This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content. You can search the text using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.
My name is Mark Bey. I'm by training a photographer. I did my undergraduate degree at in Auckland and in the final year of my B FA, which was in 2003, I set out on a project that became, um, men alone men together. Initially, it was, in fact, two projects men alone, which was to be about men living by themselves and not necessarily queer men and men together. [00:00:30] Which was to be about, uh, a gay men of their relationships. And I had been looking at, um, the work of a number of photographers, uh, particularly New Zealand based ones. Um, and Glenn Bush is one who was quite an influence at that time, Uh, his book Working Men, which came out in the 19 eighties and featured wonderful, uh, black and white portraits of, [00:01:00] uh, working class being just prior to the, um, just prior to the reforms of genomics and included with that oral histories. And that was one of the influences at the time that I started this project and I looked at other other work as well. And there's quite a tradition of photographers accompanying their published work with, uh, text taken from recorded interviews with the subjects [00:01:30] that they photograph. Um, there was a an American book. Um, I think it was called men together, but I can't remember now. Rather photojournalistic, uh, looking at gay men and, uh, and their relationships. And that was another one that I I looked at at the time. But there's quite a, uh, quite a tradition of doing that. So I decided to use, um the recorded interviews as a compliment to [00:02:00] my photographs. Although this started as primarily a photographic project. So when you started out doing photography, were you also recording audio interviews at the same time? Or is that yes. When I started the, um, me alone, me together, I'd photograph the people, and then I'd go back on a subsequent occasion. A Actually, I do the interview first. Generally, I do. I'd record the interview first and then go back on a subsequent occasion and photograph them. What would you record the interview first? Um, [00:02:30] both sessions would, uh, would take some time where the interview takes an hour to an hour, 1 to 2 hours. Uh, and a photoshoot, the way I work will also take an hour or two hours. Um, I particularly don't like to be rushed with the photo shoot. And for most people, uh, that works better. Divide it into two sessions. People, especially when you're photographing. You don't want someone to be fatigued or bored with the process. [00:03:00] Um, so it seemed to work well to do them on two separate occasions. Um, also having the chance to spend some time in the environment where I was going to be photographing was actually useful in terms of consciously or subconsciously working out how I was going to approach the the space and the people and the lighting and all those sorts of aspects of of photography. [00:03:30] So having some familiarity with this with the place and having time to mull over that before I went back and took the photographs was actually quite an important thing. Had you done oral histories before? No. That was the first time I'd done oral history at all. I red a couple of books on oral history. Um, apart from that, I didn't have specific training, and as I said, this was really [00:04:00] done in the context of context of a, um of a photographic project. So initially the the interviews almost seemed to be ancillary. Uh, but as it worked out, um, and especially as the book came together, um, they turned out to be quite central to the project. I should say that I. I started by saying that men alone men together began as two separate projects. And as it went on, [00:04:30] it became quite clear that it really was about gay men and their relationships. And, um, the the differences between men living with a partner or a lover or in a relationship and men living on their own. So it became the two projects merged into one, and, um, and it became what you see today. The men alone. Me together. So what kind of [00:05:00] things did you read when you were researching about how to do oral histories? What were the things that you looked at? What were the resources you went to? I, um, went to the library and I looked up oral history. And as I said, I found a couple of rather well slim books on on how to conduct oral history. Um and so I read those. I wasn't aware of Internet resources at that stage. Uh, that possibly would have been some, but I wasn't aware of them. Why Oral history? What? [00:05:30] What is so useful about oral histories? From my point of view, the thing that oral history gives you in particular is, uh, an insight into people's subjective experience. And that's the difference between, uh, oral history and, um, other forms of more analytic, um, historical writing. And if we can make a an example here, [00:06:00] um, I think that's the difference between what I've done in men alone together and what Chris Brickle did in mates and lovers, where he was taking an overview. Looking at, um, patterns in society, looking at historical trends, looking at, um, the big picture, as as it were. But I think with oral history, what you do is you look at individual subjective experience and that can form a part of, um, or give you a feel for a broader picture of what's happening [00:06:30] in society. But it really does focus on the individuals and give voice to the individuals. And that was another part of what I was concerned to do was to give voice to a group of people, um, whose voices have often not been heard in our society, especially the older gay men or older queer men who lived some of them for decades, very closeted lives [00:07:00] and also some of the men who are not what you might see as the, um, the cover boys of the gay press, Um, they the people who live quiet suburban lives that we don't often see publicised as as the icons of the gay world and to give voice to people whose voices would not otherwise have been heard was [00:07:30] also a very important part of what I was doing. So perhaps we can go through the process of actually how you went about this project. And I'm just wondering to begin with how you, for instance, find people in the community that maybe aren't out there. How how do you go about locating people again? Um, I started off very much working, I [00:08:00] suppose, Um, without much in the way of, um know how and, um, working things out. As I went along, I started with my own circle of friends and acquaintances, and, um spoke to a large number of people that I already knew and asked if they would be interested in being part of it. And then from the people I met, [00:08:30] I asked if they knew of anyone who would be interested or interesting or likely to be want to be part of it. So it was a snowballing sort of, um, approach. And then when I met my partner, Ross in 2005, um, I've done about half of the half of the, [00:09:00] um book, and he introduced me to, uh, another, uh, a range of people, Um, from his circle of friends and acquaintances as well, which gave me quite a different sort of set of people to talk to. Um, I think if I we're approaching this now, I would have a lot more confidence to go out. And, um um, recruit people from [00:09:30] probably a broader range of backgrounds, probably through, you know, a variety of networks and advertising. And, um, I think I've got more certainly more established myself in the gay world. And, um, have a much broader range of networks and contacts than I did then, um, so I would probably do it a little bit differently if I was doing it again. When you initially asked [00:10:00] people what was the response like how? How did people How did people respond? The take up rate, if you want to call it That was surprisingly high. Um, I'd have to go back to my notes and records to see exactly what proportion of people did say, yes, they'd be interested. But I think it was. It would have been 75 or 80% of the people I spoke to. And, um, [00:10:30] partly I see that as the desire, as I said, from a a group of people whose stories have often been hidden or whose lives have often been hidden to