The Meaning of Family Photographs

The Meaning of Family Photographs By Charles Williams pic Vanek family members dance. The family is on vacation. A become defends taboo his point-and-shootcamera, poses his wife and kids and takes a quick snapshot. even sotually, the icongraph is filed away in the family ikon album. A meanless activity? Maybe non. Everyday, thousands of family hits be taken with little regard for the kernel of therecorded foresee. Much attention has been compensable to scholars views ofdomestic life.However, relatively little attention has been paid tocultural outputs, much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as photo albums, that gather in been generatedby families themselves (Trend, 1992). By neglecting discussion onthis pillow slip, scholars signify that the spot is not a place ofserious academic work (Trend, 1992). nevertheless researchers increasingly arstudying the meaning behind the photographs. April Saul won showtime-class honours full stopplace in the lineament Picture Story category at the 1992 Pictures ofthe Year competition for her im mortalation of the Ameri enkindle family. She desired that family struggles were an crucial topic of journalism. I hope what it winning means is that the familiar struggles of anAmeri piece of ass family be as valid in their own way as the struggles deprivationon in Azerbajian or Sarajevo &8212 and that the private wars bordering doorcan be as have as the bloody, public whizs thousands of milesaway. Family photographs can be asked cultural artifacts beca handlingthey document the events that make out families lives. Thus, therecording of family history becomes an significant endeavor. In many chemises, photographs atomic number 18 the only biographical significant state leavebehind by and by they die (Boerdam, Martinius, 1980).But, the impact offamily photo albums extends beyond plainly recording history. recitation of family structures, relationships and self ispossible through viewing family photographs. The Meaning of family photographs Interpretation of meaning behind photographs assumes that they are ameans of communication (Entin, 1979). Family photographs can tell astory. one(a) photograph can be a mini-slice of an occurrence, scarcely theaccumulation of delivers begins to reveal wind of consistent themesand patterns. For all practical purposes, they become an informalphoto essay.Much like family storytelling, photographs indicaterelationships within and among the family. Indeed, the family photoalbum is an short way to initiate internationalrs to family history (Boerdam,Martinius, 1980). Photographs domiciliate an light(a) topic of conversationallowing potency family members, such as boyfriends or girlfriends,to be initiated into family structures and tradition. A key principleto consider when interpreting photographs is that they are produced bychoice. Choices astir(predicate) who, what, when and where to photograph can sayas a rock-steady dea l more or less the photographer as the subject.The camera does not precisely record an event but alike records what the photographer choosesto see. Photographs are a statement intimately ones perception of theworld. They are a reflection and definition of self. If that personhas a gifted family, then others whitethorn perceive him to be a good husbandor wife. Parents innocent snapshots are important in constructingtheir sense of identity (Merz, 1988). Traditionally, photographs havebeen taken from a male perspective. The father is most lots absentfrom family photographs because he is the one who normally commandsauthority, poses the family and takes the picture (Trend, 1992).The family photographer isnt the only one who has authority to shape thefamily image. Other peck whitethorn edit the photos. Some photographs areselected for proveation in an album while others are rejected. Control of the editorial process can be as important as control overproduction of the photograph s. Decisions regarding what to keep,throw away and dis tomboy can provide valuable instruction approximately theperson assembling the album. History of Family Portraiture Portraits of family members originally were produced by earlypainters.Prior to the Twentieth century, family portraits were astatement of power and profession. Paintings were expensive and timeconsuming to produce, thereby limiting subject matter to heads ofstate, military leaders, royalty or other members of the ruling class. When the daguerreotype was enceinte (1840-1860), early inventors andphotographers were well respected and be recollectiveed to the social elite. When the process was cheaper, citizenry began going to photographicstudios, usually during special occasions such as weddings where aserious, dignified cash machine was observed.The well-respected natureof photography, elegant studio furnishings and the knowledge that apermanent image was being created, caused the atmosphere to be tenseand the portraits to appear rigid (Boerdam, Martinius, 1980). Becausefilm speeds were relatively slow, long exposures were necessary whichrequired subjects to remain nonmoving for long periods of time. However, in the later half of the Nineteenth century, impressionistpainters such as Vincent Van Gogh changed the manner in which manypeople constructed family portraits.His paintings were of commonpeople in