:;<83,01.2345678 "#'# "'+$ =>,"')% "''% "'($ "'+%!"'++ (%"% "'+$ "'&#? "')* "'$%!"'$" "'$" @7A34,BC4<6 "')* "'$" B<=D3/,BC85.3 "')" "''+ =>,"'$" "')& "'$$ "'&#? "#'% "'&+ 0C63/,E538A3. "'$+ "'*% "'$( "'&#? "')$ "'$+ "'&#? "')( (%%& "'+# "'&#? "')' "'$# "'&#? "#'+ "'** "'&* "')# "'$" "'&#? "'"( (%%$ "'&* "'') "'(' "'&' "''% "'*$ @3AA<3,9C=D678 "'&* "'&#? "'(+ F7A<,G344C "'&) (%%% (%%% "'+( 9 Critical Methodologies, 8(4), 395?422. Andrews, D.L., & Silk, M.L. (Eds.). (2012). Sport and neoliberalism: Politics, consumption, and culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 284 Asma, S. (2003). Stuffed animals and pickled heads: The culture and evolution of natural history museums. New York: Oxford University Press. Association of Science-Technology Centers. (2009). Science center history FAQ. Retrieved from http://www.astc.org/about/pressroom.htm Association of Science-Technology Centers. (2011a). 2011 science center and museum statistics. Retreived from http://www.astc.org/about/pdf/Backgrounders/2011%20Science%20Center%20Statist ics.pdf Association of Science-Technology Centers. (2011b). About ASTC and Science Centers. Retrieved from http://astc.org/about/pdf/Backgrounders/AboutASTC2011.pdf Association of Science-Technology Centers. (2012). Making the case for science centers. Retrieved from http://www.astc.org/resource/case/index.htm Atkinson, M. (2010). Fell running in post?sport territories. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 109?132. Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (1999). Ethnography: Post, past and present. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(5), 460?471. Azzarito, L., & Solmon, M. A. (2006). A feminist poststructuralist view on student bodies in physical education: Sites of compliance, resistance, and transformation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25(2), 200?225. Azzarito, L. (2010). Ways of seeing the body in kinesiology: A case for visual methodologies. Quest, 62(2), 155?170. 285 Azzarito, L., & Sterling, J. (2010). ?What it was in my eyes?: Picturing youths? embodiment in ?real? spaces. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 209? 228. Baker, A. (2003). Contesting identities: Sports in American film. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Bal, M. (2003). Visual essentialism and the object of visual culture. Journal of Visual Culture, 2(1), 5-32. Bale, J. (1998). Capturing ?The African? body? Visual images and ?imaginative sports?. Journal of Sport History, 25(2), 234?251. Ball, M. S., & Smith, G. W. H. (1992). Analyzing visual data (Qualitative research methods, series 24). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Banks, D. M., & Morphy, D. H. (1999). Rethinking visual anthropology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London: Sage. Banks, M. (2007). Using visual data in qualitative research. London: Sage. Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook. London: Sage. Baxandall, M. (1991). Exhibiting intention: Some preconditions of the visual display of culturally purposeful objects. In I. Karp & S.D. Lavine (Eds.), Exhibiting cultures: The poetics and politics of museum display (pp. 33?41). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing: Based on the BBC Television series (1st ed.). London: Penguin. 286 Briel, L. (1999). Portraits as intuitive history. Retrieved from www.ipaintyou.com/pages/pro/f-pro.html Brilliant, R. (1991). Portraiture. Chicago, IL: Reaktion Books. Buckham, T. (2009, July 9). Embracing the cadavers; High-profile exhibit offers a skinless look. Buffalo News, p. B1. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. London: Routledge. Butryn, T. M., & Masucci, M. A. (2003). It?s not about the book: A cyborg counternarrative of Lance Armstrong. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 27(2), 124? 144. Cartwright, L. (1995). Screening the body: Tracing medicine?s visual culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Cherrington, J., & Watson, B. (2010). Shooting a diary, not just a hoop: Using video diaries to explore the embodied everyday contexts of a university basketball team. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 267?281. Clark, C., & Guttmann, A. (1995). Artists and athletes. Journal of Sport History, 22(2), 85?110. Clarke, A., Mamo, L., Fishman, J., Shim, J., & Fosket, J. (2003). Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and U.S. biomedicine. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 161?194. Cole, A.L. & Knowles, J.G. (2007). Arts-informed research. In J.G. Knowles & A.L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 55-70). London: Sage. 287 Collier, J., Jr., & Collier, M. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Coordinating Committee. ( 2005 , July 26 ). University of Maryland 150 th Anniversary Celebration: Coordinating committee white paper. Retrieved from http://www.150years.umd.edu/pdfs/150whitepaper.pdf Crew, S.R., & Sims, J.E. (1991). Locating authenticity: Fragments of a dialogue. In I. Karp & S.D. Lavine (Eds.), Exhibiting cultures: The poetics and politics of museum display (pp. 159-175). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Crimp, D. (1999). Getting the Warhol we deserve. Social Text, 59 (17); 49 -66. Cultural Studies Association (2013). Visual culture. Retrieved from http://www.culturalstudiesassociation.org/content.asp?contentid=43 Curry, T. (1986). A visual method of studying sports: The photo-elicitation interview. Sociology of Sport Journal, 3(3), 204?216. Dabkowski, C. (2009, July 19). Truth about ?Body Worlds? is only skin deep. Buffalo News, p. F1. D?Alonzo, K. T., & Sharma, M. (2010). The influence of marianismo beliefs on physical activity of mid?life immigrant Latinas: A photovoice study. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 229?249. Denzin, N.K. (2002). Confronting ethnography?s crisis of representation [Review Symposium]. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 31(4), 482-490. Denzin, N.K. (2004). The War on Culture, The War on Truth. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, 4(2), 137?142. 288 Denzin, N.K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(2), 139-160. Denzin, N. K. (2010). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005a). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1?32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005b). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dikovitskaya, M. (2006). Visual culture: The study of the visual after the cultural turn. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Dobrin, P. (2009, August 13). Brainstorm; ?Body Worlds? will visit the Franklin Institute again ? this time with an emphasis on human gray matter. The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. E01. du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997) Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman. London: Sage. 289 Dumit, J. (2003). Picturing personhood: Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press . Duncan, C. (1991). Art museums and the ritual of citizenship. In I. Karp & S.D. Lavine (Eds.), Exhibiting cultures: The poetics and politics of museum display (pp. 88-103). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Duncan, M. C. (1993). Beyond analyses of sport media texts: An argument for formal analyses of institutional structures. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10(4), 353?372. Duncan, M. C. (1994). The politics of women?s body images and practices: Foucault, the panopticon, and Shape magazine. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 18(1), 48?65. Elkins, J. (2002). Preface to the book A Skeptical introduction to Visual Culture. Journal of Visual Culture, 1(1), 93-99. Elkins, J. (2003). Visual studies: A skeptical introduction. New York: Routlege. Emmison, M., & Smith, P. (2000). Researching the visual: Images, objects, contexts and interactions in social and cultural inquiry (Introducing qualitative methods series). London: Sage. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. Farred, G. (2012). The uncanny of Olympic time: Michael Phelps and the end of neoliberalism. In D.L. Andrews & M.L Silk (Eds.), Sport and Neoliberalism: Politics, Consumption, and Culture (pp. 109- 123). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 290 Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing the self and other in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (1st ed., pp. 70?82). London: Sage. Finley, S. (2003). Arts-Based inquiry in QI: Seven years from crisis to guerrilla warfare. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(2), 281?296. Finley, S. (2005). Arts -based inquiry: Performing revolutionary pedagogy. In N.K . Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 681- 694). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Finley, S. (2007). Arts-based research. In J.G. Knowles & A.L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 71-82). London: Sage. Flaherty, M., Denzin, N., Manning, P., & Snow, D. (2002). Review symposium: Crisis in representation. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 31(4), 478?516. Francombe, J.M., & Silk, M.L. (2012). Pedagogies of fat: The social currency of slenderness. In D.L. Andrews & M.L Silk (Eds.), Sport and Neoliberalism: Politics, Consumption, and Culture (pp. 225 -241). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Friedman, M.T., & Andrews, D.L. (2011). The built sport spectacle and the opacity of democracy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46(2), 181-204. Frow, J., & Morris, M. (2000). Cultural studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 315?346). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 291 Fu. J. (2006, May 17). Testudo?s Troops: Turtle sculptures mark 150th anniversary. Maryland Newsline . Retrieved from http://www.newsline.umd.edu/schools/testudostroops/testudo5.htm Fusco, C. (2006). Inscribing healthification: Governance, risk, surveillance and the subjects and spaces of fitness and health. Health & Place, 12(1), 65?78. Fusco, C. (2012). Governing play: Moral geographies, healthification, and neoliberal urban imaginaries. In D.L. Andrews & M.L Silk (Eds.), Spo rt and Neoliberalism: Politics, Consumption, and Culture (pp. 143-159). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York: Vintage Books. Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. London: Routledge. Gee, J.P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1977). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Giardina, M. D., & Newman, J. I. (2011). What is this ?physical? in physical cultural studies? Sociology of Sport Journal, 28(1), 36?63. 292 Gill, R. (2000). Discourse analysis. In M.W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook (pp. 172?190). London: Routledge. Giroux, H. (2001). Cultural Studies as performative politics. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, 1(1), 5?23. Giroux, H. (2004). War talk, the death of the social, and the disappearing children: Remembering the other war. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, 4(2), 206?211. Gorely, T., Holroyd, R., & Kirk, D. (2003). Muscularity, the habitus and the social construction of gender: Towards a gender-relevant physical education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(4), 429?448. Gravestock, H. M. (2010). Embodying understanding: Drawing as research in sport and exercise. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 196?208. Griffin, M. (2010). Setting the scene: Hailing women into a running identity. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 153?174. Grossberg, L. (1992). We gotta get out of this place: Popular conservatism and postmodern culture. London: Routledge. Grossberg, L. (1997). Bringing it all back home: Essays on cultural studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books. Grossberg, L. (2006). Does cultural studies have futures? Should it? (or what is the matter with New York?). Cultural Studies, 20(1), 1?32. Gubener Plastinate GmbH. (2013). The PLASTINARIUM ? What is it? Retrieved from http://www.plastinarium.de/en/plastinarium_e/plastinarium_what_is_it.html 293 Gunts, E. (2008, August 30). ?Body Worlds? draws a record attendance. Baltimore Sun . Retrieved from http://articles .baltimoresun.com/2008 - 08 - 30/news/0808290352_1_body - worlds- von- hagens- body- exhibit Guttmann, A. (2011). Sports and A merican art from Benjamin West to Andy Warhol . Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Hahn, C. (2008). Doing qualitative research using your computer: A practical gui de. London: Sage. Hall, S. (1981). Notes on deconstructing ?the popular.? In R. Samuel (Ed.), People?s history and socialist theory (pp. 227?240). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hall, S. (1996). The problem of ideology: Marxism without guarantees. In D. Morely & K. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultu ral studies (pp. 24?45). London: Routledge. Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices . London: Sage. Hannerz, U. (2003). Being there... and there... and there! Ethnography, 4(2), 201 ?216. Haraway, D. (1989). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies , 14(3), 575?599. Haraway, D. (1997 ). Modest_ witness@second_millenium.FemaleM an? meets O ncomouseTM : Feminism and technoscience . New York: Routledge. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women?s lives . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hardy, S., Loy, J., & Booth, D. (2009). The material culture of sport: Toward a typology. Journal of Sport History , 36 (1), 129?151. 294 Hargreaves, J., & Vertinsky, P. (2007). Introduction. In J. Hargreaves & P. Vertinsky (Eds.), Physical culture, power, and the body (pp. 1?24). London: Routledge. Harper, D. (2003). Framing photographic ethnography. Ethnography, 4(2), 241 ?266. Harper, D. (2005). What?s new visually? In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 747?762). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harrison, B. (2002). Seeing health and illness worlds ? using visual methodologies in a sociology of health and illness: A methodological review. Sociology of Health & Illness, 24(6), 856?872. Harrison, J., MacGibbon, L., & Morton, M. (2001). Regimes of trustworthiness in qualitative research: The rigors of reciprocity. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(3), 323?345. Historic Dupont Circle Main Streets. (2012). DC?s Annual High Heel Race. Retrieved from http://www.highheelracedc.com/HHR/Welcome.html Hockey, J., & Collinson, J. A. (2006). Seeing the way: Visual sociology and the distance runner?s perspective. Visual Studies, 21(1), 70?81. Howell, C. (2007). Assessing sport history and the cultural and linguistic turn. Journal of Sport History, 34(3), 459?491. Huggins, M. (2008). The sporting gaze: Towards a visual turn in sports history - documenting art and sport. Journal of Sport History, 35(2), 311?329. Huggins, M., & O?Mahony, M. (2011a). Epilogue. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 28(8-9), 1370?1374. 295 Huggins, M., & O?Mahony, M. (2011b). Prologue: Extending study of the visual in the history of sport. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 28(8-9), 1089? 1104. Huggins, M., & O?Mahony, M. (2011c). The Visual in Sport. London: Routledge. Hughson, J. (2010). Re-uniting sport and art: The potential of Olympic posters. Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Re search, 50 (1), 60?65. International Association for Visual Culture (2013). About. Retrieved from http://iavc.org.uk/about International Visual Studies Association. (2013). About IVSA. Retrieved from http:/ /visualsociology.org/about.html Institute for Pla stination. (2008, April 30). Gunther Von Hagens? BODY WORLDS exhibitions mark 25th million visitor milestone. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news -releases/gunther -von-hagens-body-worlds- exhibitions-mark-25th-million-visitor-milestone-57538962.html Institute for Plastination. (2010 , October 25). World premiere of BODY WORLDS Vital to be unveiled at The Tech Museum: Healthy living, disease prevention is the focus of new exhibition [Press release]. Retrieved from www.bodyworlds.com/en/media/releases_ statements/releases_statements_2010.html# 251010 Institute for Plastination. (2011, September 14). Pacific Northwest debut of all-new BODY WORLDS exhibition at OMSI [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/media/releases_statements/2011.html 296 Institute for Plastination. (2013a). The anatomist?s hat. Retrieved from www.bodyworlds.com/en/gunther_von_hagens/anatomist_hat.html Institute for Plastination. (2013b). Donating your body for plastination (8 th edition) [Brochure]. Retrieved from http://www.koerperspende.de/en/downloads.html . Institute for Plastination. (2013c). Exhibitions. Retrieved from http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/exhibitions/past_exhibitions.html Institute for Plastination. (2013d). General medical and health education. Retrieved from http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/institute_for_plastination/general_medical_health_ed ucation.html Institute for Plastination. (2013e). The idea behind plastination. Retrieved from http://www.koerperspende.de/en/plastination/idea_behind_plastination.html Institute for Plastination. (2013f). A life in science. Retrieved from http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/gunther_von_hagens/life_in_science.html Institute for Plastination. (2013g). Mission and objectives. Retrieved from http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/institute_for_plastination/mission_objectives.html Institute for Plastination. (2013h). Mission of the exhibitions. http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/exhibitions/mission_exhibitions.html Institute for Plastination. ( 2013i). A new approach to teaching anatomy. Retrieved from www.koerperspende.de/en/plastination/new_approach_teaching_anatomy.html Institute for Plastination. (2013 j). Plastination in Science & Medical Research. Retrieved from http://www .bodyworlds.com/en/institute_for_plastination/plastination_science_medic al_ research.html 297 Institute for Plastination. (2013k). The plastination process. Retrieved from www.koerperspende.de/en/plastination/plastination_process.html Institute for Plastination. (2013l). Questions and answers. Retrieved from http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/prelude.html International Society for Plastination. (2013). About ISP. Retrieved from http://isp.plastination.org/aboutisp.html Johnson, R. (1986). What is cultural studies anyway? Social Text 16, 38 ? 