[Personal_archives] images of death

[Hobbs, Catherine]

Judith's message brought to mind an interview with Joan Schwartz (no
doubt some of you know the programme/new item I'm refering to, but I
can't remember) where she discusses her study of 19thC portraits taken
of dead children.  She discusses the way in which these portraits were
taken by studio photographers shortly after the death and how they
functioned as reminders to the Victorians who had a different sense of
memorialization.

If any of you know of an article on the topic we'll add it to the
citations relating to the discussion.  (By the way, I've been meaning to
mention that:  we'll be aiming to compile the citations for the
discussion).  

Best,

Catherine


-----Original Message-----
From: personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu
[mailto:personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Judith
Colwell
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:04 PM
To: Archives; Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
Subject: Re: [Personal_archives] personal archives

The photos that we have in a church archvies, amid personal papers, are
often taken to back up a report or to put a face on a church -- hence
alumninum souvenir plates  and postcards showing the image of the
minister and of the church exterior.  In some circles these would be art
forms -- after all the engraving on the aluminum or tin took some skill.
Then the question arises asking whether the church was as stern as the
minister, or was the minister pushing an image that he thought the
church wanted.

As to pictures of funerals, etc. -- depends on the geographic area in
question.  I have some photos of people laid out in their caskets which
appear to be part of a culture.  And I vividly recall, from back in the
late 1950's a schoolmate with her album of photos of her mother in
casket and the funeral.  Creepy to me, but ....

Judith Colwell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Archives" <archives at trinity.utoronto.ca>
To: <Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:07 PM
Subject: [Personal_archives] personal archives


Hello all,

Reading the articles I have been struck by the universality of the
'snapshot' experience, how we all know the rules of picture-taking and
viewing. First we know that although the picture captures a real moment,
it is also a projection of an idealized life. Secondly, we know that
much is hidden - hence the sadness that Barthes refers to and which I
would argue goes beyond the realization that the subject may be dead.

Chambers refers to the feminine character of snapshot taking and album
making, and points out that despite this female perspective there are no
pictures of housework. Taking this one step further, there are also no
pictures of screaming infants, two-year-olds having a tantrum, sullen
teen-agers screaming "I hate you!". There are no pictures of sick-beds
or funerals. The family album or photo collection presents a world
without pain. Since most of us have personal experience with the
phenomenon of family albums, we instinctively do not buy into this, and
realize that the mythology created is unrealistic and to some extent,
banal. Could the family album be seen as the visual equivalent of the
Christmas letter?

In an archival context, we find the pictures complemented and completed
by other elements in a fonds: a file of condolence cards, doctor's
bills, diaries recording private anguish, letters containing an
outpouring of emotion. And they are certainly useful, as Catherine
points out, for identification purposes.

Martha asks the fundamental question: "is everyday photographic
experience transferrable to art?" I'd argue that it is and that the
artist has the same mandate as the archivist. The historic photograph on
its own is nearly meaningless, and thus it requires either
transformation (by an artist) or contextualization (by an archivist) to
make it 'real'. It's function during the lifetime of its subjects, and
perhaps for a generation after, is to follow a path that has been
tacitly approved by its viewing public. After that, it's fair game for
us!

Thanks, Catherine, Martha et al. for making this happen.

Sylvia







----- Original Message ----
From: Alison Nordstrom <anordstrom at geh.org>
To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:40:51 AM
Subject: [Personal_archives] (re-sent) first thoughts of the morning

I'm curious about who's lurking here. I suspect we have archivists,
curators and students who may do any number of things in the future.
Strikes me that we might have very different notions and working
definitions of "family photograph." Can we share?

I tend to say various things like "a photograph used in the family as a
metaphor for that family, an ideological device that defines family, a
statement both internally directed and externally directed that
manifests an ideal, a record of a family."

How do these past uses cling to a photograph ( or group of photographs)
as it/they moves away from original use?
_______________________________________________
Personal_archives mailing list
Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives

_______________________________________________
Personal_archives mailing list
Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives