“The Photograph does not call up the past, (nothing Proustian in a photograph).
The effect it produces upon me is not to restore, what has been abolished (by time, by
distance) but to attest that what I see has indeed existed.”
The Photograph does not necessarily say what is no longer, but only and for certain
what has been.
Several times in this article, the author mentions the aspect of past, memory and the confirmation of something existing (as shown in the above quotes). The author reiterates that a photograph does not exist to bring up nostalgia or remind one of the past, but only to say that that moment did exist. What happened in the photograph was real and tangible in the past. In my opinion however, I believe that a photograph can do both and that the two ideas are interrelated. One cannot exist without the other. Yes, the photograph is confirming what has been and what did exist, but if this is a subject in one’s past, it is also calling up the past. It is difficult for me to believe that all subjectivity can be removed when looking at one’s baby pictures or sorting through pictures of old friends. Memories surface and past events are recalled. Depending on the subject, I feel that photographs serve to present informative and confirm facts, as well as recall memories and past moments in time.
No comments:
Post a Comment