The portion of the Campany reading I found most interesting was the part that discusses photography as a means of collective memory. He states, “the photograph can be an aid to memory, but it can also become an obstacle that blocks access to the understanding of the past. It can paralyze the personal and political ability to think beyond the image in the always fraught project of remembrance" (24). When people take personal photos, their main purpose is often to preserve the memories of a trip or significant event. The ironic aspect of this though, is that too many photographs can alter the real memories we have made. It becomes difficult to think past the frozen seconds featured in each image, almost rewriting our memories into specific photographed moments.
With the growing need to document each day of our lives via iPhones and social media, it is interesting to think about how this is effecting our memory banks. Is our constant documentation improving our memories, or are we lessoning our brain’s capacity to keep any of our true memories because we have photo references from every day? Photographs in the past signified the importance of an event because, even in the more recent disposable camera days, each photo had a cost. Today, we are able to take thousands of photos for free, viewing them on our screens before making the decision to print them. I feel that while this technological improvement has allowed for the accessibility and affordability of photography, it is also lessoning the value of the photograph, as well as lessening our capacity for memories.
2 comments:
I think you bring up some very interesting points. Your point where you state that perhaps the bombardment of images on us makes it harder for people to remember what things were like. Maybe that is why Late Photography has been having more success. It captures an image that we should remember and it is photographed formally very well to enhance that. It captures the mood and the stillness that should be accompanied with the aftermath of a tragedy.
I do however disagree with your statement that photography is becoming devalued. I feel that yes it is more accessible, but the fact that photography can still impact someone whether it be through a sense of stillness or mournfulness or a sense of nostalgia. Still images have a way of slowing us down and making us contemplate it especially if there is a specific connection to it.
I would agree with what both you and Nicole said about the points of memory and how it can alter the real memories we have made. I didn't initially think that that is why late photography has had so much success in capturing and enhancing the stillness of a tragedy. I think it is a valid point because we often see photographs of the distraction or whatever the tragedy may be during the event on tv or the media but when we see the aftermath we truly see the overall mood and affect the tragedy had, thus allowing us to relate our own memories and create a memory from the photograph.
I disagree that photograph has lost its value, although I do think consuming it via social media, has changed the way we view photography in our everyday lives. I think the use of Facebook and Instagram, is a revelation and a great way to share photographs quickly, however, a photo album will forever hold a long lasting physical impression. I think if people printed their favorite photos from Facebook or instagram and made an album they would be much more likely to go through the photos more often and pass them down (since who knows where technology will be in the next 10 or so years).
I also do agree with your point about lessoning our brains capacity to keep any of our true memories. I know I am guilty of it too. I will take long exposures of the night sky or sunset instead of enjoying it. Yes, I have a picture to refer back to but often times after the first time I refer back to it, I don;t do it again.
Post a Comment