actually have their stories heard and and being heard have their stories affirmed. So on the whole, I had a very positive response from the people I approached, and the men are most of the guys and men alone. Men together were [00:11:00] over past middle age. And remember, that was, as I said, going back nearly 10 years. Um, when I started work on that, Um, but on the whole, the the the response was, yeah, affirming and positive, and people were keen to be part of it. When you pitched the idea, were you pitching it in terms of this is for publication, or this is for a private archive. [00:11:30] How did very much for publication. Yeah, I had in mind from the start that this was going to be a book. Um and so I said, I'm working on a book. Um, I also explained that the photographs would be exhibited. Um, I should say that we're talking about oral history, but when I set out doing this, my intention was always that the sound files will be transcribed for publication and print. So it's a little bit different from [00:12:00] the I suppose the traditional approach to oral history, which is of creating sound parts that will be, um, listened to will exist in their own right. And did you have, uh, a scope for the types of information that you were wanting from people or how narrow or how broad was that? It was pretty broad. And my idea was to create a picture of the person's verbal portrait to accompany the, uh, the [00:12:30] photographic portrait. Um, I had a range of a list of broad areas or topics or subjects to cover, but I'd almost start out, uh, simply with an invitation to the person to tell me about themselves and for me, part of the interest lay in seeing how people would respond to that question. And at this time I started. [00:13:00] I also was working with the idea that part of the picture of the person lay in what they chose to tell, and so I tended to encourage them or allow them to speak. Um, without being very directive in the questioning. Um, and again, I'd [00:13:30] probably do that slightly differently if I was doing it now. And in fact, in more recent work, I have sort of, um, change that approach slightly. Uh, but at the time, it was very much about allowing them to present what they wish to present of themselves. And so my questions would be, um, if they were talking about questions would be quite quite brief and, uh, just allow them to [00:14:00] keep on with the narrative. Um, if people seemed to come to the end of what they were saying then, as I said, I was working with a list of broad subject areas that I was interested in, and I'd I'd ask him specific questions. What kind of broad subject areas, Um, people's early life their background, their their upbringing where they grew up. Um, what they did? Um, [00:14:30] the pattern of relationships, um, for couples, how they met. Um, I was interested in allowing people to tell me the story of how they live. You know how they got to the point in life that they're at. Um, I wasn't interested so much in recording coming out stories because there had been an awful lot of that done. So I didn't specifically ask people questions. Like, [00:15:00] when did you realise you were gay? But in fact, a lot of people did talk about that, Um, but I was more interested in creating a broad picture of the person. So, um, I mean and and sometimes people just talk freely, like, um, one of the first interviews I did, Um, And at that stage, as I said, this was I. I had very [00:15:30] little experience at that stage, and and I did the interview in the evening. Uh, I think we went through three bottles of wine, and, um, it turned out to be a very free and open conversation. Um, which gave quite a lively and animated picture of the two men. Um, others [00:16:00] you know, follow through sort of more chronologically. And, you know, we talk about as I said, people's home life, their childhood, their upbringing, their careers, their work and, um, their values in life. Um, what things they regarded as important, um, I was concerned about spirituality as well, because that's been part of my background. Um, so I would often ask people about that. And [00:16:30] that was interesting to see the answers that people would give to those sorts of questions. The first question you mentioned about, um, you know, describing yourself that's sort of a very tricky question. What kind of responses did you get? The responses would vary from saying that's too broad. Can you be more specific? Um, to [00:17:00] giving an encapsulated picture of themselves. You know, I'm 46. I live in Wellington. I do this and that. And yeah, so a very encapsulated picture. Um, and occasionally people will just launch into a into A into a, um, a conversation or a monologue, which could be quite interesting. Yeah. So the the responses were quite varied. Um, it's probably a useful starting point because it can be interesting to see how people respond. [00:17:30] Um but it's often not an adequate starting point. Um, and you often need to be more specific in terms of what you ask to get. People started on their conversation. Had many of the participants done oral history or had they been interviewed before? I don't think any of them had to my knowledge. Uh, well, um, there's one couple who done who'd been very prominent [00:18:00] in in the media. Um and so they would have had many interviews. Um, there's another, uh, some other guys who'd been part of a documentary. A television style documentary. Um, most of the rest. I think it would have been their first time doing anything like that. Were they nervous? [00:18:30] Some slightly. But I don't think particularly. I don't think, um, nervousness was a great part of the, uh, part of the emotional response people had. Do you have any tips for putting people at ease? Or I know three bottles of wine is probably a good idea. That's not that's not the normal way of work, but, um well, again, it it would be. The process [00:19:00] I worked with was usually a three part process. So I meet the person initially. Um, find out a little bit about them, explain the nature of the project and decide if they were interested in going ahead. So we would already have met on on an initial occasion. And I'd use that to, as I said, find out a little bit about them and and give me an idea of the sorts of things I might be interested in asking. And then we'd go back on a second [00:19:30] occasion and I'd do the interview record the interview, Um, and then I go back usually on a third occasion and do the photographs in terms of putting people at ease. I think, um, I think having a respect for the person is, uh is a big part of it. And I certainly wasn't taking a a journalistic approach [00:20:00] to looking for, you know, looking for the, um, exciting bits or looking for the skeletons in the closet or looking for the, you know, the the The Juicy stories. Although, yeah, it's always interesting to read the juicy stories. But, um, certainly that's I wasn't taking an aggressive journalistic approach. I was allowing the person to speak and present what they want, what [00:20:30] they chose to tell me. So I think having respect for the person and allowing them to tell me as much or as little as they wish to, um was an important part to to opening up the interview process. And usually I found that with people enabled to speak freely, um, and having a listening ear, uh, people would often, um, open up [00:21:00] sometime in quite an amazing way. And, um, one of the guys I spoke to not for me alone me together, but for another project that I've been working on, said that, you know, he'd never had that amount of undivided attention. We probably spent an hour and a half, Uh, for him, it was a totally new experience to have the space and the attention to tell his story in that detail. And for him, he found it quite a cathartic process, [00:21:30] which certainly what I wasn't what I wasn't setting out to do, but and and, you know, was what he he derived from the experience. So for many people, I think the opportunity to have someone paying attention to them. Someone, uh, listening respectfully to what they're saying. Uh, that alone allows them to open up and and and and share what can often be quite intimate details