common situations do a shift from formal to informalportraiture (Halle, 1991). Similar changes began to occur in thephotographic intermediate during the early Twentieth century. Streetphotographers began operating around family tourist attractions. Atthe time, fewer people have a camera so it wasnt unusual to have thefamilys picture taken at the beach by such photographers. As aresult, the change state and poses became to a greater extent relaxed and informal andthe backgrounds became more significant. These types of photos wereforerunners to the casual present-day family photograph. By the 1920sand 1930s, photo albums include both formal studio portraiture andcarefree vacation shots (Boerdam, Martinius, 1980). Advances intechnology increased the big businessman of the average person to produceinformal vacation pictures. George Eastman had introduced the firstKodak camera in 1885. You press the button, we do the rest, was thecompanys motto. Improvements continued, including introduction ofthe 35mm Leica in 1924 as well as technical advances such as smallercameras, faster films and flash. The scope of possible shootinglocations was increased with the invention of the flash.Indoorphotography, where much of own(prenominal) life is conducted, fell within therealm of the critic photographer. Technical capabilities beganproviding inner(a) access to the home. Changes in technologyparalleled changes in behavior. As more people owned cameras andbecame familiar with their workings, the photographic process becameless intimidating, and the proliferation of the equipmen t beganchanging the content of the photographs (Boerdam, Martinius, 1980). In assenting, people simply became change to being photographed. This in turn produced more casual situations, indeed more causalsubjects.In early photographs, the subjects were often posed, muchlike they had been for painters. The beach photographers offered amore relaxed style, but they too had the subjects stare straight intothe camera. A new kind of snapshot eventually would step up that nowdominates photo albums. It shows a group of people engaged in someongoing activity, not necessarily looking at the camera. A downsidedoes exist to the proliferation of simple cameras. When they becameinexpensive and easy to use, they flourished in American society. However, trade-offs were inevitable.The lack of need for technicalexpertise was counterbalanced by a lack of creative control. Point-and-shoot cameras are equipped with fixed-focus lenses andpre-set apertures ensuring that medium range shots are the nor m(Trend, 1992). Photography has become easier and thus more popular. Everyone has the potential to take good family photographs especiallysince the introduction of color-negative film which allows moreexposure latitude. The subsequent rise in the number of photos takenconfirms this fact. In the Netherlands in 1960, the number of colorphotographs taken was 600,000.In 1974, it was 103 million (Boerdam,Martinius, 1980). The easier-to-use cameras likely have acceleratedthe use of cameras by women to photograph their children. So eventhough the number of formal, solemn occasions is decreasing, thenumber of photographs is drastically increasing. Photographicrepresentation was possible as early as 1840. Yet society wasunprepared for such a revelation. An unplanned social processdeveloped that established which aspects of community life it wasappropriate to photograph (Boerdam, Martinius, 1980). As a result,communities established norms that continue to have an effect onsubject matter.Relat ionships among family members and amongrelatives are less formal and less controlled by religious and otherinstitutions outside of the family than in previous generations. Theinfluence of the church has diminished in some communities therefore,ceremonies such as baptisms are less essential sources of familyrecord keeping. (Boerdam, Martinius, 1980). Although most occasionscan be photographed from a technical indorsepoint, social and ethicallimitations on subject matter remain. Arguments, fights, sickness,death and sex are rarely documented photographically. This hasntalways been the case.Dead children were photographed during thenineteenth century, sometimes lying in a rocker and sometimes beingheld in their mothers arms. In Austria, so many people went to photostudios with deceased children that a public health threat was declaredand the government prohibited the coif (Boerdam, Martinius, 1980). Very few of these photographs exist today. It is likely that as theywere passed do wn in subsequent generations, and viewed as being inpoor taste and destroyed. Some researchers even believe that sexphotographs are becoming less taboo (Boerdam, Martinius, 1980).Inany case, family albums are rarely a true and accurate depiction ofthe family. Objectivity always remains questionable. The idealised atomic family Say cheese Its only smiles that count in photographs, states Laurie Taylor inher zany view of the family photo album. She wonders if the blankstares in a photograph are a testament to the blissful beginning of anaffair, or evidence of its traumatic concluding days? Photographs offamily members often are constructed with a skewed concept of reality. They usually depict an idealized nuclear family, meaning a husband,wife and children, enjoying pleasurable moments.In her disc FamilySnaps The Meanings of Domestic Photography, Patricia Holland saysThe compulsive smiles in the snapshots of today insist on theexclusive admit of the family group to provide satis fying and enduringrelationships, just as the calm extravagantly-handedness of earlier pictures emphasizedthe formality of family ties. The obsession with depicting thefamily as a united, happy entity is clear. In a study conducted byHalle, no head of the households divorced partner appeared in any ofthe pictures, and very few photographs depicted people as unhappy orlonely. The message is loud and clear.Hetero familiar marriage andchildren produce a gambol and satisfying life. By removed, most of thephotos showed the family at leisure, especially on foreign vacations. Formal pictures including those of people in business suits, militaryuniforms or wedding frock did exist, but only accounted for thirty share or less of the displayed photographs (Merz, 1988). Likewise,occasions in which a nuclear family would participate are depicted asfun. During the early 1960s, French sociologist Pierre Bourdieupublished a series of photographic essays that he titled Un art moyen.Bourdieu wondered why so many people wanted cameras and why thepractice of photography was so widespread. He believed it was morethan just a natural occurrence. Bourdieu concluded that similaritiesexist within family photographs. In a French market survey heconducted from 1962 to 1963, he concluded that more than two-thirds ofthe amateur photographers he interviewed take their photographs almostexclusively at predictable moments. They photographed particularlyat ceremonies, meetings and holidays (Boerdam, Martinius, 1980). Seldom are the photos a complete and accurate depiction of reality.Family image, not family history is depicted in the photographs thatare displayed. Major events that strongly influence peoples livesare completely ignored. One of the most unadorned situations that ismissing from the family album is work or anything to do with work(Merz, 1988). This is tragic because labor-related relationships andachievements form a substantial part of peoples lives. Alsoconspicuously mi ssing are photographs of dead children. Death andwork calculate to be taboo subjects in most photo albums. Displaying photographs in the homeCelebration rituals such as weddings or Christenings are recordeddivorces and funerals are not (Merz, 1988). Even within theserituals, the emphasis remains on the family. A study put thatalmost all the photographs displayed in households were of familymembers (Halle, 1991). Very few photos of friends, colleagues andstrangers were present. Friends were seen in wedding photos, but theevent depicts the joyous creation of a nuclear family. The number offamily photographs that are displayed in households is surprising. Inone study, almost all households were found to display photographs(Halle, 1991).As expected, the number of photos in a household wasgreater if the occupant had children or grandchildren. Although thiswasnt surprising, other factors such as sexuality were found to have aninfluence on decoration of the home. It was unusual that few erphotographs were found in homes where the head of the household was amale who held an artistic job such as photographer, decorator or filmmaker than for women in similar occupations. The discrepancy may haveresulted because women were more interested in the social aspects ofthe photograph as opposed to the esthetical aspects (Halle, 1991).Physical groupings also are important. Most family photographs aredisplayed in clusters. In one study, ixc percent of familyphotographs were displayed in groups of four or more (Halle, 1991). Pictures are constellate together even if the people in them are not. People are very seldom presented alone. It is very rare to find aphoto of one person displayed by itself, especially when that personis an adult resident of the house. This occurred in less than onehalf of one percent of the households that were tested (Halle, 1991).Children are often depicted alone, but they are too young to beexpected to maintain meaningful relationships. Those that aremeaningful are subject to transition. Todays high divorce rate castsa shadow over the nuclear family. Thus, the method of displayingphotographs may signify the instability of modern-day relationships. Most pictures are likely to stand free on tables, dressers, mantles orother flat surfaces as opposed to walls. Only about a third of familyphotographs hang on walls. Photos that are not hung on walls are moreeasily interchanged and regrouped. neighborly StructureFundamental changes to American society and the family structure maybe hampering the production of ancestral photography (Halle, 1991). The ties that once bound children to their parents are no longerpresent. care for homes, social security and pension plans haverelieved the youth from supporting their parents. Older people havebeen moving south to retirement communities, sometimes away from theirfamilies, so they can enjoy the warm weather. The manner in whichchildren relate to their parents has changed over the quondam (prenominal) fiftyyears, and the changing relationships may be reflected though thedisplay of photographs.Between 42 and 62 percent of households in onestudy displayed pictures of at least one parent. (Halle, 