This is Sarah of sheffield and I. It is very early in the evening of June 24th 2004. I sought out the photo as Sarah reminded me of the event the other day and how later that night I lost one of my vintage shoes, in the comments here, Sarah of Sheffield explains ...
The photograph is an artefact of identity, but of course it could be a fake identity. I think the picture is quite weird as Sarah is looking into the camera and I am not - but I thought I was. Very weird. It makes me look a bit disingenuine.
(But now this post is not about that. Although of course I do recommend Sarahof sheffield's blog - and you will see she mentions two folk singers here who were on a tv programme DrKate mentioned here and which I watched and liked. Synchronicity, man.)
Aaaanyway.
I have started to read this excellent book. Only the introduction so far but am really finding it provocative and absorbing. It talks about the MATERIALITY of IMAGES and at first I thought I would want to challenge all it said in terms of it not applying to online photographs... drawing on Barthes, the editors (Edwards and Hart) remind us of the photograph as object, as an item to hold which accrues history .
This kind of thing. Or this.
Edwards and Hart say that a photograph is three dimensional, not two. It can be turned and held. And yet today we can say that many images - perhap the most commonly seen images (?) are digitised - on tv or cinema or pc or camera phone or playstation etc etc. Therefore they are not held in that same way.
But then if you think about the notion of SPACE as a more abstract thing, as a metaphor and of materiality as metaphor - then maybe we can STILL talk about the materiality of the image. We can think about the materiality of images and the role they play in people's lives. The editors in their introduction say, ' 'Materiality translates the abstract and representational 'photography' as objects that exist in time and space.' (page 2)
Anyway I want to pursue this idea, puzzling about whether digitised images can be considered as material artefcats. I am going to looking at a lot of work around images and stuff including this book and this by Annette Kuhn.
I'll keep you posted ... as Digigran would say.
6 comments:
That photo would be before you fell asleep?
It was funny to see that photo of us when I popped into your blog this morning! There's another hilarious one from that night which I'll post on my blog in about 5 minutes...
Invented memories are interesting, especially as I based mine on a real event and not only that but a real event where invented or forgotten memories are not an uncommon occurrence i.e. a drink fuelled formal celebration. I have already started to think of the 'vintage shoe' incident as bona fide fact.
Glad you like the Tim and Jeff Buckley eulogy, I love them...
All lies should be woven through with indisputable truths; then people believe them. Or so I always say when I am teaching about Urban Legends. But luckily I don't do that any more.
Yes TT this was hours before I fell asleep.
I think the notion of invention and narrative is v. interesting.
Does it matter if we make everything up?
i ahve jsut interviewed an artists who says it doesnt matter if everything is made up, but museum curators get dreadfully worried if you try and say soemthign is pretend they are obsessed with PROVENANCE.
and I am obsessed with traces, and the trails of our lives, so does that mean I am a realist...?
Sorry Dr Joolz your posts make me think so much I am thinking allowed. x
Actually Dr Joolz, I think it would be more correct to say that the photo was taken hours before you woke me up so you could fall asleep
I love the idea of thinking allowed. Generally it isn't where I work.
are we having a domestic?
Post a Comment