In her treatise on ‘Psychology and Photographic Theory’ Orla Cronin suggests that while the camera remains ‘a tool of the artistic and cultural elite with ‘practical uses in art and science’, it’s ‘democratization’ has led to a need for new analysis of the results of this accessibility; namely in family photography. this saw its greatest increase in the 1990’s and the study of this particular activity could lead to new psychological and sociological conclusions.
While the importance of such photographic data has only really been accepted recently and the studies of which are often a result of a ‘multiplicity’ of theories as, while photographs had already become an accepted tool in psychological therapy, however due to the lack of sociological research in the area, it cannot be described a ‘neutral’ tool. Cronin’s purpose therefore, is to critically review the assumptions and theories attached photography itself and its use as a therapeutic tool so as to suggest ‘possible directions and methodology for future research’
There are two ways of examining photographs for use in a therapeutic setting, firstly as sources of socio and economic evidence about a specific patient and secondly, as a ‘trigger’ for the release of emotion. Barthes (1980) claims these as two separate categories , as anyone can access and attempt to understand the information in a picture, however the emotional ‘trigger’ can be a highly personal response.
photographs are also important in therapy as evidence of specific ‘times’, as well as cultural and emotional themes and the need to record them in an ever changing modern reality. These then, become ‘triggers’ because they were once ‘real’, and may even protect against the loss of time for some. however, Cronin is not completely satisfied with this as it fails to examine the personal aspect of these stages of time which then affects their therapeutic use, for example, in the patient’s idea of ‘reality’.
Cronin’s review then goes on the examine the ‘lay’ perception of family photography, grounded in either the ‘realist folk myth’ or the ‘symbolist folk myth’. Again, the diagnostic use of such photographs as containing ‘real-time’ information when reviewed by the patient, is criticized. According to Silber (1973) the ‘symbolist folk myth’ suggests the photograph as unreal until interpreted, while O’Connell (1981) suggests that the ‘realist folk myth’ is the photograph as a direct representation of reality. Evidence suggests a propagation of the ‘realist’ myth amongst lay photographers, which risks accepting all photography as truth, however according to Cronin these theorists should concentrate on specific and personal use of the photographs, as individuals move freely between ‘myths’, rather than simply creating naive assumptions.
Family photographs are also used in a narrative context, whether collective or individual, but need further evidence to become real memory, again calling into question realism versus symbolism. Narrative photography is therefore aided by secondary evidence and knowledge of context.
Some therapists also use family photography to infer family dynamics, however it is also suggested that they are ‘selective’ and mask family problems, communicating an image of unity when the often occurring singling out of certain family members often defies this. Touching indicates both closeness and power, while the whole can signify cultural conventions.
Photographs are also used to challenge personal realities by some therapists, however this suggests that our personal histories are validated by photography, which Beloff (1985) describes as ‘idealised reality’ e.g. when asking the subject to smile, or can even become political and social when considering ideas of race, sex and class. Williamson (1984) therefore claims that too much is repressed by convention and that photographs are therefore only a construct of personal history.
Cronin, Orla., 2004. Psychology and Photographic Theory. In Prosser, John., 2004. Image-based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. Oxon: Routledgefalmer. p69-96.
No comments:
Post a Comment