<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Personal_archives] A turning point?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>I agree strongly with Martha that the overall subject of photographs in personal archives is so very rich that we would need years rather than days to wrap our heads around it. Any number of points of focus could be profitable, but the private vs. public idea relates nicely to our earlier discussions of context and is IMO particularly germane to archivists who often find themselves gatekeepers of material never intended for research, exhibition or other public access and where the death, absence or unknown identity of its origanal owners makes it impossible to establish guidelines that we are sure reflect that owner’s interests.<BR>
<BR>
I’m curious. Are there pictures in your archives that you do not share or choose to share selectively, even if they came into your collection with no such restrictions? At Eastman House, we have from time to time been cautious with our ( many ) post-mortems and we have a large collection from a photojournalist that he had labeled “bad taste” that we would rarely share ( though we have on occaision. )The issue of context remains key. It is fairly easy to tell a researcher’s intent and we do feel a need to honor original meanings and use while staying as open to others’ interpretations as possible. We don’t deal in print material but I imagine the same notions would apply to correspondence, manuscripts and the like.<BR>
<BR>
And Rick is right. These are questions to be shared with historians, curators and others. These are ethical questions that are best resolved through discussion and contemplation with others who share the dilemma.<BR>
<BR>
Related case: In 1971, LIFE photographer W. Eugene Smith made the iconic image “Tomoko in her Bath” showing the naked and severely crippled body of a victim poisoned by industrially generated mercury; it became a powerful indictment of industrial pollution and remains one of Smith’s most important images. In 1997, Tomoko’s family asked that publication and exhibition of the image be halted out of respect for their privacy. ( my group of curatorial colleagues has discussed this often with many points of view) What wuld you do? Would you exhibit it? Sgare it with a researceher who requested it? Share it with a researcher working on the general subject of industrial pollution?<BR>
<BR>
Alison<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 10/30/08 12:28 PM, "Martha Langford" <mlangford@qc.aibn.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">> The introduction of postmortem photographs and all the immensely useful <BR>
> recommendation from the literature have nevertheless made us all a bit <BR>
> thoughtful. The week will end before we sort out the ethics of these <BR>
> matters - our conversation will be over.<BR>
> <BR>
> So I want to pick up on the disciplinary point about sociologists having <BR>
> a more developed theory on the public uses of taboo or potentially <BR>
> hurtful material. The social scientists have led the way, it seems to <BR>
> me, toward more self-reflexive practices. Everything I've read here so <BR>
> far suggests that archivists and art historians are doing their best to <BR>
> be both sensitive and reflexive in their work. How do we communicate <BR>
> these ideas to emergent researchers, whether in the archives or in the <BR>
> classroom? I have my strategies, but I was hoping to hear from you, <BR>
> because these ideas need constant refreshment, or they turn in on <BR>
> themselves and cease to be productive.<BR>
> <BR>
> So: reflexivity...how's it going?<BR>
> <BR>
> Martha<BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> Personal_archives mailing list<BR>
> Personal_archives@mailman.yale.edu<BR>
> <a href="http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives">http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives</a><BR>
> <BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>