of their lives. [00:22:00] Did you ever feel, uh, I'm not sure if the word is uneasy, but sometimes in these situations where people are giving you almost too much information knowing that this is for publication were there were times where you thought, actually, this is something you should really hold on to yourself, rather than putting it out there in the public. Um, not at the time I was doing the interviews because, um, the process I I was working [00:22:30] with was that, um certainly for me to lay men together. The people I spoke to would have the opportunity to review the written material before it was published. So part of the deal was that people would be able to read over what was going to be published before and and approve or request alterations before before it went through. Um, so no, I didn't [00:23:00] have that sense of unease. Uh, at the time was doing the interviews. Um, partly, I suppose, Um because the things that you look back later and say goodness we shouldn't be publishing this are actually can actually be some of the quite interesting things to hear. Yeah, quite interesting stories to hear. Um, And again. Although, as I said, I wasn't setting up with the journalistic intent. There is [00:23:30] a tension that you have to balance between, um, what you know is going to be interesting to read what you know is going to be revealing and what is good and safe for the person to be sharing for publication. Um, so there's a you know, there is AAA delicate balance that you've got to strike between having [00:24:00] a story. That is, yeah. Engaging, um, you know, versus, you know, being respectful and, um wise for the, uh, the person sharing that story to be bringing to the public domain. So with this project, that type of editing actually happened post the recordings. [00:24:30] So it wasn't You weren't kind of trying to stop people saying stuff. And no, I wasn't. No, no, I didn't. Um, And as I said, the intent in doing the recordings was that these would be for transcription for publication. So there wasn't an intent to make the record, put the recordings in the public domain. Um, so from that point of view, I was quite happy to let people talk freely knowing that if there was stuff that we wanted to pull back, that we could do that [00:25:00] subsequently and sometimes people would say, Now, don't put this down, but and tell you something that was actually quite interesting. And on one or two occasions, I got away with putting that in and they let you know once they read it through, they let it go, and that was obviously their choice. And they were happy with that. So, um, so that was that was good. And on other occasions, people would, you know, tell you stuff. I mean, even things like that they subsequently edit out, [00:25:30] Um, which is fair enough, even things like, you know, someone talking about smoking pot or something, which technically, is illegal, but trivially so I suppose. But, you know, obviously he decided he wanted it out of the public domain, so that was that was fair enough. Although in a sense, it was a little bit disappointing because it adds to the it adds flavour and colour to the add adds richness to the to the picture you're building up. So, um, you've just got to respect people's, [00:26:00] uh wishes and their judgement as the interviews went on and you went from person to person, did you find that you were pushing the interviews in particular directions? Uh, yes, certainly. As, um, the work. The project was almost done in two halves. The first half was done in 2003 when I was doing the B FA, Um, the final year of it and that I finished that. And then, um, it sort of sat on the back burner for a year or so. No, I picked it up again [00:26:30] in 2005 and, uh, did the rest of it in 2005 and 2006. And certainly in that second half, I was, um, much more prepared to be directive in the questioning, uh, much more prepared to, um, pick up on little details or hints that there might actually be something beneath what the person was saying and followed it through. And so, yes, that that did evolve. [00:27:00] Just getting back to some of the ways of making people feel comfortable in these kind of situations. Did you Do you have any thoughts on, uh, you know, the the best locations for doing these type of recordings and and the best times of day and and things like that. Mostly, I've tended to interview people in their homes. I think in fact, almost all of the ones I've done have been in their homes, and I think that's probably important. Well, people will always be more comfortable in their home territory. Um, and for [00:27:30] me, that's actually an important part of engaging with the person is having them in their domestic environment, the environment they create. Um, it would feel rather odd to me to do this sort of thing in a recording studio or some anonymous office space. Um, I don't think Oh, yes, 11 couple I did record at my at my place. Um, I can't quite remember why, but we [00:28:00] did the interview there, Um, but mostly in people's homes. Time of day. Um, for convenience with working people, it's often in the evenings. Um, although it's good, as with the photographs to select a time when people aren't going to be tired and aren't going to be pressured for time. Um, so, in terms of deciding a time, I think those would be the the issues. [00:28:30] Um, but I think often you just have to be pragmatic about it and for the interviews. Yeah, we'd often just do them in the evenings at home at the person's home. And how long would a recording session generally go for, Um, a minimum of an hour? I was doing the recordings on audio cassettes, and I'd, um, usually get through something more than one C 60 cassette. Uh, so a minimum of an hour? Only [00:29:00] on one occasion did it go for more than two hours. So about an hour and a half, I think would be the average often found, uh, my own experience of doing interviews. Often it takes maybe half an hour for the person to become comfortable. And sometimes it takes an hour to kind of just get down to like some really, uh, in the truth. Did you find that? Did you find it? Took a while for people to kind of get down to that level? [00:29:30] No. On the whole I, I generally found that within within 20 minutes or so, I think I was had a reason if there was going to be a report, which, uh then it was established by that time. But as I said, part of my the way I worked was that the interview would always be on a second meeting with the subject. So, um, so there was already a degree of familiarity, and I had already found [00:30:00] out a little bit about them from our initial conversations in your initial conversations, what kind of questions would you be asking? The sort of broad questions that you ask when you meet someone for the first time? Um, you know what? What? They what they do. Obviously, I found out where they live. What the the the jobs worth it? Um, possibly a little bit. About what? When? When they grew up and where they're from. [00:30:30] Um perhaps, um, whether they have been, if they were in a relationship, whether this was a new thing or a long established one, enough to get a feel for the person and enough to get, as I said, an idea of whether there were going to be any specific things that I would want to talk about when I did [00:31:00] the interview. So was there a difference between interviewing a couple or singles? Did did you find that there was a difference. Yes, there could be, um, some couples, Uh, the the interview almost became a dialogue between the two people, and that could be quite, uh, quite fascinating in itself. Um, and other couples, you know, one person would speak for a while and then allow the other person [00:31:30] to to say their piece, and they give each other space, whereas others were sort of interjecting and cutting across each other and that that was challenging for transcribing, challenging for writing up, But, um, quite fun, actually. Yeah. Um, I think on the whole, if you're speaking to someone, one on one, the [00:32:00] potential for them opening up and sharing with you stuff that's quite intimate is possibly greater. Um, and certainly in talking to people about relationships, you