Several illustrations of portraiture in the self-authored context from the article “Is there an Aboriginal photography?’’ indicated a long time photography practice among the indigenous Australian authors. The different authors had a uniting factor of the description of the missed photographic moments of politics and cultural invisibility as was the case with Fink. The argument that photographic record was also used as one of the successful means of claiming lands and the land rights by the indigenous Australian land owners also came out strongly as evidenced in the various works of art. The self-authored representation is a clear definition of the issues relating to cultural invisibility, according to the article. In addition, the author’s arguments are based on the fact that picturing of the main symbolic triumph of tradition like that of the Daguragu in the political battle that started close to a period of a decade. The use of portraiture acted as the culmination of the various political rivalries on the subject of the equal rights at workplaces, and was very successful as it brought out various issues affecting the people of Australia.
There are different ways one can employ to see how the author proposes the argument of the use of portraitures to develop the understanding of cultural invisibility. One, he demonstrated a stronger use of the portraiture as a means of justification of the aboriginal pastor’s workers. This is seen in the demonstration of the knowledge in the self- authored article. As a result, the author excluded himself from the areas that were considered for photographic practices. The areas were deemed more suitable for the exhibition and different research meant for the publications of the scholarly works as a result. In addition, he demonstrated a stronger development of the understanding of the aboriginal artist gallery through the use of the islander’s photographers and portraits to relay the information. The use of portraiture by the early photographers received a greater exposure through the press and the several departments of publications. This could have been because the article is based on the cultural invisibility spread among the different stories that are mentioned in the argument.
From the descriptive arguments photographers recreated scenes which have been in one way or another behind the hindsight as the photographic truth. The different paths, however, remained a big contrast between the Whitlam’s conscious ministrations and the very human finest touch of the every day behind scene actions in politics of the old days. As seen in the motive behind the photographs, like in using artistic works to highlight the plight of the Australian workers, the life of the indigenous people as well was featured and brought into attention from the ancient photographers’ portraitures.
From the landmark kooris art “84”, an exhibition was shown as an expression of the author’s attempt to introduce both the indigenous and contemporary art in the different aspects. The author employed the mainstream concept but focused on the medium that had been largely composed of unrepresented works. The author also exploited the photographic past and present use of the portraitures to bring sense to the topic that was dear to him. He expressed this in his initial arguments about portraiture in order to promote the self-authored work. As such, he cites an example of Jose’s series of photography from the period it was applied to carefully balance the sensitive environmental portraits with the diverse subjects. In such a way, he was trying to show the connections to the land while living undeniably contemporary lives but without forgetting the cultural roots of the indigenous people.
The article as an example of author’s representation keenly looks into different political agencies with respect to the work of photographers in both the past and the contemporary Australian societies. It analyzes the use of the portraiture and experiential authorities that the photographers explored in the recreation of the scenes that were developed from imaginations. As can be evidenced, throughout the author’s work, the argument and the understanding of the authorities are expressed in the power to mold the understanding of the reader through the use of texture. For example, Gellatly maintained that after 200 years by Penny Taylor was a perfect culmination of the three-year photographic project that worked as a way of overcoming the problems linked to the role of photography in the creation and perpetuation of the negative images by the aboriginal people. The work was an application of the documentary photography that consisted of the collaboration of photographers and the chosen communities to express the different political agencies as well as authorities.
The after 200 years obtain strong critics from the indigenous photographers and the Australian authority. However, the different photographers with stronger use of portraiture continued to relay information in various ways to ensure that what they wanted to convey to the targeted groups was home. This is evident in a number of arguments raised by Gellatly, who developed a proper evidence to support the influence of the use of portraiture to the cultural invisibility. Most of the photographers are also seen as masters of the different invisible cultures where they originated from. This is evidenced through their use of the portraits to represent a piece of information on the various subjects they wanted to address.
The use of portraiture, according to the authors analyzed, depicts the various aspects of cultural invisibility in the different parts of Australia in the early days. In addition, the use of photos is seen in depicting the experience of indigenous people while imprisoned in the Southern Australia in1993. Urban diary, on the other hand, brings a better understanding of the relationship that existed in the between the photographers. It is also an indication of the existence of Aboriginal art of portraiture and photographers in the indigenous Australian population. In addition, it reminds about the activities associated with the concern of the photographers, the cases of authorities and political agencies that existed in Australia.
The augments developed are very convincing as they represent the photographer’s understanding regarding the different forms of Australian ancient cultures as demonstrated throught the work. The text is beautifully produced, physically as well as intellectually. The different portraitures used in the augments confirm the long-term existence of portrayal of cultural invisibility. The texts used diverse portraiture representation to define the issues of cultural indivisibility in the different political scenes that existed in the past. The reading generally acts as a light to the sculpture. Gellatly’s development of the unique portraiture is a basic picture of what most other authors view as the case of cultural invisibility in the indigenous Australian population.
The questions are: