Keightley and Pickering suggest that photography (particularly analogue) has long been thought of as simple “recorded fact” (2014). Due to the camera’s ability to freeze, capture and preserve specific moments in time, the photographic process has long been championed as a highly truthful and authentic form of documentation. Over the years we have “relied on [photography] to describe places, to prove things existed, and to recall the memorable” (Bardis 2004).
However, this idea of legitimacy and authenticity is questionable, and as Bevan suggests the camera can often be used as a “tool for generating and disrupting fantasy” (2012). Photographs, particularly those in the ‘home’ and ‘travel’ categories can be highly manipulated and constructed artefacts – and they can certainly be used to present inauthentic and inaccurate images and memories. Bevan mainly discusses this idea in regards to analogue technologies, however at this stage we can also see the same principles present in digital photography practices. With the rise of digital photography and consumer-level editing software, “public trust in the truth of the photographic image” (Biro 2012) has become increasingly low.
Additionally, when we share or revisit a photo we’ve taken in the past, we retrieve and reassemble our memories of that moment – the photo acting as somewhat of a mnemonic device. Because of the fluid nature of human memory “each viewing is unique because stories are never told the same way twice” (Bevan 2012). In this way, the memories that photographs contain can shift and evolve over time.
In assembling this audio-only piece I was particularly interested in exploring the idea that meaning and memory can be injected into a photo long after the shutter button has been pressed. My intention was to present a collection of recordings from a number of participants in order to demonstrate how we use photographs to retrieve memories from the past AND how these memories can be somewhat vague, uncertain and shifting.
I chose not to show the photos that I was using as prompts, as I wanted the audience to focus purely on the participants’ responses. Removing any form of supporting imagery also allowed the participants’ responses to be the only point of reference available to listeners. In this way the audience can only ‘view’ the photography through the participants’ described memories.
I think this compilation of audio recordings was an interesting experiment, and I feel as if it successfully demonstrates how both digital and analogue photography can contribute to the construction of memories.
REFERENCES:
Bardis, A 2004, ‘Digital photography and the question of realism’, Journal of Visual Art Practice, vol. 3, no. 3, pp.209-218. Available from: Taylor & Francis Journals Complete [23 March 2017].
Bevan, A 2012, ‘Nostalgia for Pre-Digital Media in Mad Men’, Television & New Media, vol. 14, no. 6, pp.564-559. Available from: SAGE Publications [23 March 2017].
Biro, M 2012, ‘From Analogue to Digital Photography: Bernd and Hilla Becher and Andreas Gursky’, History of Photography, vol. 36, no. 3, pp.353-366. Available from: Taylor & Francis Journals Complete [21 March 2017].
Keightley, E & Pickering, M 2014, ‘Technologies of Memory: Practices of Remembering in Analogue and Digital Photography’, New Media & Society, vol. 16, no. 4, pp.576-593. Available from: SAGE Communication Studies [21 March 2017].