MethodologiesofAlternativePhotographies:TheSiamesecase Clare Veal
PhD.Candidate,ThePowerInstitute,DepartmentofArtHistory,TheUniversityofSydney
KeywordsAlternativeModernities;ThaiPhotography,KingRamaIV;ThaiModernity
Introduction
In1855,tenyearsafteracamerawasbroughttoSiamupontheordersofthe FrenchBishop,Pallegoix,whowasatthattimestationedinBangkok,thefirst photographofaSiameseMonarch,KingMongkut(RamaIVr.1851-1868)was taken.Thereweretwosignificantaspectsofthisdecision,firstisKingMongkut’s violationofthepreviouslyheldtabooagainstproducingrepresentationsofthe Siamesemonarch,whichevenextendedtolookingatthemonarch’sbody directly. The second is the importance of the ten-year gap between the introductionofthecameratoSiamandtheKing’sdecisiontohavehimself photographed.ItisapparentthatrelevanceofboththeseaspectsofKing
Mongkut’sdecisionareoccludedifoneviewsthem,aspreviousstudieshave done, as either part of the monarch’s intelligent adoption of technological modernityinthefaceofEuropeancolonialaggression,orasanindicationof EuramericanculturalimperialismwhichtransformedSiamintoasemi-colony.1 WhilestudiesofthefirsttypeseemtoconfirmThainationalisthistoriesthatposit theimportanceandcentralityoftheroyalinstitution,thesecondfailstotakeinto accounttheagencyofthelocalelitepopulationintheirselectiveadoptionof photographictechnology.
Inanefforttoovercomebothofthesepartialperspectives,andinresponseto Chakrabarthy’scallstodecenterEuropeasthesourceofunderstandingsabout culturalproductioninnon-Euramericancontexts,2inthispaperIwilldiscussthe possibilitiesofdevelopingmethodologiesforthestudyof‘alternativephotographies.’
AstheexampleofKingMongkut’sdecisiontohavehisphotographtakenwill illuminate, these ‘alternative photographies’ cannot be grasped utilizing a frameworkthatviewsAsianmodernitiesasbranchesofagrandmodernitythat has its totalizing roots in Euramerica.3 Overcoming this binary poses many challenges,perhapsthemostsignificantofwhichderivefromthetechnological natureofthecamera,thetransferofwhichtoanAsiancontextis,inthemajorityof cases,reliantonsomecontactwithEuramerica,oftenintheguiseofcolonization.
Photographybothproducesandresultsfromthetwodimensionsofmodernity, definedgenerallybyDelanty,asatechnologicalandinstitutionaltransformation, andaphilosophicalandculturalprojectbasedprimarilyinthenotionofself- reflexivity.4Givingprimacytoeitherofthesedimensionsinstudiesof‘alternative photographies’ is necessarily ideological. In the first instance, photographic technologyisseenonlyintermsofitsrelationshiptoEuramericantechnological modernityandscientificrationalism.Inthiscase,photographyisviewedasatool ofaggressionbycolonizingnations,asameansofcategorizingandsubjecting localpopulationstothecolonialgaze.5Fromthisperspective,theadoptionof photographictechnologybylocalpeoplesisaheroicquesttodevelopmastery overthetoolsoftheircolonialoppressors.6ThisemphasisalsohaslinkstoBhabha’s notionofhybridityasameansofsubalternresistancetocolonialoppression.7
In the second instance the tendency is towards what Dirlik has termed a fetishizationofdifferenceinalternativemodernities.8Here,photographyisviewed asaneutralorculturelessdiscoursethatiseasilyabsorbedintopre-photographic modesofvisualproduction,allowingfortheirpersistenceinresponsetocolonial culturalimpositions.Studiesofthistype,9demonstratetheideologicalimportance of notions of ‘tradition’ in the configuration of alternative modernities more generally.Inthecontextofpost-colonial,nationaliststudiesofvisualculturethis definingoftimelesstraditionortoborrowClark’stermthe “endogenous”is inevitably embedded in political renderings of legitimate and non-legitimate nationalidentitiesbystateinstitutions.10