will, I mean, very much. Got to be aware that if you're talking to both, you know, both members of a couple at the same time, then obviously, how they describe their relationship is going to be different from if you were speaking to them individually. [00:32:30] Um, but again, the I suppose the approach I took was that the way people choose to present themselves as part of the portrait of the person. And, um, yes, you've very much got to keep that in mind that that what people say is how they present themselves at that point in time and that in that context. And I've likened that to taking a photograph that if I take a photograph of someone, that's how they look [00:33:00] on that day at that time in that place. Um, it's just to use that word. A snapshot. Um, it's not the entirety of that person. And it's not how that person may look on a different day or in different circumstances. And so with the the recording that what they say at that time is simply that and you can start wondering and talking about, you know, [00:33:30] objective truth and that sort of thing, which I think you have to say that you don't get get from, well, you don't get nothing but objective truth from a single hour, two hour interview, you get I a snapshot of of the person at that particular time when you're working with a couple. How did you set up the, um, the [00:34:00] recording situation? Was it around like a table or was it in comfortable chairs, usually in comfortable chairs, actually, Um, usually in there, Mostly it would have been in people's sitting rooms. And, um, I started off when I was doing it through. I had access to professional grade sound recording a portable sound kit. Um, and I think I had a couple of lapel mics. Um, so that was that was good [00:34:30] quality recording, and then the second half of it when I was working independently. Um, I'm probably a bit embarrassed to say this, but I just used an off stick to phone. And because I was the intent was to create material for transcription that was actually adequate for my purposes. Uh, it would certainly wouldn't have been broadcast quality, but was adequate for transcription. Do you think there are any, um, specific things, uh, that [00:35:00] you need to be aware of when interviewing? Um, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people in terms of the the different types of relationships or the different wording that they may use? Are there things that you kind of looked out for? I suppose because I was a gay man interviewing gay men. Um, I assumed that the language that I would would use would be language that they would be comfortable with. And given that I was talking on the whole [00:35:30] to men around my age or older, um So in other words, I was operating as an insider as part of the part of the community. Um, I wasn't consciously, um, aware of the language I was using or consciously moderating the language I was using, um, in in, in doing the interviews. Um, I think [00:36:00] if you're working as someone outside a particular community, then that becomes, uh, talking to people, members of a particular community or sub, um, subculture, uh, then that the issue has become much more problematic. And you, um even the very question of, um, as an outsider, going into a a community has now become quite quite problematic. So there might [00:36:30] be different issues there, For my own part. No, I wasn't, um, particularly conscious of of of of the language I was using. What about things like, um, as I say about, uh, relationships where they may vary a bit from, um, say like, AAA straight or he kind of relationship. Did you have? Did you have to kind of navigate how you identified relationships and what relationships were. And [00:37:00] again, I was talking either to people who are manifestly single or to people who were living in couples or, in one case, a threesome, Uh, in, you know, two or three people living in a domestic environment and a domestic relationship. So I wasn't exploring other kinds of relationships. Um, and arguably, it would have been possibly [00:37:30] interesting and worthwhile to do so. Um, but that wasn't the focus of what I was doing. I guess I'm just interested in trying to find out if you kind of change your ear to specific things that people were saying that you could go. Oh, that's an entry point into kind of, um a line of questioning that you wouldn't necessarily find in a straight Oh, yes, yes, yeah. Um, you [00:38:00] certainly do. And you certainly become aware of, especially with experience. You become aware of cues and, um especially, I think, with some people talking about events in the past, you become aware that there is possibly a lot more to, uh, encounters or friendships or, [00:38:30] um, people that they might have mentioned then is immediately apparent. Um, and I think that really is a case of, um, experience of doing this but also experience of reading queer history and knowing the sorts of things that might be there if you look, um, and it's almost as if [00:39:00] someone will be talking about something and you know that if you ask, there will be a relationship or there will be have been some trauma or there would have been some event. Um, and it's almost 1/6 sense. I suppose that comes from, well, life, experience and experience in doing the oral histories [00:39:30] and experience in reading Queer history. So it's difficult to give specific, um, instances, Um, but certainly you do become aware that some things people will say will be You know, you just have to ask them to open up a hole. Uh, whole whole, um, world of other material. I think there's an example I I recall [00:40:00] in hearing in a couple of oral histories where, um, the interviewer asks, you know, um, have you ever been married? And the person says no, but basically, that completely negates any other type of kind of relationship, you know? And then then then the interviewer moves on so that yeah, they weren't married, but they might have had other 01 of the things. Certainly I probably one of the most basic things is is never to ask closed questions like that unless you're asking for one very specific piece of information. [00:40:30] But certainly you're very much part of my practise was never to ask closed questions. So the way you raise your questions is always inviting the person to speak. Um, so I wouldn't say Have you ever been married? But, um, can you tell me about any past relationships you would have you've had? Or can you tell me about any experiences with women? [00:41:00] Or can you tell me about any, uh, early relationships with men? Not even can you tell me about? But yeah. So it's an invitation to speak rather than asking Yes, no questions. Did you find there was any difficulty in talking to people of an older age group than yourself? No. I found it quite easy on the whole probably easier [00:41:30] than talking to younger people. In fact, why was that? Not sure, exactly. Um, the older people I spoke to seemed again very, um, keen to have their stories told their stories. heard. Um, I [00:42:00] found the process quite easy, and I think on the whole, they they did as well. I'm not sure why I found that. So but yeah. Did you find you had to alter the type of language you were using for somebody that had the same growing up with with different language, like, I mean, for instance, using the word gay or queer? Does that change? Um, it certainly would. Now, as I said, doing this starting this out. You know, um, [00:42:30] in 2003 and working through into 2006 and working mostly with guys of middle age and the word gay was the word to use. Um, I did ask a few people about the language that they use for describing, um, their identity. And at the time that I was doing it, and with the group I was I was doing with then then gay was certainly the word that people were using then, uh, very few of the guys and and men alone men together would have identified themselves [00:43:00] as queer. Although, um, you know, that's very increasingly the the term that people use. Um, certainly a team that I'm quite comfortable with for myself. Um, but I And then, you know, people talked about LA words like, um, camp and, um, which really had gone out of use by the