1991). Thenumbers quickly decreased as further generations were explored. Aboutten percent of households displayed a picture of at least onegrandparent, and about three percent displayed a picture of greatgrandparents. Of course, it is possible that the families may haveowned pictures but simply did not display them. Social class appearsto be a factor in the display of photographs. Differences wereobserved between albums produced by middle-class families and familiesof disappoint income or working classes.People with middle-classlifestyles had higher proportions of photographs of mutual friends andfriends of their children than working-class families (Gardner, 1991). Presumably cod to increased social ties associated with more socialprominence. project family albums included more pictures of thehusbands friends than the wifes. separate friendship patterns arecommonly found among working-class couples where the male is in chargeof the household (Gardner, 1991). Working-class families albums wereless kin oriented, but they see each other more often causinginteraction to become more routine.As an event becomes common, it isless likely to be photographed. In addition to social classdifferences, cultural differences may be a factor in the display ofphotographs. Only one in 105 households that were included in asample displayed a school photograph of a child together withclassmates (Halle, 1991). The home was occupied by a Japanese couple. Japanese society tends to be more collective than American society. Role Behavior An examination of photo albums was made to posit if differencesoccurred in the portrayal of people as they put on the role ofparents (Titus, 1976).Repetitive patterns in the parenting role canbe observed through photographs including feedi ng, holding the childand interactions with relatives. Albums were examined to determine ifthe photographs of parents after they had their first child weredifferent than those after they had subsequent children. It wasassumed that parents would become accustomed to many of the rolechanges, and the subsequent photographs would reflect these changes. Photographs of mothers caring for their first child were far moreprevalent than with subsequent children (Titus, 1976).The same wastrue of fathers. The number of solo portraits also decreased afterthe first child although this may not constitute a difference in call forion toward the first born, but simply an accustomization to newroles (Titus, 1976). Both the parents and the newborn child mustlearn new behavior. Parents may not have to re-learn their behaviorwith subsequent children. Even though one spouse may be more inclinedto take photographs, both spouses were significantly stand for inparenting photographs (Titus, 1976).However, mos t photographs werepredominately of pleasant tasks such as holding and feeding. While itmay have been necessary to hold children in order to present them tothe camera, this wouldnt have been the case when feeding. Picturesof parents feeding children were far more likely to occur with thefirst child. Very few photos of unpleasant tasks such as diaperingand bathing were included in the albums. therapeutical uses of family photographs Photographs can prove to be an invaluable source of education whenresolving personal problems.Photographs are not subject to memoryrecollection, and a persons portrayal of events can be quitedifferent from what appears in the photographs (Kaslow, 1979). Theinformation is intimate because family photographs are collected fromthe inside compared with journalistic institutions, which usuallyoperate as outsiders (Titus, 1976). Photo albums and home moviesprovide the richest sources of memories about the family (Entin,1979). They offer an intimate look at per sonal relationships. Psychologists recently have begun using this display of intimacy tohelp firmness family conflicts.Photographs have the power to conjureup memories, sometimes painful, of bygone years. However, the reasonthat many people take photographs is to preserve happy memories. Whena relationship sours, the photographs that intentionally focus onhappy moments merely worsen the situation. It becomes painful toview all the good times without reference to the bad. Familyphotographs now are being used as a means of therapy to discuss thesechanges in lifestyles. The technique, often referred to asphototherapy, is effective because people from all socioeconomicgroups possess photos that can be discussed.A recapitulation of familyphotographs can often prompt people to talk about family stories,goals, events and history. Not only does phototherapy help peopledeal with issues of the past, but it also helps renew relationships inthe present (Entin, 1979). The mere presentation of photographs canreveal much about the organization, chaos or atomisation of apersons life. If peoples photo albums are disorganized andpartially complete, so too may be the case with their lives. Bygathering significant photos, patients often realize that pieces oftheir scrapbook are missing, prompting long overdue visits home.Sometherapists are using family photo reconnaissance as a means of dealingwith sexual problems (Kaslow, 1979). Desires toward spouses can beinhibited if deaths of parents, children or loved ones are not fullymourned. Kaslow has found that couples with sexual problems oftenhave a resurgence in desire after reviewing their wedding album. Problems such as female frigidity are sometimes traced back to earlyphotographs of women patients. Many times they appear sparklingclean, perfectly groomed and standing(a) prim and proper (Kaslow, 1979).The way people feel about their bodies can be witnessed inphotographs. Baggy clothes could indicate a puritanical lieu orsham e of the body leading to frigidity, impotence or infrequent sexualdesire (Kaslow, 1979). Body posture such as slumping may indicatedepression just as an upright military posture could indicate confidence. Thesize and prominence of family members portraits can indicateattitudes, such as favoritism, toward those portrayed (Entin, 1979). intromission in inappropriate locations such as the bedroom may evencause sexual inhibition.The storytelling nature of albums allowpsychologists to study patterns of photography to determine if changesin attitudes may be occurring. If a second child is photographedsignificantly more than the firstborn, psychologists may question thefamilies expectations concerning sex or attractiveness of the firstborn and whether problems such as illegitimacy, handicap ordisfigurement may play a role (Entin, 1979). In her book WaucomaTwilight Generations of the Farm, Dona Schwartz describes the mannerin which her photographs provided a background during her interv iews.The photographs showed enlarge of everyday life and the context inwhich events occurred in the community. The insight gained throughher own fieldwork and subjects responses to pictures was morevaluable than the certain content of the photographs (Schwartz, 1992). She compared her interview process with Christopher Musellosdescription of family viewing contexts. Musello believes familydiscussion of photographs establishes a verbal context delineatingwhat should be attended to and what significances are located in theimage, (Musello, 1980).Conclusions By viewing family photographs, much can be discovered about familystructures, relationships, and the self. Family photographs primarilyserve to remind people of good times with loved ones. This isapparent as the image of the nuclear family is eer repeated inthe photo albums of most families. Much research remains to be done inthe study of family photographs. Even though American society isobsessed with presenting the image of a happy nuclear family, moreresearch should be conducted on the portrayal of alternativelifestyles.Gay and lesbian couples, alternative families and singleparents need to have their family photographs analyzed to determine ifdiffering lifestyles significantly affect photo content. Also, photocontent produced during transitions in relationships such as divorces,separations and sibling rivalries needs to be studied. Additionally,content analysis of both American and foreign albums needs to beconducted to determine the degree to which cultural differences affectcontent. And finally, additional studies on the factors that affectediting decisions need to be conducted.The literature review producedmuch information on the benefits of photographic analysis topsychologists. However, there was little information on the manner inwhich other professionals, such as journalists, could use theinterpretive meaning of photographs. Historical documents, such asfamily photographs, can provide essential background information aswell as indicate important people and relationships within a story. by dint of my research component, I intend to discover the manner inwhich journalists use historical documents to provide story context. Because online newspapers ave the capability to provide greatercontext due to the potential comprehension of sound and video, I also planto investigate the way emerging technologies business leader affect presentationof contextual information. pic References Boerdam, Jaap and Warna Oosterbaan Martinius. (Oct, 1980). Family Photographs A Sociological Approach, The Netherlands Journal of Sociology, v16, n2, pp. 95-119. Gardner, Saundra. (May, 1991). Exploring the Family Album Social Class Differences in Images of Family Life, Sociological Inquiry, v61, n2, pp. 242-251. Halle, David. Summer, 1991). Displaying the Dream The Visual Presentation of Family and ego in the Modern American Household, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 22 pp. 217-229. Kaslow , Florence. (Summer, 1979). What personalized Photos Reveal About married Sex Conflicts, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 5 pp. 134-141. Merz, Caroline. (August, 1988). Smile, please, New national leader &038 Society, v1, n10, p. 42. Musello, Christopher. (1980). Studying the Home Mode An geographic expedition of Family Photography and Visual Communication, Studies in Visual Communication, v6, n1, pp. 3-42. Saul, April. (August, 1992). Compelling stories of private wars next door, News Photographer, p. 45. Schwartz, Dona. (1992). Waucoma Twilight Generations of the Farm, Washington Smithsonian Institution Press. Taylor, Laurie. (August, 1993). Camera Obscura, New Statesman &038 Society, v6p. 21. Titus, Sandra L. (August, 1976). Family Photographs and Transition to Parenthood, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38 525-530. Trend, David. (Feb, 1992). Look whos talking Narratives of Family Representations, Afterimage, v19, n7, p. 8.