Inbothinstances,attemptstochallengethecentralityofEuramericandiscoursein studiesofAsianphotographiesarethwartedbythecreationofbinarieswhich thenobscurethefunctionofphotographyinanAsiancontextasatechnology whichisboththeresultofandproductiveofradicalconceptualshifts.Inthefirst caseIhavedescribed,Asianmodernitiesareseenas ‘imitative’andbelated termsoftheircultural,economicandpoliticaldevelopmentandwhencompared withgrandEuramericanmodernities.Inthesecondinstance,discoursesofthe endogenous, the ‘traditional,’ are given coherence through an oppositional relationshipwiththeexogenous,theEuramericanormorerecently,theglobal,in a process Clark has referred to as “worlding.”11 In both these conceptual structures,the ‘alternative’in ‘alternativephotographies’placesphotographic practiceinnon-Euramericancontextsinabinarybetween‘EastandWest’or
‘theWestandtheRest,’existingaseithersymbolicofEuramericantechnological dominanceorasindicativeofessentialisedlocalculturalidentities.Assuggested byGriseldaPollock,thecreationofthesebinariesthroughterm ‘alternative’
simultaneouslycreateshierarchiesbetweenthesecategoriesthroughreifyingnon- alternativemodernity’shegemonyatthecenterofthesediscourses.12
Myargumentforadifferentunderstandingofalternativephotographiesbeyond thesebinaryformsisderivedsignificantlyfromtheworkundertakenbyClarkinhis searchforgenealogiesofthemodern13andbyHay’snotionofthedoubly modern.14 The key in both these academics’ work is the recognition that
‘modernity’ is a larger phenomenon than indicated by its Euramerican manifestations.AsHayargues,
Thebasicpoint,togiveitamoresystematicformulation,isfirstthat modernity is a larger phenomenon, if that seems possible, than we normallyconsiderittobe;second,thatthislargerphenomenonshouldnot be confused with its Euro-American formulation; third, that its full descriptionrequiresthecreationofadifferentiatedtypologyofmodernities toaccountforitsinternalcomplexity;andfourth,thatthestructureof contemporarymodernityliesintherelationsamongitsparticularformsand theirrespectivehistories(andtherelationsamongtheserelations.)15 Thus,byunhitchingthetermmodernityfromtheseEuramericanmanifestations,we arealsoabletodecenterviewsofmodernityasfirstproducedinEuramerica, transplantedtotherestoftheworldandthenfilteredthroughthespecificitiesof thepre-moderntoproducealternativemodernities.Instead,weareabletoview modernityasaphenomenonthat,asaconditionofitsexistence,isproducedas wellasarticulatedthroughrelationships,bothwithinthevastdiversityofgroups thatcompriseofEuramerica,butalsothroughEuramerica’srelationshipwithits Others.16Thisperspectivehasthebenefitofneitherconsummatelydenyingthe significanceofEuramericainthedevelopmentofmodernityinnon-Euramerican contexts,nordoesitplaceEuramericaatthecenterofsuchstudies.
Giventhistheoreticalpositioning,IwouldliketonowturntothesituationofSiam as,toborrowHertzfeld’sterm,a “crypto-colonial”country.17Inthisway,Siam providesausefultestforamethodologyofalternativephotographies,asit complicatesbinariesbetweencolonisedandcoloniser,whilebeingcapableof illuminating the limitations of both.18 As a crypto-colony, Siam was able to maintainitspoliticalindependence,whilesufferingeconomicdependenceon Euramericancountriesthroughuneventradeagreementsandtheconcedingof extra-territorialrightstoforeignsubjects.19Inaddition,Siam’scrypto-colonialstatus allowedKingMongkut,andhissuccessorKingChulalongkorn(r.1868-1910)to signaltheirpowerwithintheregionandrelativeequalitytoEuramericanpowers throughdevelopingcolonialstylebureaucraticinstitutionsandthroughpursuing
theirowncolonialaimsinwhatwerepreviouslythekingdom’svassalstates, includingtheMuslimMalayinthecountry’ssouthandtheLaotianHill-tribesinthe country’snorth.20Despitethisinheritance,Thaihistoriographyhastendedtofocus onwhatarethoughttobeintelligentreformsofthecountry’smonarchsthat allowedthecountrytoescapethecolonialfatethatbefellothercountrieswithin theSoutheastAsianregion.Thishistoricaldiscoursecontinuestoplayintoofficial nationalistvisionsoftheThaistate,asmostevidencedbythecountry’sname prathet Thai,‘LandoftheFree.’
