She first speaks of the family as the backbone of the State in the sense that the ideology maintains the status quo and, at the same time has economic value to capitalism. What is interesting is that the state has promoted (in opposition to latter ideology) images of the family as independent but at the same time, they are all the same (cuts across power, race, class etc...) Photographs are the most popular of these images as they are "means through which ideological representations are produced; like the family, it is an economic institution with its own structures and ideology."(334)
Williamson introduces three types of production relationships in the area of photography and the family:
1) photograph as commodity in the "public sphere" in the sense that we consume family images. This includes the very popular practice of buying or looking at magazines such as People or O.K.! which often include pictures of film stars and their family - especially when babies are born. Although I do not buy such materials, I have been known for looking at them when standing in line at a grocery store or when I am at my partner’s parents’ home where they are bought on a weekly basis. The attraction always stem from a curiosity into the lives of the rich and famous but also from the interest in knowing that they are just as human as we are and have "real" family live (whatever that means). Williamson speaks of this consumption in terms of us trying to identify with the family in the photograph and also imitate this image of the family. I think that perhaps the non rich and famous might think that the lives of Stars and their families are maybe happier and not as disfunctional as most our families are and as result consume the images to try to imitate what they see in their own lives. Does that even make sense?
2)photograph as commodity in the ‘private’ sphere in the sense that we consume ourselves by buying representations of ourselves such as family and wedding pictures. I have never thought about having professional photographs taken and then buying the product that comes of it as consuming myself and my loved ones. I see it more as a keepsake, a more professional way to have lasting memories of a specific event or time in our lives.
3)the camera as commodity in the ‘private’ sphere by families producing representations of itself instead of consuming.
Photography has developed contemporary image of family by making them look alike despite class and race differences for example. We assume because they are dressed in similar styles of clothing and are photographed in a certain context or place that they are equals. That race, power, sex and class differences are non existent because they photograph does not depict it. We do not interrogate pass the image. It is to have great power to be able to present images in such ways.
Here we have two photos dipicting families at dinner time...are the equals because they seem to be engaging in similar activities; do we question class, race, abilities etc...?
Family photographs have taken on two types: formal (ie: weddings) and informal (ie: family holidays)
Family photographs are also now meant to symbolise ‘fun’ whether through the image itself or through the process of taking the informal pictures. "internal states of constant delight are to be revealed on film. Fun not only be had, it must be seen to have been had."(339) They are meant to symbolise fun but sometimes, especially in more formal type photography we have to pretend like we’re having fun for the photograph to ‘turn out’. I remember as a child, my family was not that keen on family portraits but the one year that my mother decided that we ‘needed’ to have a decent family picture taken by a professional, all 3 children and my father dreaded the experience of having to put on matching clothes (because we dress like this every day!?) and ‘having to’ smile for the annoying photographer. Notice how formal pictures and sometimes the informal ones, make you pull out that smile that is obviously forced? Well, that year, the family photos were terrible. Eyes closed, people slouching, fake smiles, no smiles. My mother was upset because we did not ‘look’ like a happy normal family. I didn’t understand at the time but I can see that she might have been comparing our photos to those who looked like they had had fun during the process of production.
Two family pictures from two very different time period. Today we seem to want to represent the family as happy and having a good time. In the past, it was more formal photographs and does not depict any sense of 'fun'.
Williamson asks the questions: "What is repressed in family photographs."(339) Whose memories are being made of this? - Is the parents’ memory of that moment imposed onto the child? Do we ever wonder why we never or rarely see ‘unhappy’ pictures in a family album? I see it as a way to repress the unhappy times of a family’s history. A family album has been made to be an object to reminisce of the ‘good times’ that were had, the ones that are consistent with the typical family image sometimes. I think it would be interesting to experiment with different images and representations of family and see how random people react and interpret the images.
Would we ever see this in a family album? I know this is obviously a dramatization but it represents possible family scenarios.
Another point I wanted to make is that now with digital cameras we also choose which picture to even produce. If someone in the photograph looks different or unhappy, we tend to delete them and start over. It does not represent the "moment" if we are able to do that. It does not represent the person in her or his natural state. We wouldn’t want to consume them... We tear up pictures of old boyfriends or cut them out and keep the picture of us...
No comments:
Post a Comment