Memories in Photography
I have explored the theme of memory in photography before. What the photographic image means to us and how it can alter and shape the memory which is depicted in the image is a fascinating area of research. I have revisited my work from the Landscape unit as I can apply what I have learned and add to this research to apply the concepts I write about below to my new unit (Dalgleish, 2020)
How do we maintain a grip of those who have been lost to us if our memories are less than perfect? Interesting to me is how a cold almost mechanical image of a scan is at one time a photograph of a real person yet at same time manages to strip away any sense of the real person. How then, will someone in the future who does not know me or my children, think if they see a scan? How can I shape these thoughts and as my tutor pointed out to me, give my children’s images a new meaning and perhaps a new life? My project in Photography 3 then becomes a complex blend of dealing with memory through use of medical scan images, dealing with my own memory and hurt and finding a way to communicate who the people behind these scans are or were.
A previous tutor on an earlier unit of this course provided a useful description on the past and history – which I have referred back to many times as I have found it useful to remind myself: –
“The past is something which has occurred and can never be brought back, whereas history could be described as being something somebody has written about the past …. which is not the past itself …. and might come from a particular viewpoint or angle. In relation to photography, the image is not a memory of the past …. as memory is something that happens in the present … but could be described as being a trigger for memory.” (Jenkins, 2003)
This is a very interesting subject to me. The very idea of a photograph as a “trigger for memory” is complicated. As each of us is different, we cannot all think or feel the same when we look at an image. A photograph as a trigger actc in different ways for each of us. The photograph is not a true expression of “truth” for many reasons including that when the image taken was subject to the whims and preferences of the photographer. Also, it is clear that a still image is the output of a machine and isn’t how humans experience the world in real time. Add in whether the photograph might be taken in monochrome or with high contrast or indeed as with medical photography, if the image shows things we don’t normally see such as inside of a skull and the photographs move further and further away from how the world as each of us experiences it. A useful starting point to try and understand how humans experience the world is perhaps by comparing the camera lens and the human eye. Both have tools to control how much light enters the lens, aperture in the lens (or camera body depending on which brand is used) and the pupil diameter in the eye. Both deliver an upside down image to the film or censor at the back of the camera lens or to the retina in the eye. After this the eye streaks ahead with it’s complexity and sophistication. The eye is vastly more sensitive to light than is the camera lens. It focusses by using muscles to change the shape of the eye, we can track and follow motion, in fact our eyes can be triggered by motion when we see something and our eyes jump to that spot, we have peripheral vison. Most importantly out of all these things is that the eye is connected to the brain via the optic nerve which allows humans to form and correct images in our brains in tandem and almost at exactly the same time as we see. (Kamps, 2017) The complexity I speak of above is epitomised by vision which most of us take for granted from the moment we waken until we sleep. The complex ways we remember vision and store and recycle and cast up what we have seen in our memories and dreams is very interesting. Another area to consider is what is meant by truth and whether I see the world in the same way as the next person. Cognitive scientist Julian Matthews speaks of the salience of sensory information. He describes how when something has been seen or heard and the experience is recounted, the perception of how bright or loud the event might be to each of us might be very different. In addition our perception of how bright or loud something might be is influenced by what we have experienced in the past. (Matthews, 2019)
Another area to consider when thinking about memory and the past might be if we experience somthing first hand or if we are told about it or watch it on TV or read about it. In archaeological and historical terms, one of concepts talked about is that of primary and secondary sources. A primary resource could be said to be a first-hand record of an event created at the time of the event.
“Primary sources may include letters, manuscripts, diaries, journals, newspapers, speeches, interviews, memoirs, documents produced by government agencies such as Congress or the Office of the President, photographs, audio recordings, moving pictures or video recordings, research data, and objects or artifacts such as works of art or ancient roads, buildings, tools, and weapons. These sources serve as the raw material to interpret the past” [Gonzalez, 2020]
Similarly, a secondary source is something one or more than one step removed from the original event. The secondary resource has the benefit of hindsight.