Thecomplexcrypto-colonialrelationshipbetweenEuramericaandSiamhada significantinfluenceontheproductionandarticulationofmodernidentitythrough the self-reflexive medium of photography. It is certainly likely that the gap betweenthearrivalofthecameraandthefirstphotographofaThaiKingwasat leastpartlylikelyduetoKingMongkut’spredecessor,KingJessadabodindra’s (RamaIII,r.1824-1851)distrustofEuramericancolonialadvances,21andthe isolationistpolicythatcharacterizedthelatteryearsofhisreign.However,such reductionist understandings would appear to confirm a Euramercian-centric understandingofmodernityasa‘wave’sweepingupnon-Euramericancountries.22 Inordertocomplicatethisunderstanding,thesignificanceoftheKing’sdecision must be viewed in terms of the Siamese taboo surrounding the public representationoftheroyalpersonage.H.G.Wales,writinginthe1930s,linkedthe previoustaboooflookingatthebodyofthemonarchtotheIndianVedictext LawsofManu,quoting,“Becauseakinghasbeenformedofparticlesofthose lordsofthegods,hethereforesurpassesallcreatedbeingsinluster;andlike the sun, heburnseyesandhearts;nor can anybody on earth even gaze on him.”23It is no surprise, then, that until King Mongkut’s reign, no notable tradition of portraiture existed beyond standardized figures in murals and perhaps the existencetabooedroyal-ancestorimagesproducedonlyfortheeyesofthe monarch.24
Forthistabootobeovercome,aconceptualandontologicalshifthadtooccur throughwhichthe“desire”tophotographemerged.Speakinginregardstothe inventionofphotographyintheEuropeancontext,Batchenhasarguedthatthe
mereabilitytophotographorthepresenceofphotographictechnologywasnot enoughtoimpelthe“desire”tophotograph.25Inotherwords,theadoptionof photographyinEuropeshouldnotbeunderstoodintermsofthemedium’s invention,butratherasreliantoncertainconceptualshiftsfromwhichthedesire tophotographemerged.26InthecontextofSiam,thispointsawayfroma simplistic technological determination of the photographic medium as easily absorbedintopre-photographicvisualdiscoursesandtowardsPinney’scontention thatphotographyis“atechnicalpracticethatdisturbsculture.”27
TherewereseveralaspectstotheconceptualshiftleadingtoKingMongkut’s decisiontohavehimselfphotographed.ThesecorrespondedwiththeKing’sown interestintechnologyandsciencedevelopedthroughhispersonalrelationships withEuramericansresidinginBangkok,namelyBishopPallegoixandtheAmerican ProtestantmissionaryJesseCaswell.28However,itwouldbeamistakeheretoview theserelationshipsasonesided,withtheEuramericaninhabitantsofBangkok simplyenlighteningthefutureKingaboutscientificrationalism.Evenpriortothe arrivalofAmericanmissionaries,manyeliteSiameseindividualshadanintimate knowledgeofEuramericancivilizationandlanguages,asresultofprolonged relations since at least the 17th Century, when many European traders and missionarieshadlivedandworkedinAyutthaya,andwhendiplomaticmissions wereexchangedbetweenKingNarai’skingdomandKingLouisXIV’scourtin Paris.29DiariesfromAmericanmissionariespostedinBangkokalsodetailthethe projectswhichwereworkedoncollaborativelybytheseindividualsandthefuture KingMongkut,aswellastherelativelyequalexchangesofinformationbetween thetwointhediscussionofreligiousphilosophy,linguisticsandscience.30
HoweverbeyondKingMongkut’spersonalrelationshipswasawiderchangein theSiameseelite’sconceptionofitselfinrelationtotherestoftheworld,asa resultofwhatPratthastermedashiftin“planetaryconsciousness”intheearly yearsofMongkut’sreign.31IntheAyutthayaandearlyBangkokperiods,the SiameserecognitionofChinaasagreatereconomicandpoliticalpowerinthe regionwassignalledbythepracticeofsendingtributesfromtheSiamesetothe ChineseEmperor.CulturallythiswasreflectedinthefashionforChinesefurniture
andluxurygoods,aswellasintheonlytwoknownpre-photographicimagesof theKingMongkutandhisson,thefutureKingChulalongkorn,whichwerepainted inaChinesestylearound1853.