time I was doing these interviews. Although for some of the guys that had been the language [00:43:30] that they used, Um, yeah, probably in the fifties and sixties. But through from the seventies, I think gay was the word that people were using. Did you, at the beginning of the project want a kind of a representative sample of the community? Or you were very much kind of targeting people you knew. And then people that they knew, um, I was targeting people that I knew and, um, working out from there again if I was [00:44:00] when I did the second half of it, I was more conscious of wanting to, um, create more of a representative sample. Um, and again, I think that probably comes from experience and confidence in doing the project. Um, I guess I have to say that when I started out, it was with a fair degree of trepidation as to the the audaciousness of doing this. Um um and I suppose having [00:44:30] done it. We've done one project like this and having it under my belt. And as I said, my confidence for going out and actually, um, looking for people from a broad range of backgrounds would be, you know, much greater. So you did the interviews. And then between the time you did the interview and then the photography session, what was going through your head did? Did that alter how you photographed somebody from the interview? [00:45:00] No, I don't think doing the interview per se altered how I photographed him. Um, the impact that the interview process had on the photography was that I had a chance to become familiar with the environment, and the people would get a feel for how I might work within that environment. Did it impact on the participant in terms of did it change how they reacted to you? Um I think Well, I, I imagine that having got to know me, [00:45:30] uh, and become more familiar with me, it would help to put them at ease for the photographic process. That was certainly my assumption in that, you know, that had this conversation with me, which was often at quite some depth um And so, yes, I assume that that would put them at ease for the photography. Can you take me through the photography sessions? How did how did they work? Um, [00:46:00] I'd arrive. I'd have a camera and a tripod. Uh, I was working with available lights, so I didn't bring lighting equipment with me. Um, I would have some idea of locations within the home that I might, um, position the person people in, um, we would start out in one particular place, and, [00:46:30] um, I'd set the camera up. Part of the process of the of the photographic process is also engaging with the person. So, um, there's a conversation that goes on, and you're almost working. Your mind's almost in two places. You you're having this conversation and engaging with a person with one half of your brain and the other half you're working with the technical aspects of setting up the camera [00:47:00] so forth, getting it focused and and and getting the composition, um, so I I usually typically work. I mean, depending on the house and the setting, um, use several different locations within the home. Several different positions. Um, standing, sitting, um, domestic environments can be quite challenging to photograph people in, [00:47:30] um, and the right or the best position or the best answer to the is not always, you know, straightforward. Um, so usually it would take me an hour to an hour and a half, um, to do the photography I was working on, uh, medium format film. So I shoot typically [00:48:00] six rolls of 1 20. So that's, um, 12 on a roll. Um, sometimes inside the house outside as well as inside. Um, I was always looking for one single image. The way the way I was working at that stage, at any rate, was to have one single image that I I felt encapsulated the person in was photographically a strong image. Um, so that would emerge, you know, go go back and process [00:48:30] the film and look at the proof sheets. And, um yes. With that process of sitting with the with with the images over a period of time. And usually one of the obvious is the one that I wanted to use. What to you makes a strong image. Um, firstly, engagement with the subject. Um, in terms of the sort of portraiture that I'm doing um it seems that the the [00:49:00] person I'm photographing is actually engaged with me or engaged with the camera. Um, Then there's a whole raft of elements of lighting and composition and tonal balance and a whole lot of things that really sit together. I mean, they almost come together again at an unconscious level, and you [00:49:30] you have an image that you just know it is working. Well, um, and then after the event, you can often go back and and and sort of analyse it. Um, but the process usually comes together as a almost a sort of guest. Um, that you look at it and you think this is the one and there'll be elements of as it not an engagement with the person, But, um, you know, interest in the environment, [00:50:00] Um I mean, some people's homes are quite interesting in themselves. And, um, how much that you see of the environment can actually be an important part of whether the photographs worthwhile or not again, had the participants ever been photographed in that particular way before? Uh, Sheldon, I think, Yeah, I think, um, seldom in that, that considered a manner. Um and then she'd been to [00:50:30] a photographic studio or or engaged a professional photographer to come to your house as people used to do, um, for the baby photos and things. Um, I. I think few people would have had that that experience? Certainly not recently. It must be, um I mean both in the recording and photographing people. I mean, it is quite out of the ordinary, isn't it? Yes, it is for the people doing it, I suppose, as the person conducting the interviews and [00:51:00] doing the photographs, because it's something that I do for me. It's perfectly ordinary and banal. Um, but yes, I think you're right. For probably for the person who's being photographed. It is a new experience. But people adapt very well to the new experiences. Yeah, I, I I'm just wondering if it's, um, like you were saying before about respect. You know, if you show people respect in terms of [00:51:30] how you're photographing them, because I think a lot of people can get very nervous about how they look and how they're portrayed. Do you have any tips for, you know, working with those kind of anxieties? Um, again, I think, as you've said, starting with respect for the person is is paramount. Um, and respect and kindness, I think, um, [00:52:00] yeah. You know, I'm not setting out to make people look odd or freakish like Diana Hart did. Um, I'm not setting out to show people as, um types or exemplars of anything in particular. Um, I'm simply setting up to allow [00:52:30] well to portray them as I see them, but to allow them to be seen as individuals. And I think, yeah, I think respect for the person does have to be paramount. And then there's There's the subtleties of of the manner in which you approach someone, um, which are difficult [00:53:00] to put into words. But I think being, um not being aggressive in your approach not being hurried, uh, is a very important thing, allowing plenty of time for the photo shoot. So, um, I'd always try and schedule it. Um, certainly at a time when I didn't have to rush away to anything else. And, um, you know, often mostly the the photographs would be taken [00:53:30] on a weekend day. Um, so schedule the photo shoot so that the people I'm photographing aren't under pressure of time. Um, and you do have to allow, in a sense, sometimes you almost count on throwing away the first role or to a film. Um, I don't know. Talking about film is probably a bit [00:54:00] Sounds a bit, um, anachronistic in today's digital world, but, um, the same thing applies, um, you almost count on. I mean, some people even pretend to used to pretend to shoot a role with the camera unloaded. Um, I don't do that, but yeah, my grandmother used to say of cooking pancakes. The first pancake you make is [00:54:30] going to be no good, because the, um, the pan is never going to be hot enough. And the last one you make is going to be no good, because you're too tired by then. And it's a bit like that with