I have been considering how, in the modern age, we present what is valuable to us through use of photography. Taking photographs of people, places, moments, and things of value to us, as well as accomplishments, sometimes in the form of screenshots of our phones themselves – (I’m thinking specifically here of times I have screenshotted my running stats, and proudly sent it to friends).
Photos hold representational value, as they are usually of a subject that is more the treasured, except in cases when photographs themselves are the valued item. This often becomes the case for photographs as moments pass and people/ things age or are gradually forgotten amid every day happenings, and more significant memories. Photographs themselves hold value in how they keep a moment present, offering reminders that are sometimes displayed in people’s homes; in past eras – have been filed away in a system (or not) in boxes in some sort of storage, and yet when viewed again can bring memories of occasions and people flooding back. Just as much as a photograph that is framed and kept on display in a home.
For better or worse, it feels harder to forget about photographs, and therefore moments in this digital age where memories are, in many cases, presented daily on smart phones, and even if they aren’t – they’re easier to find than in the hardcopy filing systems of generations gone by. This accessibility can aid memory; has in the past (certainly in my case) proved arguments with evidence of what can be seen on what date, time, etc. However, this is an era I feel we have scarily surpassed. Knowing that so much imagery, be it through photographs or video, audio, etc, can be manipulated or even wholly faked means we have passed the time of images being able to prove arguments and aid memory, and entered into a new age of potential trickery. This concept may seem a little far-fetched, and yet is a worthy consideration to make in light of present scams that may affect anyone unaware of what they are looking at or dealing with.
To tangent only slightly, I think the value of image placement is a key factor in how people are affected by photographs. This can be as simple as the setting in which we are seeing the photo. Let’s say we are in an old family home, in the loft, sorting through boxes of things we have long forgotten about, or maybe have never seen before. In this type of setting, photographs will likely evoke many emotions. We may, or may not, be expecting to see those photographs, and (before the current digitalisation of images) have likely forgotten about them or perhaps weren’t aware they existed. They may spur questions, conversations, and further memories. This setting may lend itself more to that interaction, in comparison with the modern day viewing of images on phone screens as a way of remembering something. Although, it is true that photographs may be shared via messages, and therefore create a different type of interaction or exchange. It could also be said that this modernism of easily viewable photographs, and memories, can lead to a type of mental over-exposure, and in the current age I think we take the ease of being able to access memories for granted. As an extreme example – I have saved and resaved the same photos to my own phone on multiple occasions, as I’ve got so many photos in albums, that I’ve been initially unable to find the original.
Going back to my earlier point on faked, or AI images – we are at risk of allowing these images to be common place, and therefore confused with factual, real images; especially as technology and AI software improves past easily identifiable mistakes (such as producing images of people with too many fingers on their hands, etc).
Essays I read before beginning this thought-entry included “In Defence of the Poor Image”, by Hito Steyerl; and “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, by Walter Benjamin. For the latter I also watched John Berger’s video on the same article, available via the following link – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdw3xRrBmlc
Squirrel M. Lambert 