ObservingChina’sgraduallossofpoliticalandeconomicpowerafterBritain’s defeatofthecountryin1842,in1855KingMongkutstoppedthepracticeof sendingtributarymissionstotheChineseemperorandrecalibratedtheSiamese understandingofeconomicandpoliticalpoweraswellasculturalcivilization (siwilai)aslocatedinEuramerica.32ThiswasindicatedbyKingMongkut’saddress toQueenVictoriainhislettersas“…theSovereignofSuperiorKingdom,notto theequalorinferioralways.”33InthecontextofadramaticdownturninSiam’s economyintheearly1850s,thecountrybeganopeningitselfuptotrade, initiatingnegotiationswithBritainthatresultedintheBowringtreatyin1855,which wassoonfollowedbythesigningoftradeagreementswithotherEuramerican countries.TogetherwiththeincreasingcolonialpresenceinSoutheastAsia,these factors signalled the Siamese elite’s recognition of a radically new global configurationofpoliticalandeconomicpower.Implicitinthisrecognitionwasthe Siameseelite’seffortstopositionthemselvesasaworldpowerinthissystem,as indicatedbylettersfromKingMongkuttoQueenVictoriawhichexpressedhis desirefortheBowringtreatywithSiamtobetreatedwiththesameregardas treatiesbetweenBritainandtheChineseEmpire.34
Inthiscontext,theKing’sownlegitimacyintheeyesofnotonlyEuramerican leaders,35butalsofactionswithinhisowncourtwhohadsecuredhispathtothe throne,wasdirectlyrelatedtohisabilitytoarticulatehispowerintermsofthisnew worldsystem.36WithintheSiamesecourt,competencywithinthissystemofpower wassignalledbothinternallyandexternallythroughtheacquisitionofEuramerican accoutrementsofsiwilaiincludinghats,cigarettesandcameraswhichbythe beginningofKingChulalongkorn’sreignin1868,cametosupplanttheprevious fashionofcollectingofChineseluxurygoods.Fromthisperspective,wecan understandtheSiameseelite’sdesiretoattainsiwilaias,toquoteThongchai Winichaikul “not simply a reaction to the colonial threat…(but) an attempt originatedbyvariousgroupsamongtheelite...toattainandconfirmtherelative superiorityofSiam.”37
ItfollowsthatthemostimportantfunctionofphotographicimagesoftheThai King,wastheiroperationinnetworksofdiplomaticgiftexchangebetweenheads ofstate,asameansdevelopingfriendlyrelationshipswith‘civilized’nationsand establishingtheSiamesemonarchyasmembersofaneliteclassofmodern leaders.38KingMongkutmayhavebecomeawareofthispracticethroughhis receiptofmanyphotographsandphotographicapparatusfromvariousworld leadersasdiplomaticgifts,thefirstofwhich,in1856,weretwophotographsand adaguerreotypecamerapresentedtohimbyHenryS.Parkesonbehalfof QueenVictoria.39
WhileimagesofEuropeanmonarchshadbeenpresentwithintheAyutthayaand earlyBangkokcourts,therewasnoattemptbytheSiameseelitetoadopt European-styledressormannerismsuntilthemid19thcentury.40Likethecamera, theadoptionofEuropean-styledressinphotographsoccurredthroughparticular relationshipsthatresultedinadistinctlymoderntypeofself-reflexivityonthepart oftheSiameseeliteinrelationtotheperceivedexpectationsofthephotograph’s recipient.ThefirstdaguerreotypeofKingMongkut,sittingstifflyanduncomfortably inSiamesedress,41takeninthesameyearastheBowringtreaty,indicatesthat theKinghadyettogaincompletecompetencyinthelanguageofvisual diplomaticexchangebasedonaEuramericanmodel.However,inthefollowing years,asthemonarchwasphotographednumeroustimesandthephotographs distributedtoEuramericanleaders,amongthemQueenVictoriain1857,andthe Popein1861,hegraduallybegantoadoptEuramericansignifiersassociatedwith therepresentationofpersonswithpower.
By1865,whentheKingwasphotographedbyJohnThomson,hewasevidently wellawareofthewayinwhichheappearedtoforeignleaders,andmade effortstocontrolhisimageinwaysthatwouldappealtoEuramericantasteswhile signifyinghismembershiptothis“civilized”class.AsThomsonrecalled,
Hisdresswasofaspotlesswhite,whichreachedrightdowntohisfeet:his headwasbare.Iwasadmiringthesimplicityandpurityofthisattire,when hismajestybeckonedmetoapproachhim,andinformedmethathe wishedtohavehisportraittakenashekneltinanattitudeofprayer...All
waspreparedbeneathaspaceinthecourt,whichhadbeencanopied andcarpetedforthisspecialpurpose;when,justasIwasabouttotake thephotograph,hismajestychangedhismind,andwithoutawordto anyonepassedsuddenlyoutofsight...atlengththeKingreappeared, dressedthistimeinasortofFrenchfieldmarshal’suniform.42
John Thomson’s photograph of King Mongkut utilizes several Euramerican conventionsfortherepresentationindividualswithpower:theking’sFrench-style militaryuniform,hiscane,andthecoveredtableonwhichwasplacedhisroyal regalia, all well established in European oil portraiture traditions.43 Here the monarch’sabilitytodeployseveralidentities,includingthatofaBuddhistmonk andaEuropean-styleheadofstate,aswellhisself-reflexivityconcerninghis sartorialchoicesinrelationtotheintendedrecipientofthephotographare indicativeofaconceptualshifttowardsmodernitythatwas,aswehaveseen producedaswellasarticulatedthroughthemediumofphotography.