photographs. You know that the first year you take, you're just both you and the subject are getting into the space of working together. Um, and so partly the entry point is actually the process of doing it. And somewhere in the middle of it all, you know, often you know, you've got what you want, and then you you finish off knowing that the finishing [00:55:00] off is sometimes just a formality. Was there any talk between you and the participant in terms of how they wanted to be presented? Not a lot at that stage. And I think again, if I were doing it now, I would, um I would invite more of a dialogue as to how they want to present themselves. Uh, sometimes people would ask me, what should I wear or what should I dress? Sometimes they wouldn't if they did ask me about [00:55:30] clothes. I'd say, you know, something weird, what you're comfortable with, Um, about the only thing I I do is discourage people from wearing white shirts. Which, uh, um, you know, visually and photographically quite, uh, you know, draw attention away from the from the face. So, um, about the only thing I do is say, don't wear a white or very light coloured shirt. Yeah, and then you just invite [00:56:00] them to dress as they feel comfortable and again. That was part of my Certainly my ethos at the time was just allowing them. They knew that this was for publication. They knew that this was for exhibition. Um, and allowing them to make the the choice of how they presented themselves. Um, I don't think people particularly dressed up. I mean, a couple of the guys in the book are just in their sort of shorts and T shirts. And, um, [00:56:30] mostly people just wore their everyday clothes. Really? Um, couple of these, you know, these guys are obviously put on the sort of smart, casual gear. Um, there's one guy sort of very elegantly dressed, but that's how he he always is. Um, what about the idea when you you're just flicking through the book? Now that that, um especially with couples, the idea of how intimate do you get in a photograph [00:57:00] in terms of, you know, are the arms around each other? Are they kissing? Are they hugging? Can you talk to me about that kind of negotiation? Yes. Um, again, I allowed my people to decide on the degree of intimacy that they were happy with. Um, but I wasn't looking for schmaltz. And, um, I I wasn't looking for, um, [00:57:30] theatrical displays of intimacy or emotionality. Um, and I was more interested in seeing the sort of intimacy that people were comfortable with, uh, in their own home with a relative stranger um, I wasn't trying to recreate in a sort of cinematic style, um, the kind of intimacy that people might display, [00:58:00] uh, when they were alone or with with close friends. So, um, you know, some of these guys are are, um, you know, they've got their arms around each other, and, um, some of them are a lot of them actually have the couples they have got their arms around each other one way or another. Um, but I certainly wasn't looking for, um, you know, for guys kissing, although, once or twice [00:58:30] I did just for a laugh. So, you know, let's have a kiss. And they tend not to be the the the images that I used. Um, yeah, I was more looking for how people would you present themselves spontaneously to a relative stranger. And often, as I said, often there is at least an arm around each other, um, sitting side by side. Um, [00:59:00] in fact, more often than not, but that's how people generally chose to chose to present themselves. Yeah, So the photographs are done. The interview has been transcribed. When you present that back to the participants, can you talk about the kind of negotiation between how you see them and how they see themselves and what? How did that work? Um, [00:59:30] mostly in. You know, there's 30 chapters in that book, and in the vast majority of them, people were happy with what I'd written. And, um, the alterations they requested were very much along the lines of simply sometimes changing the names of third parties. Um or, um, [01:00:00] just somewhat disguising circumstances so that usually third parties or previous lovers wouldn't be identifiable. Um, from the from the narrative. In just a couple of cases, um, people wanted fairly extensive rewrites, and that became quite a negotiating process. It was a matter of explaining [01:00:30] going back and explaining the intent that this was meant to be that the the the this was meant to read, like a conversation that we weren't looking for good grammar. And we weren't looking for, um necessarily a a written style of language. Yeah, we were looking for the spontaneity. And, um so in one, in one case, it was a matter of explaining that and going through that and then, [01:01:00] um and and that dealt with a lot of the the issues and then going through bit by bit, working out what they were actually comfortable with, because this was a couple and they'd actually talked about, um, in the conversation, they talked about stuff that they subsequently didn't want to put in the public domain. So it was a question of carefully negotiating exactly how [01:01:30] much they were prepared to, uh, to have published and how much they really didn't want to. Um, and that took, uh, actually, they were out of town, So it was a Yeah, one or two very long telephone conversations, and we eventually got through it, but, um, and then in another case, um, I think [01:02:00] similar issues were going on, and, um, and again, it was a question of explaining the process and negotiating and give and take And, um, some compromise on my part in terms of, um, not so much giving away material that I thought was interesting. [01:02:30] Um, but the shape of the the shape of the story. And, um but, you know, and and again, it was a long conversation by by by telephone because he was out of town. Um, but I think once we arrived at an understanding of what I was really trying to do. Then I think [01:03:00] we got there. Well, we did get there in the end, but at the time, it was actually fairly stressful. But, um, in both cases, I got back things that had been completely rewritten. Um, you know, that that they had taken what I'd I I'd sent them and completely rewritten it. Um, so that was, you know, a matter of explaining and and working it through. What about in terms of the photographs that people accept [01:03:30] how they appeared in the photos? What did I think they did? I mean, I didn't, uh, in terms of the agreement, and the release that I had with them was something that I'd photographed them. And, um And so the the arrangement was that the photographs would be that that I didn't hear any adverse comment on the photographs. Um, I suppose people wouldn't really, Um I don't think anyone said [01:04:00] no. You can't use Yeah, no one. I didn't. No one said no. I don't want you using that image. And again, that's a process of being respectful. I wasn't obviously choosing images that weren't going to make people look funny or look awkward or look odd. Um um, but in this case, I didn't give people the, you know, the work I have done. I have given people the right of veto over the images, but in this case, I didn't And, um, I didn't get any feedback that people were unhappy with it. So one [01:04:30] area we haven't really covered is release forms. So I'm wondering, um, one Are they important? And at what point do you get things signed? Um, so, yes, release forms are clearly very important. Um, especially if you're going to be putting material into the public domain. Um, when I was doing men alone men together, I started off with a very broad release form, Um, which in subsequent work I've actually modified, Um, [01:05:00] the release form, um, or in the release form, the person I'm interviewing, uh, makes it clear that they realise that this is the recording is for, um with the intent of publication. Um, I covered the fact that they would have the opportunity to review any written material prior to publication. Um, and I also got them to assign copyright and the sound recording to me. [01:05:30] Uh, because my reading at the time I started was that the my understanding was that the copyright in the, uh in the recording is actually with the participant. Um, and I haven't