Lee Gavin

Investigating the use of the family album and the changes in how memory has been recorded.

A culturally expected manifestation, the family album is an expectation of every household, family and individual. Its purpose, to record a form of self documentation or a running history of life, in a photographic form. The content of these albums are a combination of biological family and or friends (a chosen family) during events that are both public and private. Sontag (1983) states the most inclusive form of photography acquisition. Through being photographed, something becomes part of a system of information, fitting into schemes of classification and storage which range from crudely chronological order of snapshot sequence pasted into family albums. This essay will look at how the family albums use has altered due to the change in how the photograph has been utilised and used in various presentations and as a physical manifestation of a memory.

Early photography was crude, less mobile and less accessible than the methods known today. Photographs were taken in a studio where sitters were directed, on a large cumbersome apparatus by a trained professional. Hirsch (2007) explains that when George Eastman invented ‘Kodak’ in 1888, his intended consumers were not “professional photographers but people who had seen photographs but had not thought of actually taking them any more than they might have considered painting pictures, writing novels, or composing music”. With the slogan “you push the button, we do the rest”, the camera entered the domain of the ordinary and the domestic. Eastman introduced the Box Brownie in 1900. The advertisement slogan that ran alongside being; “Operated by any school Boy or Girl”, which, further encouraged the amateur photographer. The camera developed to become compact, portable, and no longer just for the professional photographer. By removing the need for a professional photographic education the amateur was free to shoot what they wanted, without the preconceived, schooled, ideas of form and function. The amateur photographer introduced many new photographic styles and stepping away from the traditional conventions, meaning that the development of how and what was photographed changed and expanded. Photography became the method used to record the world and its contents in a manner that had not been seen before. The camera was used within the home, looking inwardly at the family and at everyday life. Now each family could, and did, record and document their own lives. According to Hirsch (2007), photography quickly became the family's primary instrument of self- knowledge and representation, the means by which family memory would be continued and perpetuated, by which the family's story would henceforth be told.

The ritual that we all undertake in setting about recording memories for future visitations is a physical process. Perloff (2002) explains, the photograph reproduces what has occurred only once: the photograph mechanically repeats what could never be repeated existentially. As soon as the click of the shutter has taken place, what was photographed no longer exists; subject is transformed into object.

The works; ‘Ray’s a Laugh’ by Richard Billingham, 1996 and ‘Diary’ by Corrine Day, 2000, are two examples that show an alternative version of a family album. In Billingham’s inwardly looking project, figure 1, 2 and 3, he focuses on the relationship between his mother and father, as well as his relationship as viewer of their relationship. Many of the photographs focus on the face and the emotions contained. A mixture of clashing patterns, fabrics and decorations emphasises the clash of relationships. Scenes of pre and post violence along side that of joy and love. These images can be described as unflinching and unreserved, provoking the outsider, the viewer, to make judgements.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

The theme of Day’s work, figure 4 and 5, form a different component of the family album, that of a selected family. Day’s work looked at the relationships of her friendship circle that also involved the influences of sex and drugs. As a topic, this is counter to the idea of the family album. Showcasing situations that are regarded as taboo and hidden. As Kuhn (2002) suggests, a family without secrets is rare, and as such every effort is made to keep certain things concealed form the world. Day’s photographs are similar to that of Billingham, in which they show raw examples of both conflict and love that provoke the viewer to again judge.

Perloff (2002) outlines that today the amateur photographer shows nothing but images of happiness, lovely children running around on green meadows. Further saying the amateur produces an image they already know. Neither of the examples by Day and Billingham show the physical representations of happiness. Batchen (2004) explains the reasons for the amateur produces the happy images is because if they were to fail to photograph these events it would be to let the precious memories fade into the mists of time. However a photograph does not have the ability to describe to the viewer the underlying story within the photograph. As such, both of the photographers, Day and Billingham, would be classed as professionals, not amateurs.

We can read a photograph and say what is within its frame, but to a certain extent, we cannot know the context. Barthes (2000) uses the term ‘Punctum’, which he uses to describe the affect of a photograph has saying it; “... is that accident which pricks me (but also bruises me, is poignant to me)”. Bathes is saying that a photograph is poignant to the individual, the feeling or emotion that that individual obtains from a photograph only happens because of their unique relationship with the photograph and its subject. Whilst a photograph can be analysed and interpreted. It brings insights and evokes memories which can only speak to the individual, the Punctum. A photograph provokes, it stimulates, it makes us remember and thus makes us want to keep and store for the future. Using the examples above, the viewer can make judgment on what they see within the photography, but do these images become uncomfortable or objectionable as viewers are forced to draw on similarities to their own lives and see the images of events that are should have been forgotten.

Barthes (2000) explains that by looking at a photograph of his mother he describes this as if he was loosing her twice over. He goes on to further explain why;

At the end of her life, shortly before the moment when I looked through her picture and discovered the Winter Garden photograph, my mother was weak, very weak. I lived in her weakness ... During her illness, I nursed her, held the bowl of tea she liked because it was easier to drink from then a from a cup; she had become my little girl, uniting for me with the essential child she was in her photograph.” (Barthes, 2000, p.72)

The photograph as an object of remembrance, Barthes is focused on finding salvation from his emotions within the photograph of his mother, and does so find it in the aforementioned ‘Winter Garden’ photograph.

The everyday process of taking and looking at photographs is a process taken for granted, we photograph for the purpose of future remembrance. We edit and delete what we do not wish to remember. The photograph will be our reminder of the lost, it is a safety net. As soon as we photograph, that event has been lost, and is now in the past. However, we can see a manifestation of what was captured. We cannot physically interact with the time shown, but we can mentally send ourselves back to ‘day dream’ or pretend. The present, as soon as it is captured, turns instantly into the past and is ready for us to look at. Benjamin (2000) supports this when he states that the inconspicuous spot where in the immediacy of that long-forgotten moment the future nests so eloquently that we, looking back, may rediscover it.

As previously discussed, the photograph can be used as a tool to remember a previous time for people who want to remember. The photograph is a way to stay connected to the deceased. As we cannot physically see the person we hold on to their memory and as such have a power over death. Perloff (2002) sates that the thing about pictures of dead people is that they are always taken when the subjects are alive, all tanned, muscular, and smiling. The photograph replaces the memory. When someone dies, after a while you cannot visualise them anymore, you only remember them through their pictures. Perloff (2002) goes on to further explain, a photograph is taken when the person is alive and the process of cataloguing life highlights the inevitability of life and death. A photograph shows us the passing of time and reminds us of our mortality. Sontag (1983) reinforces this idea by saying photographs state innocence, the vulnerability of lives heading towards their own destruction and this link between photography and death haunts all photographs of people.

As we link photographs to personal history, memory and emotions to look upon a photograph is one step away from looking at the real person, place or event. This in turn makes the photograph an object that is unique and precious. To hold a photograph in one’s hands instantly fills us with a type of etiquette, we know we must act carefully, respectfully and not to damage its surface. Sontag (1983) explains that in our reluctance to tear up or throw away the photograph of a loved one, especially of someone who is dead or far away, could be seen as a ruthless gesture of rejection. To damage or to destroy the photograph is to damage the memory. To mark, rip, delete or to even destroy a photograph has powerful ramifications and can be seen as an insult. Once a photograph has been destroyed it can no longer be looked at again, if it cannot be looked at then we can no longer use this object as a stimulus, so in effect the loss of the photography means the loss of a memory.

Billingham and Day both presented their work outward to an external audience. There work was seen within a specialist gallery and photo-book context. They had looked inwardly at family, biological and chosen, showing the troublesome notion of relationships, along with being confrontational to the external viewer. There are now ubiquitous examples of this. Social media and the internet grant the platform for multiple people to expose examples of their individual everyday to multiple viewers. Thus, making the subject less confrontational as it is both expected and accepted. Where previously, this was seen as a unique practice, as seen by Billingham and Day, it is now a common occurrence and with this the reading of the series becomes different.

The internet offers a means of wider photographic dissemination and larger audience viewership, the internal private family album is now an outwardly focused social event. McQuire (2013) says that everyone is an image-maker, but also, potentially, a publisher and archivist. The photographer is not a ‘named’ person, such as that of Billingham and Day, producing photography for a specific artistic audience. The photographer is an everyday person showcasing their life to a select group of friends and family, but with the addition of the photographs being accessible to a potential unknown and global audience. As McQuire (2013) states, amateur photography was once reserved for special occasions, far greater numbers of people are routinely carrying cameras in the course of their everyday life, most often incorporated in ‘phones’, and this is creating exponential growth in the number of photographs captured. There becomes the lacking ability to conceal secrets. The personal relationship between photograph and viewer has been replaced with a, partly, anonymous act. Kuhn (2002) explains that by bringing secrets into the open, issues can be reflected and confronted, resulting in an understanding at all levels. Due to the transient nature of the digital the values of the album have somewhat changed.