80. Johnson, D. R., Chambers, P. D., Raghuram, D. P., & Tincknell, E. (2004). The practice of cultural studies (1st ed.). London: Sage. Joyce, K. (2006). From numbers to pictures: The development of magnetic resonance imaging and the visual turn in medicine. Science as Culture, 15 (1), 1? 22. Joyce, K. (2008) . Magnetic appeal. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kellner, D. (2004). Media culture: Cultural studies, identity, and politics between the modern and the postmodern. London: Routledge. Kenet, B. & Lawler, P. (1998). Saving your skin: Prevention, ear ly detection, and treatment of melanoma and other skin cancers. New York: Four Wall Eight Windows. Kincheloe, J. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry , 7 (6), 679 ? 692. King, C. R., & Leonard, D. J. (2006). Visual economies of/in motion. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. 298 King, S. (2005). Methodological contingencies in sports studies. In D.L. Andrews, D.S. Mason & M.L. Silk (Eds.), Qualitative methods in sports studies (pp. 21?38). New York: Berg. King, S. (2012). Nike U: Full-program athletics contracts and the corporate university. In D.L. Andrews & M.L Silk (Eds.), Sport and Neoliberalism: Politics, Consumption, and Culture (pp. 75-89). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2006). Exhibitionary complexes. In I. Karp, C.A. Kratz, L. Szwaja, & T. Ybarra-Frausto (Eds.), Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global Transformations (pp. 35-45). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kluge, M. A., Grant, B. C., Friend, L., & Glick, L. (2010). Seeing is believing: Telling the ?inside? story of a beginning masters athlete through film. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 282?292. Knowles, C., & Sweetman, P. (Eds.). (2004). Picturing the social landscape: Visual methods and the sociological imagination. London: Routledge. Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues. London: Sage. Kraft, I. (2009, October 17). Body Worlds 2 kicks off; Philadelphia exhibit reveals human muscles, brains and other organs. Exhibit at Franklin Institute. The Morning Call, p. GO1. Krane, V., Ross, S. R., Miller, M., Rowse, J. L., Ganoe, K., Andrzejczyk, J. A., & Lucas, C. B. (2010). Power and focus: Self?representation of female college athletes. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 175?195. 299 Lather, P. (2006). This is your father?s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. In N.D. Denzin & M.D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the conservative challenge (pp. 31?56). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30 (2), 225-248. Leeuwen, T. V., & Jewitt, C. (2001). The handbook of visual analysis. London: Sage. Lincoln, Y.S., & Denzin, N.K. (2005). Epilogue: The eighth and ninth moments: Qualitative research in/and the fractured future. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAG E handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1115?1126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lubow, A. (2006, July). Grand reopening: Speaking of art. Smithsonian magazine. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/saam_npg.html Mangan, J. A. (1999). The potent image and the permanent prometheus. International Journal of the History of Sport, 16 (2), 11?22. Mangan, J. A. (2011). Preface: New agendas and new questions for the history of sport. The International Journal of the History of Sport , 28 (8-9), 1087?1088. Margolis, E., & Pauwels, L. (2011). The SAGE handbook of visual research methods . London: Sage. Markula, P. (2001). Beyond the perfect body: Women?s body image distortion in fitness magazine discourse. Journal of Sport & Social Issues , 25(2), 158?179. Markula, P. (2004). ?Tuning into one?s self:? Foucault?s technologies of the self and mindful fitness. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21 (3), 302?321. 300 Maryland Science Center. (2008a). 2008 Annual Report. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.mdsci.org/about-us/index.html Maryland Science Center. (2008b, April 10). BODYWORLDS2 welcomes 100,000th visitor [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.mdsci.org/about- us/Newsroom/PressReleases/4.10.08.html Maryland Science Center. (2009a, March 26). Cells exhibition opens at Maryland Science Center. [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.mdsci.org/about- us/Newsroom/PressReleases/3.26.09.html Maryland Science Center. (2009b). What matters? Annual Report 2009. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.mdsci.org/about- us/index.html Maryland Science Center. (2012a). Annual Report 2011-2012. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.mdsci.org/about-us/index.html Marylan d Science Center. (2012b). Corporate memberships. Retrieved from http://www.mdsci.org/get -involved/Donate/Main.html Maryland Science Center. (2012 c). Donate. Retrieved from http://www.mdsci.org/get - involved/Donate/Main.html Maryland Scie nce Center. (2012d) . The human body. Retrieved from http://www.mdsci.org/imax/humanbody.html Maryland Science Center. (2012 e). Maryland Science Center press kit. Retrieved from http://www.mdsci.org/pdf/About_Us/PressKit.pdf Maryland Science Center. (2012 f). RACE: Are we so different? Retrieved from http://www.mdsci.org/exhibits/Race.html 301 Maryland Sta te Department of Education (2010 ). Race to the top: Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) initiative [Report] . Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.or g/MSDE/programs/stem/RTTT_Initiatives McNiff, S. (2007). Art -based research. In J.G. Knowles & A.L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 29-40). London: Sage. Miller, T. (2008). Sport, authenticity, confession. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies , 8 (4 ), 540 ?542. Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mindell, E. (1996). Eric Mindell?s anti-aging bible. New York: Fireside. Mirzoeff, N. (Ed.). (1998). The visual culture reader. New York: Routledge. Mirzoeff, N. (1999). An introduction to visual culture. New York: Routledge. Mitchell, C. (2011). Doing visual research. London: Sage. Mitchell, W.J.T. (2002). Showing seeing: a critique of visual culture. Journal Of Visual Culture , 1 (2), p. 165 -181. Nelson, C., Treichler, P., & Grossberg, L. (1992). Cultural studies: An introduction. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson & P. Treichler (Eds.) Cultural Studies (pp. 1?22). New York: Routledge. O?Mahony, M. (2006). Sport in the USSR: Physical culture - visual culture. London: Reaktion Books. Office of Epidemiology and Planning, Baltimore City Health Department. (2008a). Baltimore City Health Status Report. Baltimore City, MD: Baltimore City Health Department. Retrieved from www.baltimorehealth.org/ dataresearch.html 302 Office of Epidemiology and Planning, Baltimore City Health Department. (2008b). Inner Harbor/Federal Hill. Baltimore City, Maryland: Baltimore City Health Department. Retrieved from www.baltimorehealth.org/dataresearch.html Osmond, G. (2010). Photographs, materiality and sport history: Peter Norman and the 1968 Mexico City black power salute. Journal of Sport History , 3 7 (1), 119?137. Patcher, M. (1981). Champions of American sport. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Pachter, M. (2006). Portrait of a nation (1st ed.). London: Merrell Publishers. Pauwels, L. (2010). Visual sociology reframed: An analytical synthesis and discussion of visual methods in social and cultural research. Sociological Methods & Research, 38(4), 545 ?581. Penaloza, L. (1998). Just doing it: A visual ethnographic study of spectacular consumption behavior at Nike Town. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 2(4), 337?400. Phillips, M., O?Neill, M., & Osmond, G. (2007). Broadening horizons in sport history: films, photographs, and monuments. Journal of Sport History, 34, 271?293. Phoenix, C. (2010). Seeing the world of physical culture: The potential of visual methods for qualitative research in sport and exercise. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 93?108. Phoenix, C., & Smith, B. (2011). The world of physical culture in sport and exercise: Visual methods for qualitative research. London: Routledge. Pink, S. (2006). The future of visual anthropology: Engaging the senses. London: Routledge. Pink, S. (2007a). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media and representation in research. London: Sage. 303 Pink, S. (Ed.). (2007b). Visual interventions: Applied visual anthropology. New York: Berghahn Books. Pink, S. (2009). Doing sensory ethnography. London: Sage. Pope, C. C. (2010). Talking T?shirts: A visual exploration of youth material culture. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 133?152. Prasad, A. (2005). Making images/making bodies: Visibiliizing and disciplining through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Science, Technology & Human Values, 30 (2 ), 291 ? 316 . Pronger, B. (1995). Rendering the body: The implicit lessons of gross anatomy. Quest, 47 (4 ), 427 -446. Prosser, J. (1998). Image-based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers. London: Falmer. Prosser, J. (2007). Visual methods and the visual culture of schools. Visual Studies, 22, 13?30. Richardson, L. (1991). Postmodern social theory: Representational practices. Sociological Theory, 9(2), 173?179. Richardson, L. (2000a). Evaluating Ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 6(2), 253?255. Richardson, L. (2000b). New writing practices in qualitative research. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17(1), 5?20. Richardson, L. (2000c). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923?948). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage. 304 Rojek, C., & Turner, B. (2000). Decorative sociology: Towards a critique of the cultural turn. The Sociological Review, 48(4), 629?648. Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Rowe, D. (2004). Sport, culture and the media: The unruly trinity (2nd ed.). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Schultz, J. (2011). Contesting the master narrative: The Arthur Ashe statue and monument avenue in Richmond, Virginia. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 28(8-9), 1235-1251. Schwartz, D. (1998). Contesting the Super Bowl. New York: Routledge. Seliger, S. (1986). Stop killing yourself: Make stress work for you. Watford, UK: Exley Publications. Silk, M.L., & Andrews, D.L. (2006). The fittest city in America. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 30(3), 1?13. Silk, M. L., & Andrews, D. L. (2011). Toward a physical cultural studies. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28(1), 4?35. Silk, M.L., & Andrews, D.L. (2012). Sport and the neoliberal conjuncture: Complicating the consensus. In D.L. Andrews & M.L Silk (Eds.), Sport and Neoliberalism: Politics, Consumption, and Culture (pp. 1 - 19). Philadel phia, PA: Temple University Press. 305 Silver, K. E. (1995). In praise of the particular: American portraits. In Face Value: American Portraits [exhibition catalogue] (pp. 65?84). Paris: The Parrish Art Museum. Sims?Gould, J., Hurd Clarke, L., Ashe, M. C., Naslund, J., & Liu?Ambrose, T. (2010). Renewal, strength and commitment to self and others: Older women?s reflections of the benefits of exercise using photovoice. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(2), 250?266. Smith, M. (2009). Frozen fists in Speed City: The statue as twenty -first-century reparations. Journal of Sport History, 36(3), 393 ? 414. Smith, M . (2011). Mapping America?s sporting l andscape: A case study of three statues. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 28(8? 9 ), 1252 ? 1 268. Smithsonian. (2012a). About us. Retrieved from http://www.si.edu/About Smithsonian. (2012b). Mission and vision. Retrieved from http://www.si.edu/About/Mission Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. (2003). Women of our time: Twentieth-Century photographs from the National Portrait Gallery. Retrieved from http://www.npg.si.edu/cexh/woot/index.htm Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. (2005). Cover art: The TIME Collection at the National Portrait Gallery. Retrieved from http://www.npg.si.edu/time/ Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. (2008a). Portraiture now: Feature photography. Retrieved from http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/feature/ Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. (2008b). Student orientation video. Retrieved from http://npg.si.edu/education/studentvideo.html 306 Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. (2012a). A brief overview: History with personality. Retrieved from http://www.npg.si.edu/inform/overview.html Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. (2012c). Building renovation. Retrieved from http://www.npg.si.edu/inform/renovation.html Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. (2012d). Fact sheet: Smithsonian?s National Portrait Gallery. Retrieved from http://www.npg.si.edu/inform/archive.html Snyder, E., & Kane, M. J. (1990). Photo elicitation: A methodological technique for studying sport. Journal of Sport Management, 4(1), 21?30. Sontag, S. (1977). On Photography . New York: Picador. Spalding, K. (2009, April 10). BODY WORLDS exhibition uses lung specimens to launch anti-smoking campaign at the San Diego Natural History Museum [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.sdnhm.org/archive/exhibits/bodyworlds2/pressreleases/IQUITSanDiego.p df Sparkes, A. (1995). Writing people: Reflections on the dual crises of representation and legitimation in qualitative inquiry. Quest, 45(2), 188?195. Sparkes, A. (2002). Telling tales in sport and physical activity: A qualitative journey. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Spencer, M., Petteway, R., Bacetti, L., & Barbot, O. (2011). Healthy Baltimore 2015: A city where all residents realize their full health potential. Baltimore City, MD: Baltimore City Health Department. Retrieved from www.baltimorehealth.org/healthybaltimore2015.html Spencer, S. (2011). Visual research methods: Awakening visions. London: Routledge. 307 Stabile, C. (1998). Fetal photography and the politics of disappearance. In P. Treichler, L. Cartwright, & C. Penley (Eds.), The v isible woman: Imaging technologies, gender, and science (pp. 171?197). New York: NYU Press. Stanczak, G. C. (2007). Visual researc h methods: Image, society, and representation . London: Sage. State of Maryland (2009). Investing in STEM to secure Maryland?s future: Final Report of the Governor?s STEM Task Force . Retrieved from http://www.governor.maryland.gov/documents/090806stemreport .pdf Sturgis, A., & Clayson, H. (2000). Understanding paintings: Themes in art explored and explained. New York: Watson-Guptill. Taylor, J. C. (1981). Learning to look: A handbook for the visual arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tedlock, B. (2000). Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 455 ?486). London: Sage. Tedlock, B. (2008). The observation of participation and the emergence of public ethnography. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln, Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 151?172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thalman, J. (2008, September 22). Remarkable exhibit is the result of ?plastination?. Desert Morning News . Thomsen, S. R., Bower, D. W., & Barnes, M. D. (2004). Photographic images in women?s health, fitness, and sports magazines and the physical self -concept of a group of 308 adolescent female volleyball players. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 28(3), 266 ? 283. Thomson, P. (2008). Doing visual research with children and young people. London: Routledge. TIME. (1969). TIME covers. New York: Time, Inc. TIME. (1998). Faces of Time: 75 years of Time Magazine cover portraits. Boston: Bulfinch Press. Townsend, J. B. (1968). This new man: A discourse in portraits. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. University of Maryland. (2005). The University of Maryland celebrates 150 years. Happy birthday, Maryland! Retrieved from http://www.150years.umd.edu/Media/ University of Maryland. (2006a).150 years. Retrieved from http://www.150years.umd.edu/ University of Maryland (2006b). Call for artists. Retrieved from www.feartheturtle.umd.edu/sculptures/callforartists.cfm University of Maryland. (2006c). Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project sponsorship opportunity. Retrieved from www.feartheturtle.umd.edu/sculptures/sponsorships.cfm University of Maryland. (2006d). Fear the Turtle Sculptures [website]. Retrieved from www.feartheturtle.umd.edu/fttsculptures University of Maryland. (2006e). It?s nifty! Scavenger hunt. Retrieved from http://www.feartheturtle.umd.edu/fttsculptures/50nifty. University of Maryland. (2012). University of Maryland visual identity guide. Retrieved from http://www.trademarks.umd.edu/guidelines/visual_identity_guide.cfm 309 van Alphen, E. (1997). The portrait?s dispersal: Concepts of representation and subjectivity in contemporary portraiture. In J. Woodall (Ed.), Portraiture: Facing the subject (pp. 239-256). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. van Dijck, J. (2005). The transparent body: A cultural analysis of medical imaging . Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Vergo, P. (Ed.). (1989). The new museology. London: Reaktion Books. von Hagens, G., & Whalley, A. (2007). BODY WORLDS ? The anatomical exhibition of real human bodies [exhibition catalogue]. Heidelberg, Germany: Arts & Sciences. Visit Baltimore. (2012). An inner harbor timeline. Retrieved from http://baltimore.org/misc/uploads/meetingplannerspdf/Inner_Harbor_Timeline.pdf Visit Baltimore. (2012). Baltimore harbor pass. Retrieved from http://baltimore.org/harborpass/ Visual Studies. (2013). Aim & scope. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/action/aboutThisJournal?show=aimsScope&journalCode =rvst20 Waldby, C. (2000). The visible human project: Informat ic bodies and posthuman medicine. London: Routledge . Walker, A.K. (2008, April 4). Bodies shaping up as a crowd -pleaser: Exhibit that uses cadavers is setting museum record. Balitmore Sun . Retrieved from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2008 -04-04/business /0804040248_1_maryland - science-science-center-worlds-exhibit Wheatley, E. (2005). Disciplining bodies at risk: Cardiac rehabilitation and the medicalization of fitness. Journal of Sport and Social Issues , 29 (2), 198 ?221. 310 Woodall, J. (1997). Introduction: F acing the subject. In J. Woodall (Ed.), Portraiture: Facing the subject (pp. 1? 28). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Yagyu., G. (2005). The holes in your nose. Tulsa, OK: Kane/Miller.