looked again at that, but, um, so I covered the copyright aspects as well, and then the release for the photographs. Um, it was pretty straightforward that the person agrees to being photographed and the intent is for exhibition [01:06:00] and publication. And so I left it at that, um, I'm about to embark on a new project which is being done through Auckland University and has to go through the University Ethics Committee process. Um, and the requirements are much, much more rigorous. And I think it's fair to say that the requirements of institutional ethics committees certainly designed to protect the safety [01:06:30] of the participants. Um, I think one has to say that they are also designed to protect the university from litigation. Um, and the requirements are onerous to the point of potentially restricting or potentially being restrictive in what you can actually do. Um, but anyway, that's what we have to work with. Uh, but for an institutional ethics committee, um, [01:07:00] there has to be quite an extensive informed consent process and a very detailed explanation, for example, of who's going to be doing the transcribing and the fact that the transcription is going to be confidential and again working with within the framework of a university based project, Um, they require that there's a very strong [01:07:30] desire that the participants have the opportunity to review and edit the transcript before anything is done with that. A which certainly poses tensions in terms of a documentary process. Um, and A A And, um, you know, being faithful to what was actually said at the time. Um, but which in fact, means that once [01:08:00] the person's entered the transcript and and signed off on that, then the material is is released for publication. So that's probably quite a good way of working. Um, in other photographic projects, I've, um, offered people the write a veto on on the photographs before I use them. Um, that's mainly in terms of a different project. I did, [01:08:30] um, men undressed. So that's looking at nudes. And I think in that context that I was happy to give people more, um, more control over which images I did use. Um, and again, it's a It's a process of negotiation with the subject and involves a come back comes back to that question of respect for the subject. How much for the person you're photographing, how much we [01:09:00] draw the line of control over use of the images. And I think that's something that people have to work out, possibly on a project by project basis, possibly on a case by case basis, Uh, according to what? What people are comfortable with. It sounds, though, that for all of your projects, um, just the awareness that there will be negotiation is a is a key thing. Not not not that you can just go and record or photograph, and that's it. There's always going to be [01:09:30] some kind of I. I think so. And, um, much as 1 may like to go, you know, and again, a journalistic approach would very possibly be to go in and and and do the interview and take the photographs and then do what you what you like with them. Um, and much as that may have an appeal in terms of getting all sorts of interesting and potentially juicy or salacious material, I think [01:10:00] that's not really the way you can work with, um when you're asking people to open up their lives. Um, I think you've got to be very respectful and careful of of things and also allow people that cooling off, period because I did find that during the interview process, people will open up and they it almost becomes. Sometimes it can almost become a confessional situation. Um, and people will open up, and not always. But sometimes they'll tell you all sorts [01:10:30] of things that, as we were saying before we started the recording, sometimes you think actually, this wouldn't be wise for them to put in the public domain. So allowing that process of negotiation that's always been important to me in terms of releasing the sound files, it becomes a bit more tricky. Um, and with the current project that I'm about to embark on, the way it's probably going to be going to work is that what I'll be able to release of the [01:11:00] sound files will be material that corresponds to what's been signed off in the edited transcript so that you know, if if this stuff that they specifically deleted or or edited in the transcript, you know won't be able to use the corresponding parts of the sound files. So the sun files for, um, men alone men together. Where are they now? Um, I've got them at home, and my intention is to deposit them with, um [01:11:30] or or with, um, the Alexander Turnbull library. And, um, it's one of those things, and I get around to doing box. But that was always my intention that I I'd deposit the the the tape tapes, actually. And what kind of restrictions or no, I mean, would you put restrictions on that material? Um, part of the reason I've not gone ahead with doing it is that it's something I didn't specifically discuss with the subject. So [01:12:00] I think what I'm going to have to do, um, is go back to try and get back in touch with the individuals and say, Look, I want to deposit these, Is that OK? And if it's not OK with them, then I presumably have to destroy the tapes. Uh, but I think that's probably ethically what I have to do. Um, So again, with the new projects I'm embarking on, that's all covered in the upfront in the consent process, that down the track, I can deposit the material in an archive. [01:12:30] And the restriction There will be that, um, again, If this is this is approved by the ethics committee, it will be that, um, access to the sound files will be restricted to bona fide researchers and that any use of the material will be restricted to what's already been cleared for publication. You know, at four put an embargo on 50 or 60 years or something, you know, which should cover to the people in question. I did. [01:13:00] I suppose another interesting element, like with with with your book as well is that some of the chaps are quite old. And if they die, does the family have any right to access that material? Do you have any thoughts on that? I haven't, um, thought about it in great tea. One of the guys had, in fact, died by the time I I was. He died a year after I did the interview. So it was his daughter that I got to [01:13:30] sign off on the, um on the written material, and she was quite happy to do that. Um, dealing with families can become difficult in terms of, especially if there are different members of the family have different views about their parents, especially with queer or gay parents. Um, different members of the family have different views about their their parents or their relatives. Sexuality. Um, [01:14:00] so it's potentially quite a difficult area to work in. Um, and I haven't. As I said, the one chap I know has died. His his daughter would be quite happy with depositing the ma, depositing the material, I'm sure. How hard was it finding a publisher? Um, I sent the material to two or three publishers initially, [01:14:30] uh, more sample material and got turned down. And then someone recommended that I contact Steel Roberts who were happy to take it on. Um, this is I mean, as I understand it, publishing nonfiction is a difficult market. Um, and they're getting a you know, a large publisher's take on something. Oh, in the nature of queer history [01:15:00] is is, um, not going to be easy because the market is small. I have to say that working with, um Roger Steele Steele Roberts I, I, in fact, substantially rewrote. Um, Well, I sent him three sample chapters, and I substantially rewrote those. There was a lot of editing. Went into it, um, to produce something that [01:15:30] was actually engaging and readable as written text. Um, if you look at a lot of published, um, oral history, it is actually not not interesting to read, um, because of the repetitions and the circumlocutions and the, um which reproduces the way people speak but actually requires a lot of concentration and a lot [01:16:00] of attention to read. And so, once again, that was a initially I saw it as a compromise of, Of of the of the process was editing the material in a way that made it without destroying the, um