“Secondary sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. A secondary source is generally one or more steps removed from the event or time period and are written or produced after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. Secondary sources often lack the freshness and immediacy of the original material. On occasion, secondary sources will collect, organize, and repackage primary source information to increase usability and speed of delivery, such as an online encyclopedia. Like primary sources, secondary materials can be written or non-written (sound, pictures, movies, etc.)” (Santiago Canyon College, 2020)
An example for a trigger for retrieval of stored memory might be if we were to smell something or to see hear a particular sound or if we see something. In archaeological terms I might imagine that when we use these senses that this is the same as the primary source and so this might be more closely related to the original event based on how we as humans experience the world around us. However, I must go back to Jenkins text and remember that smelling or hearing is not a primary source at all. To be a primary source I would have to smell and hear the original event. When I hear a particular sound or smell a particular odour, I am accessing a memory of an event. One stage further is when I listen to a sound recording or look at a photograph. Both are examples of mechanical constructs which mimic what we hear or see and I might think of these as secondary sources. But if the sound recording or the photograph is taken at the point of the event is it a first hand source as described by Gonzalez or does my perception of it in the current time make it a second hand source? Looking at a photograph might trigger a memory recall but there must be some interpretation of what we see in the photograph. Because I am interpreting the photographic image or the sound, the memory recall is not a perfect copy of reality. Equally my perception of an original event might be open to change as my memory changes over the years. Especially as we age, am I remembering the actual event or am I recalling an amalgamation of the actual event with the event as captured in the photograph? This is most obviously thought about by the angle of view of a photograph which might even include ourselves in the frame. It might be that I am unable to remember taking the photograph and cannot remember the view first hand. However, if I keep looking at the photograph will I then come to “remembr” the view? This idea of what happened in the past and how this is remembered is a complex area which I will need to do more study on.
In addition to the photographer’s input and the image which we overlay against our memory, are technical considerations. We think of digital music as having a different “feel” than analogue recordings, so, is the memory trigger from an image from an old 35mm slide or print different to that on a more recent digital file viewed on a computer monitor?
It becomes clear that, no matter what is used as the trigger for memory, the human mind will always apply some form of filter. This filter impacts how I might react to the memory trigger and must therefore impact how the memory is replayed.
In his 1974 essay/interview “Film and Popular Memory” Michel Foucault speaks of using artificial, mechanical devices to aid memory. He calls this prosthetic memory, David Bate references this in his 2010 essay, “The Memory of Photography”: –
“The negative critique of prosthetic devices on memory is not new. In a 1974 essay/interview “Film and Popular Memory” Michel Foucault complained that popular memory was being obstructed, that “a whole number of apparatuses, have been set up (‘popular literature, cheap books and the stuff that’s taught in school as well’) to obstruct the flow of this ‘popular memory’” (91). Following Louis Althusser’s work, Foucault argues that the effect of these (ideological) apparatuses has been “reprogramming popular memory, which existed but had no way of expressing itself. So, people are shown not what they were, but what they must remember having been” (91). In my view, this pre-digital struggle is no different from the struggles over popular memory in the new so-called digital domain of the photographic image.” (Foucault, 1974)
This idea of how photography interacts with visual memory and how we view the past is one I want to explore further.
References
Bate, D. (2010) The Memory of Photography, Photographies, 3:2, 243-257, [ONLINE] Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17540763.2010.499609 [Accessed 2nd July 2020]
Dalgleish, R, (2020) The Past, History and Memory, Personal OCA Landscape Blog, [online] Available at https://richarddalgleish.com/the-past-history-and-memory/ [Accessed 17th Feb 2022]
Foucault, M. (1974) Film and Popular Memory. Reprinted in Michel Foucault, Foucault Live. New York: Semiotext(e), 1989
Gonzalez, Alisa (2020), “Primary Sources for Anthropology & Archaeology”, New Mexico State University, [ONLINE] Available at https://nmsu.libguides.com/c.php?g=545480&p=5719488 [Accessed 2nd July 2020]
Jenkins, K. (2003). Rethinking History. London. Routledge
Kamps, H.J. (2017) What’s the difference between a camera and a human eye?, Photography Secrets [ONLINE] Available at https://medium.com/photography-secrets/whats-the-difference-between-a-camera-and-a-human-eye-a006a795b09f [Accessed 2nd July 2020]
Matthews, J. (2019) Why Two People See the Same Thing But Have Different Memories, Neuroscience News.com [ONLINE} Available at https://neurosciencenews.com/same-event-different-memory-10405/ [Accessed 2nd July 2020]
Santiago Canyon College (2020), “Identifying Primary and Secondary Resources”, Santiago Canyon College, Rancho Santiago Community College District, [ONLINE] https://sccollege.edu/Library/Pages/primarysources.aspx [Accessed 2nd July 2020]