<div class="gmail_quote"><div>I have been long fascinated by the private/public nature of personal photographs, snapshots in particular. While these images often appear to be giving viewers glances into the intimate and private worlds of those depicted, they are created for consumption - to be placed in frames and albums to be viewed by others who may not necessarily be a member of the familial circle of those depicted in the images. While there are certain treasured photographs that do not get put out for public display, I think that the majority of photographs are created for public viewing and this greatly effects the types of images taken and the poses adopted by those depicted. Sitters are purposefully creating certain types of depictions of themselves to be viewed by others . This process might very well be unconscious but it certainly occurs - which Catherine, following Chambers, points out - look to any archival collection of personal photographs and you will see the same motifs and types of images appearing over and over, across a large period of time. <br>
<br>Would it be too far to state that photographs are inherently public documents which only have the sheen of the private? I think it is this appearance of privacy is what makes them so compelling, so arresting, and which uniquely imbues them with Barthes' punctum. The appearance of privacy makes us overlook how these photos may have displayed or otherwise used by their creators. We feel, coming across them in archives, that we are given access to something secret or intimate.<br>
<br>I have to cut my response short for the moment but will definitely return to the idea of personal photographs as prompts for conversations.<br><br>Rodney<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
First I want to thank Catherine Hobbs for this kind invitation into the<br>
archivists' realm, a place where I have made many fruitful discoveries<br>
in the past, having found the subject of /Suspended Conversations/ in<br>
the Notman Photographic Archives here in Montreal. Her welcoming remarks<br>
about the navigations between private and public realms take me back to<br>
those days, and the first recognition that we should not consider<br>
photographs and albums in a public collection as private, but as<br>
inhabiting and informing a space between the private and the public<br>
realms. So the first question that I am considering is: how do we frame<br>
that space; how do we define it? I would like to establish a framework<br>
that has some solid features, before we begin to talk about its porous<br>
boundaries, shifts, and fissures. Barthes helps us to understand the<br>
sense of loss that inhabits that place, but if it were strictly morbid,<br>
always as sad as /Camera Lucida/, I don't think many of would want to<br>
stay there, work there, root our lives there. There is pleasure in this<br>
place. Can we also talk about that, as a product of the imagination, as<br>
a prompt for conversation? After all, that's what we're having.<br>
<br>
Martha</blockquote></div><br><p><font face="Arial" size="2">Welcome to our second SISPA listserv discussion on the topic of Photography and Personal Archives. </font>
<br><font face="Arial" size="2">I'd like to give a very warm welcome
to our guest experts Martha Langford (of Concordia) and Alison
Nordstrom (of George Eastman House). We are also happy to be joined by
a number of their graduate students. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2">The readings for this week were not
explicitly directed at archivists though there are a number of archival
concerns and criticisms of archival practices which are hinted at
within the articles or which hover as a ghostly presence. More than
that, though, the articles and the website raise a wealth of concepts
and practices which we can take and debate in terms of dealing with
archival creators and their personal photographs and perhaps extend
these to look at their fonds' more broadly. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2">I'd like to start by acknowledging that
at the basis of many of these discussions is the very visceral way in
which people react to photographs (acknowledged at many points:
particularly in Chambers' article and in the mentions of Barthes'
concerns). This is, obviously, one of the primary factors
differentiating photographs from other types of archival material
created by people, for people and often about people. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2">As a way in, I'd like to invite further
discussion on the emphasis on the private vs. the public sphere. This
emerges strongly from Chambers' discussion of encoding private space
and the family with broader social/cultural norms. She mentions the
use of very similar sets of poses, photographing "important" events,
interior space, the "feminine sphere" of the home (though a home
without housework) and photographing images of our consumerism. The
references to Barthes in Martha's paper lead us to a very different
'privacy' that of the<i> punctum</i>: the realm of private feeling.
In particular, the feeling of the temporal punctum in which the
individual feels a shock that the person in the photograph is very
likely dead. Very broadly, these two realms of public encoding of the
private life and the private encountering seem very central to the
archival concerns with respect to photographs. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2">Looking forward to this week and to hearing what you have to say...</font>
<br><font face="Arial" size="2">Warmly,</font>
</p><br>