well, hopefully, without destroying the spontaneity and the feeling of direct speech was actually creating something that worked as as written [01:16:30] text, rather than simply a transcript of an interview. Um, And so that was the, um, a big task I worked with with, um, Roger Steele. And, um perhaps if I'd done that initially, other publishers might have looked at looked at it differently because I think it was in terms of creating something for publication was much better for it. What was the response on publication? [01:17:00] How how has it been received? It's been received quite favourably. I mean, I had, um, the book launch here in Wellington and a book launch in Auckland. Um, were well attended. Um, it didn't get much tension outside of the gay press. Got reviewed in, uh, in express and on gay NZ dot com. I actually did get a review on the listener, which was good, um, [01:17:30] and was going to feature in the Christchurch writers and readers a week, and then they had the earthquake. So the September earthquake and, um was it 2010? Yeah. So we're all set to go down for that. And then that was probably yeah, probably the least of the casualties from the Christchurch Earthquakes. Um, but so yeah, I was I was I was pleased [01:18:00] with the response given the, um given the specificity of the subject matter and the potentially, um um, limited audience just wrapping up this chat now on on oral histories. And I'm wondering if you can maybe reflect back on the last hour and a bit that we've been chatting and just kind of bullet point for me. Some of the key things that if I was just starting out [01:18:30] what would be the key things I would need to to to think about in terms of doing an oral history and on a queer subject. Um, And so, firstly, read all you can get your hands on. Um, because there has been quite a lot published both from New Zealand and overseas, um, of queer history, first person accounts of queer history. So you well, the way I would approach it would be to read as much as you can. Um, I know that the Oral History Association [01:19:00] of New Zealand runs workshops in doing oral history. And although I haven't done any of those, I would think that for someone starting out, that that would be a very presumably a very valuable place to start. Um, I think the next thing would be to define your project, to work out specifically what you're interested in and work out in what ways What you're doing differs from [01:19:30] what's been done before. Um, and certainly in terms of documentary work, photographic and and and oral history, looking at a specific group of people, um, that haven't been looked at previously is always going to be part of it. what makes the interesting documentary work? Um, I think you do need to have some be informed to some extent about, [01:20:00] uh, copyright. Uh, and, uh, who holds the copyright and in the recordings and the transcripts. And you do need to have thought about the process of consent and, um, the ways in which the material can be released for publication. And from my point of view, I certainly advocate the two step process that I've used, which can be frustrating [01:20:30] from a writer or an author's point of view. Um, but I think ultimately works for the protection of the individual and to respect the individual, Uh, in other words, giving them the right of a cooling off period to look at what they've spoken, what they've talked about. Um, certainly, if you're preparing stuff for publication, Um, we didn't particularly [01:21:00] talk about accuracy, but, um, we we touched on it. But I think you do need to be aware that what the person is telling you is the reality for them at that time. It's the reality and the truth for them at that particular point in their lives. In that particular context, speaking to that particular person for that particular audience. Um, and if that's true, there may be [01:21:30] a different truth to be heard from a different audience. Or if you went back and spoke to them at a different time or if he'd spoken to them at a different point in life. Um, so I do go back and check on matters of historical fact dates and so on. I can That's again part of the calling review process as people can check on that. But other than that, realising that, um, this is the specific truth for a particular time, [01:22:00] Um, in terms of allowing the person to engage, I think respect for the individuals taking enough time for the process, having spent some time introducing yourself to them, um allowing them to be at ease with the process is really important. And then, if there is a report, then they will open up. Um, using open [01:22:30] questions, um, that en encourage the person to speak, uh, certainly avoiding questions that demand a yes, no answer, or even unless you're specifically going back to check on facts even, you know, avoiding questions that just require a very factual one line response. Um, recording equipment. Obviously, if I mean you very [01:23:00] basic equipment is can be adequate if you're looking simply for trans material for transcription. But if you're looking for broadcast quality material, then you need to look at getting higher quality equipment, Um, as much as possible being in control of the environment so that it's not a noisy environment with distractions, and I normally talking to gay men. You're not dealing with people who've got kids in the house and that sort of thing. But even a ticking clock can be quite, [01:23:30] uh, distracting, which you the sort of thing that you don't notice. Um, initially until you listen to the tape and there's this loud ticking clock, um, being aware of how long you can go before people start to get fatigued. And, as I said, about an hour and a half is a is a good time, sometimes with a break. Um, once I did go on for three hours, but the guy was stoned and that was a very [01:24:00] it was 10 o'clock in the morning and it was stoned. That was a very discursive thing and took a lot of editing, you know, serious editing to get anything coherent narrative out of it, Um, and thinking in advance about what you're going to do with the material afterwards so that you can actually prepare for that. Um and, um, so that you don't need to keep going back to people and tracking [01:24:30] them down after the event. Um, and having people fully aware of what you're going to do with the material so that you've been completely transparent with them as to what you're where you're going to publish it and what you're going to do with it, I think those will be the the key points. Yeah, And one thing that you've been doing, uh, and took me a while to realise is that as the interviewer, you have to suppress all those usual, [01:25:00] um, nonverbal cues in the ear and all the conversational interjections, um, that we're so used to using to express our interest and express our, um attention, but will become very, very distracting on the tape. So you do have to learn as the interviewer to ask your questions and then keep quiet and you make eye contact or do whatever you [01:25:30] do. The other thing I should say that I do is, I take extensive notes, Um, and for two reasons. Firstly, there's a backup in case there's any, um, problem with the recording. Um, And secondly, Because Because I've often I've been working want with material for transcription, uh, to create a record and, you know, a written text. Um Then as I go, [01:26:00] I'll be noting often noting points that I might want to come back to and amplify so without breaking into the dialogue or breaking into the conversation. But noting points that I may wish to come back to and enlarge upon. And that goes back to some of the, um, stuff you mentioned, uh, hidden entry points into queer or hidden contact. You just flag that and then because you don't want to interrupt what the person is saying, that could lead you somewhere quite quite [01:26:30] wonderful. Uh, but, you know, coming back either at the conclusion or at a you know, natural hiatus in the process and filling in on those detail. So, yeah, I do take extensive notes of it like, I don't know, psychologist writing A. But that's the way I work.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags