Full album here.

A photograph is more than just an image. This statement was partly inspired by the idea put forward by Sean O’Hagan in his article that a photograph is made, and not taken. Photography is more than pointing a camera at something and clicking the shutter, in fact, you can take photos without even using a camera at all – all you need is light and photographic paper. Hubert Damisch also reinforces this idea:

‘Theoretically speaking, photography is nothing more than the process of inscribing… a stable image generated by a ray of light. This definition, we note, neither assumes the the use of a camera nor does it imply that the image obtained is that of an object or scene from the external world.’

He goes on to purport that a photograph does not belong to the natural world; it is a product of human labour. It is also a form of craft, that can be experimented with: in the words of Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, ‘the enemy of the photograph is convention.’ Photography is many things: it can be placed in different contexts, remixed, and made in various different ways, but most importantly it is intrinsically linked with humanity, especially with memory and history. This connection to memory and history is essential to photography (Murray) – so a photograph is more than just an image not only in the different ways a photograph can be produced and contextualised, but also in the way it carries meaning for us. A family photograph is not going to have the same impact on someone who doesn’t know the people in the photo, as it is to someone who knows intimately the people in the photograph. Photographs are always going to be a representation of something, and because of this it is impossible for them to be completely objective. It is invariably going to have some personal element, no matter how minute.

I focused on this connection to memory in my exploration of the statement through the media artifact. I found photos of my mothers family in old photo albums. These photos have a lot of meaning to me because of seeing how different my family was in the 60s, and how they have has developed and changed. Someone else who looks at the photo won’t know any of this, so they won’t feel this connection and the same feelings – aside from maybe sharing my amusement for their gorgeous 60s outfits.

I took the photos, scanned them, and placed the copies in Adobe Photoshop. I then drew over the photo with the Paintbrush tool and a Wacom drawing tablet. Thereby, I created an alternate version of the photograph, which is not quite a drawing and not quite a photograph. This process forced me to look at the photo with a level of scrutiny that one wouldn’t usually use to look at a photo, the colours, the shapes, the tiny details in the subject’s faces and expressions. Whilst my hands and eyes were busy, I also had a lot of time to reflect on the photographs and my family situation, and at one point I even had to stop because I was getting too emotional. 

After making these media artifacts, the meaning of the photographs has changed for me. Especially now, they are more than just images.

Works cited:

• Damisch, Hubert (1978). ‘Five Notes for a Phenomenology of the Photographic Image.’ October, Vol. 5, pp 70-72.
• Murray, Susan. (2008, August 1) ‘Digital Images, Photosharing, and Our Shifting Notions of Everyday Aesthetics.’ Journal of Visual Culture, Vol 7, Issue 2.
• O’Hagan, Sean (2016, July 3). ‘The digital age reshapes our notion of photography. Not everyone is happy…’ The Observer.
• Risatti, Howard (2007). ‘A Theory of Craft: Function and Aesthetic Expression’ North Carolina Press, USA.