KingMongkut’sunderstandingofhisownimagewaslinkedtohisformulationofa distinctlymodernunderstandingof‘self’whichdeveloped throughhisrelationship withEuramericabutwasnotindistinctwithit.AsFoucaultargues,
Photographicpracticeinvolvesnotonlythearticulationbutalsotheconstruction ofidentitiesforthecamera’slens.Theself-consciousaestheticconstructionof identity, which Foucault identifies as central to the project of modernity is inherentlylinkedbothtothephysicalactofproducingphotographicimagesand theviewofthephotographasanindexicalsign.Inthisway,asBarthessuggests, thedesireto‘transform’one’sselfasthe‘target’ofthecameraisadesireto pictureone’sprofound‘self’asobject.44Posinginfrontofacamerabecomesa wayofconstructingandperformingwhatanindividualconceivesofastheir
‘ideal’identity,inrelationtoafuturevieweroftheimage,inthiscasethe EuramericanleaderswhoreceivedKingMongkut’sphotographs.Takenfromthis perspective,KingMongkut’sadoptionofphotographyandtheaccoutrementsof Euramericanpowerstructuresarenotindicationsofhispassivereceptionofa Euramericanculturalandtechnologicalmodernity,butareratherhisconceptual shifttowardsanunderstandinghimselfasimageinrelationtoacommunityof
viewers,which,asFoucaultandBarthesindicateisaconceptualshifttowardsa modernnotionoftheselfasforgedthroughthephotographicimage.
Utilizingatheoryof‘alternativephotographies’thatallowsforanunderstanding modernityasdevelopingthroughrelationships,KingMongkut’schoicetohave himselfphotographedappearslessliketheimpositionofEuramericanculture underthethreatofcolonization,oracarefulstrategyundertakenbytheSiamese monarchtoavoidthisthreat.Rather,itbecomesclearthatthe ‘desire’to photographemergedthroughaparticularconceptualandontologicalshiftwithin theSiameseelitethatoccurredinrelationtoanewconfigurationofglobal politicalandeconomicpower.TheSiameseelite’sconceptionofitselfinrelation totherestoftheworld,wasinthiswayrelativisedthroughthetransferand adoptionofphotographictechnology.45Inparticular,photographyallowedfor the development of a genre of royal portraiture, which while operating internationallyassymbolicofthemonarch’smembershiptoaglobalclassof leaders,wasviewedlocallyasatransferenceoftheiconicpowerofthetabooed bodyofthemonarchtotheindexicalformofthephotograph.InthereignofKing Mongkut, this was indicated through the treatment of photographs of the monarchasreligiousiconsthroughtheapplicationofgoldleaf,apracticethat continues today with photographs of the country’s current monarch, King Bhumibol(RamaIXr.1959-present).
figure 1
Anonymous Chinese Artist KingMongkut(RamaIV).
Pigmentonsilk ca.1853
100x61cm.
AmbaraVilla,DusitPalace,Bangkok
figure 2
Anonymous Chinese Artist
PrinceChulalongkorn(laterRamaV) Pigmentonsilk
ca.1853
96x61.5cm.
WehartCharunMansion, BangPa-inPalace,Ayutthayacopy
figure 5
Clare Veal
KingBhumibol(RamaIX)treatedwithgoldleaf 2012
WatMahathat,Ayutthaya figure 3
John Thomson
HMKingMongkut(RamaIV)attiredinthe uniformofaFrenchfieldmarshal
1865
WelcomeLibrary,London
figure 4
John Thomson
HMKingMongkutdressedinawhiterope
1867
WelcomeLibrary,London
BibliographyReferences
1 Seeforexample,SiripantSakda,Kasat & Klong: Wiwatthanakan Kanthaiphap Nai Prathet Thai, Pho. So.
2388-2535 (King and Camera: Evolution of Photography in Thailand 1845-1992).KrungThep(Bangkok):
DarnsuthaPress,2535(1992).
2 DipeshChakrabarty,Provincializing Europe.Princeton&Oxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2000.
3 ForthistypeofcriticismseeOkwuiEnwezor,“Modernity and Postcolonial Ambivalence.”InNicolas Bourriaud,ed.Altermodern.London:TatePublishing,2009.Forexamplesofstudiesthathaveviewed alternativemodernitiesinthisway,seeS.NEisenstadt,“Multiple Modernities.”InDaedalus, Vol.129,No.1, Winter2000;andCharlesTaylor,“Two Theories of Modernity.”InDilipParameshwarGaonkar,ed., Alternative Modernities. Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress,2001.p.172-196.
4 GerardDelanty,Social Theory in a Changing World: Conceptions of Modernity. Cambridge:PolityPress,
1999.p.2.
5 Seeforexample,RégineThiriez,Barbarian Lens: Western Photographers of the Qianlong Emporer’s European Palaces. Amsterdam:GordonandBreachPublishers,1998.
6 Seeforexample,NaoyukiKinoshita,“The Early Years of Japanese Photography.”InJohnJunkerman,ed.
The History of Japanese PhotographyHouston:TheMuseumofFineArts,2003.p.14-22.
7 HomiBhabha,The Location of Culture.London:RoutledgeClassics,2004.
8 ArifDirlik,“Thinking Modernity Historically: Is ‘Alternative Modernity’ the Answer?”PaperpresentedatAsian AssociationofWorldHistoriansCongress,Seoul2012.p.68.