As a comparison to both Billingham and Day, my parents family album is stark contrast one that also follows the previous noted expectations of Perloff and Batchen. It is the recording of events, used to evoke memory and recollection. Scenes that including my brother and I alongside my mother resonate across others experiences of family, figures 6 and 7. The moments are that of summer vacations, holidays and leisure activities. These photographs are slid into plastic sleeves, neatly organised amongst the pages of the album which in turn are filed beside similar back and red faux leather albums.

Figure 6

Figure 7

In comparison to these albums, which stopped nearly fifteen years ago with the advancement and affordability of digital mediums, are the electronic albums my Dad now curates on his computer and Mum curates on Facebook. The subjects of the photographs have changed from children to grandchildren and the extended family, but the same Perloff and Batchen expectations as noted before.

Figure 8

Figure 9

There is a large amount of photographs uploaded to the internet everyday. In an article, Woollaston (2018) states that 95 million photographs are uploaded to Instagram everyday, alongside 4.2 billion likes and photographic interactions. Schmid’s (2007) opinion is that out of the vast quantities of photographs that are produced the majority of these remain unseen. In Durden’s (2003) article Schmid jokes, “No more new photographs until the old ones have been used up!”. Sontag (1983) says the true modern belief is not to regard the image as a real thing, which in the abundance of digital photography has more relevance then when first written, photographic images are hardly real. Instead, reality has come to seem more and more like what we are shown by cameras. The digital family album is now a never ending confusion of recorded personal history through masses of events, people and places. Incorporating close relationships as well as fleeting appearances. An individuals family album is now composed of, and able to contribute to, a plethora of linked and connected digital albums.

Schmid states in an interview with Taylor, (Flasher, 2009):

“Many of my colleagues think that the digital age is the end of photography. I think it’s the beginning. We really start working with pictures now. So what people did with cameras during the past one hundred and fifty years were preliminaries, but now we start, for the first time in history I think, we have a chance to look at other people’s photography”

This is true when looking at the topic of the family album. Others now have the chance to look at other people’s family albums through the use of the internet. However, these photographers become the curators, being aware of the viewer, aware of the possibilities for judgment and responding accordingly. Hirsch (1997) explains that the familiar look, then, is not the look of a subject looking at an object who is looking at an object but a mutual look of a subject looking at an object who is subject looking (back) at an object. Within the family, as I look I am always also looked at, seen, scrutinised, surveyed, monitored. As such, how true are the photographs that are being presented, how has the individual alternated or edited for the benefit of the audience. Batchen (2004) explains that family albums give the everyday people the opportunity to represent their autobiographies in artful combinations of words and pictures. As a result, the family album becomes as a way to show off, through the history of a family through people, places and events.

Barthes (2000) explains, in a personal way, the use of family albums. Saying, the only photograph in which he found his father and mother together, were a couple who he know loved each other. But realised, after his own passing, this know fact would be unknown and disappear forever. This is the underlying theme that is repeated and returned to. Batchen (2004) summarises that photograph is used to preserve time, it is a way to keep time from slipping away, yet ironically a photograph, if anything, shows us the progress of time. Bazin’s (2005) statement summarises this; saying that all are agreed that the image helps us to remember the subject and to preserve them from a second death.

Gough (1997, p.140) as quoted by McQuire (2013, p.229), says that:

“Photographic technique is essentially an act of subjugation, in which people are inevitably reduced to objects for the use of the photographer ... To build an alternative practice, a convivial photography, we need to abolish this oppressive relationship. Co-authorship must be established beforehand. It is impossible to fight oppression by reproducing it.”

Family albums were made in collaboration, they held the family secrets, as Kuhn (2002) says, those that live in families make every effort to conceal certain things from the rest of the world. These secrets were held within the family, they were internal, shared with a few. Then, with the increase in the use of internet to share photographs, these images became outward facing. Hoskins (2009) argues that digital medias are producing not only new metaphors but a new paradigm of memory:

“The very use of these [file sharing] systems contributes to a new memory – an emergent digital network memory – in that communications themselves dynamically add to, alter and erase, a kind of living archival memory.”

The personal interpretation still exists. However with an addition of self-curation, this led to the self-curation of secrets. The album is externally viewable, but what is to be included is consciously defined by the photographer. The decisions of what or who to include or not, are based on the comparison to other similar albums. The family album has moved from being a method of personal, poignant memory, to be that of a way to demonstrate presence at a particular place and time. Whilst Perloff (2002) argues that family photography is a set of clichés they have been unconsciously absorbed, with families wanting these pictures to resemble those they already know. McQuire (2013) states that a range of new ‘evidencing’ practices, from intensive self and peer scrutiny via social networks now occurs. He goes on to further argue that photography is becoming less about, what Kodak phrased, in it's adverting campaign, capturing ‘memories’ and more about commenting on present events as they are taking place.

Bibliography

Bachelard, Gaston. (1994). The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press. Barthes, Roland. (2000). Camera Lucida. Vintage.

Batchen, Geoffrey. (2004). Forget Me Not: Photography and Remembrance. New York: Princeton Architectural; London: Hi Marketing [distributor].

Bazin, Andre. (2005). What is Cinema?. Berkeley, Calif; London: University of California Press. Benjamin, Walter. (2008). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. London:

Penguin.

Briggs, Asa. (2005). A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity.

Caygill, Howard. (1998). Walter Benjamin for Beginners. Icon.
Crowley, D. J. (2007). Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society.

5th ed. International ed. Boston; London: Pearson Education.

Dominick, Joseph R. (2007). Dynamics of Mass Communication: Media in the Digital Age. 9th ed. McGraw-Hill.

Durden, Mark (2003). Parachute. Photography, Anonymity and the Archive: Joachim Schmid. 109, pp116-27.

Facehooked. (2007). BBC2. 21st December 2007.

Gail Baylis (2014) A Few Too Many Photographs? Indexing Digital Histories, History of Photography. 38:1, pp3-20.

Gere, Charlie. (2002). Digital Culture. London: Reaktion.
Gibbons, Joan. (2007). Contemporary Art and Memory: Images of Recollection and

Remembrance. London: I. B. Tauris.
Hirsch, Marianne. (1997). Family Frames: Photography, Narrative, and Postmemory.

Cambridge: Mass; London: Harvard University Press.

Kuhn, Annette. (2002). Family Secrets. London: Verso.

Langford, Martha. (2004). Suspended Conversations. London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

McQuire, S. (2013). Photography’s afterlife: Documentary images and the operational archive. Journal of Material Culture, 18(3), pp.223-241.

Merewether, Charles. (2006). The Archive. London: Whitechapel; Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Page 14 of 16

Candidate Number: 33325226 Module Code: SO71070D

Perloff, Marjorie. (2002). What has Occurred Only Once. In: Wells, Liz. (ed). The Photography Reader, pp.31-41. Routledge.

Schaffner, Ingrid. (1998). Deep Storage: Collecting, Storing, and Archiving in Art. Munich; New York: Prestel.

Sefton-Green, Julian. (2004). Digital Diversions: Youth Culture in the Age of Multimedia. Routledge.

Sontag, Susan. (1983). A Susan Sontag Reader. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Sontag, Susan. (2002). On Photography. London: Penguin.

Stald, Gitte. (2002). Global Encounters: Media and Cultural Transformation. Luton: University of Luton.

Weber, John S. (ed) (2007). Joachim Schmid: Photoworks 1982 - 2007. Brighton: Photoworks. Webster, Frank. (1980). The New Photography: Responsibility in Visual Communication.

London: John Calder; New York: Riverrun Press.
Wells, Liz. (ed) (2002). The Photography Reader. London: Routledge.
Wells, Liz. (ed) (2004). Photography: A Critical Introduction. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Woollaston, V. (2018). Instagram now has half a billion users. [online] Wired.co.uk. Available at: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/instagram-doubles-to-half-billion-users [Accessed 10 Apr. 2018].

Page 15 of 16

Candidate Number: 33325226 Module Code: SO71070D

Illustrations

Figure 1
Billingham, Richard. (1996). Ray’s a Laugh.

Figure 2
Billingham, Richard. (1996). Ray’s a Laugh.

Figure 3
Billingham, Richard. (1996). Ray’s a Laugh.

Figure 4
Day, Corrine. (2000). Diary.

Figure 5
Day, Corrine. (2000). Diary.

Figure 6
Gavin Family Album, circa 1990.

Figure 7
Gavin Family Album, circa 1990.

Figure 8
Gavin Family Album, circa 2010.

Figure 9
Gavin Family Album, circa 2010.