I found David Campany's "Safety in Numbness: Some remarks on problems of 'Late Photography'" make me question the role photography plays in capturing and recording memories over time, based on cultural and technological influence. The article pointed out that the very operation of our own memory is constantly changing and shaped by the image world around us today. A photograph's memory structure will thus be determined by it's own means of representation. "Photo is what we do with it," and that is exactly the truth, although I never really thought of it that way before. By looking back at the past, we can see how far and how fast photography has evolved as a medium and therefore changing it's role in our daily lives based on the culture and tools of the time.
In the 1920's there was a rapid expansion of mass media, print journalism and technological development. Up until the 1960's the work ethic of a photograph was that you had to be at the right place at the right time to capture the perfect image. After that, in the 1960's and 1970's the standardized journalism portable camera was introduced, however, this also introduced the new aftermath of post production. In the 21st century, "visual character celebrated the 19th century images." Knowing the context of photography throughout the ages, indicates how photography functioned in the culture of that time period. I think now more than ever with affordability of cameras, as well as cameras implemented in all phones, and just the overall increase of technology from the 1920s, or even just 20 years ago, illustrates how much images influence our lives today. Now a days, most people have Facebook or Instagram, where people can upload photos freely. Not too long ago, people would have had to have gone to develop their photos on film and have to archive them in a photo album. And before that, people were lucky to even have an actual single photograph of them or their loved ones. It is surreal to see how fast the evolution of photography has grown, as well as how the culture influences the need, demand and way we consume images. In 20 years, maybe even 5 from now, we will consume images in a whole new way. However, I think despite the time and evolution of the photographic medium, it will never lose it's importance to memory. Granted with the ease of taking images, some images may lose value. For example, those five selfies you just took might not hold the same weight as the only portrait photograph of your great great great grandmother, however, they do still capture the moment and memory of that time period. I don't think a photograph can ever be viewed without the lens of memory placed onto it, since it is a captured moment and essence of past time and events.
Aside from that, the article also discussed late photography. Joel Meyerowitz is an example of a photographer who photographs the aftermath of events with a large format camera. He records the "trace of a trace of an event" which is why it is called late. The photographs are considered to be static, yet sombre. The aesthetic is compared closer to forensic photography than photo journalism. These photographs show a different relationship between history and memory in which in the past, and media, we have been bombarded with snapshot images recording the events. Campany said "it is not that a photo says a thousand words rather than a thousand words can be said about it." I think that is crucial to understand because based on the context of the photograph, and relationship towards it, no two viewers will have the exact same experience. We give context to a photograph based on our culture, our experiences, our own memories and associations. We give photography meaning in the context of our time period. Humans give photographs meaning, for if they were taken and thrown away, they would never have the ability to share their story and allow audiences to contextualize their experiences and memories with the photograph.
No comments:
Post a Comment