9 SeeforexampleLukeGartlan,“Samuel Cocking and the Rise of Japanese Photography.”In History of Photography, Vol.33,No.2,2009.
10SeeJohnClark,Asian Modernities: Chinese and Thai Art Compared, 1980s to 1999. Sydney:Power Publications,2010;JohnClark,“The Southeast Asian Modern: Three Artists.”InNoraA.TaylorandBoreth Ly, eds.,Modern and Contemporary Southeast Asian Art. Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications,2012.p.15-32;andJohnClark,“The Worlding of the Asian Modern.”Paperpresentedat PowerInstituteLectureSeries,UniversityofSydney,2011.
11Clark,“The Worlding of the Asian Modern.”
12AsdiscussedinGriseldaPollock,“The Return of the Repressed: Feminism and Failure in Re-Gendering International Modernisms in the Visual Arts.”PaperpresentedatAlternativeModernismsConference, Cardiff,UnitedKingdom,May2013.Pollock’sdiscussionofthecreationof“violenthierarchies”inthe creationofbinariesisareferenceto,JacquesDerrida,Positions.TranslatedbyAlanBass.Chicago:
UniversityofChicagoPress,1982.p.41.
13Clark,Clark,Asian Modernities: Chinese and Thai Art Compared, 1980s to 1999.
14JonathanHay,“Double Modernity, Para-Modernity.”InTerrySmith,OkwuiEnwezor,andNancyCondee, edsAntinomies of Art and Culture: Modernity, Postmodernity, Contemporaneity. Durham:DukeUniversity Press,2008.
15Ibid.
16AsDirlikstates,“Modernity is not a thing but a relationship, and being part of the relationship is the ultimate marker of the modern.”ArifDirlik,“Global Modernity? Modernity in an Age of Global Capitalism.”
InEuropean Journal of Social Theory, Vol.6,No.3,2003.p.279.
17Herzfelddefines ‘crypto-colonialism’as “thecuriousalchemywherebycertaincounties,bufferzones betweenthecolonizedlandsandthoseasyetuntamed,werecompelledtoacquiretheirpolitical independenceattheexpenseofmassiveeconomicdependence,thisrelationshipbeingarticulatedin theiconicguiseofaggressivelynationalculturefashionedtosuitforeignmodels.Suchcountrieswereand
arelivingparadoxes:theyarenominallyindependent,butthatindependencecomesatthepriceofa sometimes humiliating form of effective dependence.” Michael Herzfeld,“The Absence Presence:
Discourses of Crypto-Colonialism.”In The South Atlantic Quarterly,Vol.101,No.4,2002.p.900-901.
18TamaraLoos,Subject Siam: Family, Law and Colonial Modernity in Thailand. ChiangMai:SilkwormBooks,
2006.p.3.
19HongLysa,“Extraterritoriality in Bangkok in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn.”InItinerario,Vol.27,No.2, July2003;andHongLysa,“’Stranger in the Gates’: Knowing Semi-Colonial Siam as Extraterritorials.”In Modern Asian Studies, Vol.38,No.2,May2004.
20See,ThongchaiWinichakul,Siam Mapped: The Geo-Body of a Nation. Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’i Press,1994;andLoos,Subject Siam: Family, Law and Colonial Modernity in Thailand.
21AsKingRamaIIIstated,“TherewillbenomorewarswiththeBurmeseandtheVietnamese.Therewillbe troublesonlywiththefarang(Europeans).Takegoodcare;donotfallintotheirtraps.Whateverthey haveinvented,ordone,whichweshouldknowofanddo,wecanimitateandlearnfromthem,butdo notwholeheartedlybelieveinthem.”Asquotedin,AkinRabibhadana,The Organization of Thai Society in the Early Bangkok Period 1782-1873.Ithaca,NewYork:Datapaper,No.74,SoutheastAsiaProgram, DepartmentofAsianStudies,CornellUniversity,July1969.p.125.AccordingtoThanetAphornsuvan,the King’snegativeviewofEuropeanswasspurredbyhisinteractionswithJamesBrooke,whoactedasthe BritishofficialchargedwithsecuringtreatychangesfromSiam:“Hewasintolerantandfailingtogetthe Siameseresponsetohiswishes,beforeleavingempty-handedhethreatenedtoinvadeSiambyforce.”
ThanetAphornsuvan,“The West and Siam’s Quest for Modernity: Siamese Responses to Nineteenth Century American Missionaries.”InSouth East Asia Research,Vol.17,No.3,2009.p.422.
22“Mongkut’spredecessor(RamaIII)showedlittleinterestinthedevice,purportedlyduetoasuspicionthat tobecapturedinaphotographwastoinvitedeath,butalsoprobablytheresultofageneralrejectionof theEuropeanovertureswhichhadmarkedtheearlierphaseofhisreign.”CaverleeCary,“In the Image of the King: Two Photographs from Nineteenth-Century Siam.”InNoraA.Taylor,ed.Studies in Southeast Asian Art: Essays in Honor of Stanley J. O’Connor.Ithaca:CornellUniversity,2000.
23InH.G.QuaritchWales, Siamese State Ceremonies: Their History and Function. London:BernardQuaritch, Ltd.,1931.p.35.Alsocitedin,JohnClark,“Icon and Image in Modern Thai Art: A Preliminary Exploration.”
InContemporary Aesthetics, Vol.3,2011.VandergeestalsoreferstotheLawsofManuashaving influenceontheThaicosmologicalandsocialsystems.See,PeterVandergeest,“Constructing Thailand:
Regulation, Everyday Resistance, and Citizenship.”InComparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.35, No.1,January1993.p.138.
24ClarkhassuggestedthatascrollofkingportraitsorimagesofkingsintheguiseofHindudeitiesmayhave existedbeforethistime.JohnClark,Presenting the Self: Pictorial and Photographic Discourses in 19 th Century Duch Indies and Siam. Unpublishedpaper.Sydney,UniversityofSydney,2013.
25GeoffreyBatchen,Burning with Desire. Cambridge:MIT,1997.p.36.Clarkmakesasimilarpointinrelation toanAsiancontext:“ThissimplereiterationofafewfactsforJapanreinforceshowtheearlyhistoryof photographyinAsiatendstobeconstructedaroundtheavailabilityofphotographicchemicalsand equipmenttonon-Europeans,thedateoflocaldistributionandmanufacture,andtheappearanceof localtasteorsensibilityinthediscourseofimagesbeyondthesepositionsadumbratedbyEuropeans.
Clearlytheseareallwaysofnotingtheextentandstructureoflocalassimilation,butIthinktheytendto overlookthesheerculturaleffortrequiredintechnicalunderstanding.”InJohnClark,Modern Asian Art.
Sydney:CraftsmanHouse,1998.p.146.
26Batchen,Burning with Desire.p.52.
27ChristopherPinney,“Camerawork as Technical Practice in Colonial India,”inTonyBennettandPatrick Joyce,eds.,Material Studies: Cultural Studies, History and the Material Turn. Oxon:Routledge,2010.p.145.
28CraigJ.Reynolds,“Buddhist Cosmology in Thai History with Special Reference to Nineteenth-Century Culture Change.”InThe Journal of Asian Studies, Vol.35,No.2,1976.p.212-13.SeealsoWilliamL Bradley,“Prince Mongkut and Jesse Caswell.” InJournal of the Siam Society, Vol.LIV,No.1,1966.p.36- 37;MaurizioPeleggi,Lords of Things: Fashioning the Siamese Monarchy’s Modern Image. Honolulu:
UniversityofHawai’iPress,2002;MaurizioPeleggi,Thailand:TheWorldlyKingdom.London:ReaktionBooks, 2007,especiallychapter5;Lysa,“’Stranger in the Gates’: Knowing Semi-Colonial Siam as Extraterritorials.”
p.330–32;andWinichakul,Siam Mapped: The Geo-Body of a Nation. p.37-40.
29MaurizioPeleggi,“TheTurbanedandtheHatted:FiguresofAlterityinEarlyModernThaiVisualCulture.”In LieselotteESaurma-JeltschandAnjaEisenbeiß,eds Images of Otherness in Medieval and Early Modern Times: Exclusion, Inclusion, Assimilation.Berlin:DeutscherKunstverlag,2012.
30Seeforexample,thediaryofJesseCaswell,whichisextensivelyquotedinBradley,“Prince Mongkut and Jesse Caswell.”.ThecollaborativeprojectsbetweentheKingandAmericanmissionariesincludedKing MongkutandDrDanBeachBradley’sdevelopmentofasatisfactorySiamesescriptforprintingtechnology aswellasKingMongkut’sworkwithJesseCaswelltranslatingchildren’sbooksintoThai.
31MaryLouisePratt,Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. London&NewYork:Routledge,1992;
andThongchaiWinichakul,“The Quest for ‘Siwilai’: A Geographical Discourse of Civilisational Thinking in Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Siam.”InThe Journal of Asian Studies, Vol.59,No.3,August 2000.
32Winichakul,“The Quest for ‘Siwilai’: A Geographical Discourse of Civilisational Thinking in Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Siam.”p.537;andJunkoKoizumi,“Siamese Inter-State Relations in the Late Nineteenth Century: From an Asian Regional Perspective.”InTaiwan Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol.5,No.1,2008.p.75.
33“ListofpresentssentwithalettertoQueenVictoriafromKingMongkut.”Asquotedin,Koizumi,“Siamese Inter-State Relations in the Late Nineteenth Century: From an Asian Regional Perspective.”p.77-8.
34AsKingMongkutwrote, “Ihavedeclaredalsothatthismissionishigherthanevercamefromthe GovernorGeneralofIndiaandthatifwehaveaudiencetothismissionuntilnegotiationoftreatyended byconclusionwiththismission,thenewtreatybehigher&and(sic)morehonouredforhonourofour countrythantheformertreatywhichhadbeendonewithonlyGovernorGeneralofIndiaaswillbeequal withthetreatyofEnglishandChineseEmpireasthismightbeapproved&ratifiedbyYourMajestyherself withRoyalManual&StampingSignlikethetreatyatChinawhichwehaveheardofontheyear1843&
4.”Ibid.p.77.
35AsexpressedbyBowring,KingMongkut “expressedgreatanxietytobethoughtwellofamongthe nationsoftheWest–heaskedwhethertherewasanyEasternSovereignwhoknewasmuchofEnglishas hedid–hopedthatHerBritannicMajestywouldwritetohimthathemightsayhewasacorrespondent oftheQueenofEngland.”FromBowring’sunpublishedjournal.AsquotedinNicholasTarling,“The Mission of Sir John Bowring to Siam.”InJournal of the Siam Society, Vol.50,No.2,1962.p.109.
36AsBowringstatedin1855, “Itappearstherearetwoparties–onewishingtomaintaintheancient restrictivesystem,theotherwillingtoliberalizeSiamesepolicy.IwishtoproceedtotheBangkokinthe Rattler: if I obtain permission, it will be evidence that the more enlightened ministers have the ascendency.”From,JohnBowring,The Kingdom and People of Siam; with a Narrative of the Mission to that Country in 1855, London,JohnW.ParkerandSon,1857.Asquotedin,Ibid.p.94.The‘enlightened ministers’towhichBowringrefersarelikelymembersoftheeliteBunnagfamily,whohadsecuredKing Mongkut’spositionasKing.
37Winichakul,“The Quest for ‘Siwilai’: A Geographical Discourse of Civilisational Thinking in Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Siam.”p.529.
38Peleggi,Lords of Things: Fashioning the Siamese Monarchy’s Modern Image p.16.
39ThisexchangebetweenQueenVictoriaandKingMongkutisdocumentedinM.L.ManichJumsai,King Mongkut and Sir John Bowring: From Sir John Bowring’s Personal Files, Kept at the Royal Thai Embassy in London. Bangkok:Chalermnit,1970.p.100.IamgratefulalsotoJohnClark,whohassharedwithmehis compilationofgiftssentbetweenthekingandotherworldleaders.
40AmongthegiftssenttoKingPhraNaraiofAyutthayawiththeFrenchChaumontmissionin1865wasa largeequestrianportraitofKingLouisXIVandtwominiaturespaintedonenamelandgarnishedwith diamonds.AsdocumentedinRonaldS.Love,“The Making of an Oriental Despot: Louis XIV and the Siamese Embassy of 1686.”InJournal of the Siam Society, Vol.82,No.1,1994.p.72,note72.Peleggi makesreferencetotheappearanceoffiguresinEuropeandressthemuralpaintingsofAyutthayaand theearlyBangkokperiod.InPeleggi,“The Turbaned and the Hatted: Figures of Alterity in Early Modern Thai Visual Culture.”p.64.
41AsClarkhassuggested,“TherigidposesdemandedofthesitterinKingMongut’s1855photographwith hisQueenwhichweresenttotheUSPresidentdonotfullyindicatetheradicalchangeinvolvedin representingthepersonoftheKinginaquasi-publiccirculationofanimagetoaforeignsocialpeer.”In Clark,Presenting the Self: Pictorial and Photographic Discourses in 19th Century Duch Indies and Siam.
CarycomparesthisimageandlaterimagesofKingMongkutin,Cary,“In the Image of the King: Two Photographs from Nineteenth-Century Siam.”
42JohnThomson,The Straits of Malacca, Indo-China and China or Ten Years Travels, Adventures and Residence Abroad. London:SampsonLow,MarstonLow&Searle,1875p.93-94
43WoodalldescribesmanyoftheseasbeingfeaturesofEuropeanoilportraitsofnobilityfromthesixteenth centuryon.InJoannaWoodall,“Sovereign Bodies: The Reality of Status in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Portraiture.”InJoannaWoodall,ed.,Portraiture: Facing the Subject. Manchester:ManchesterUniversity Press,1997.p.79.
44RolandBarthes,Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. TranslatedbyRichardHoward.London:
JohnathanCapePty.Ltd.,1982.p.12-13.
45Clark,Modern Asian Art.
