Photographic archives do not exist in a vacuum. Context provided by related non-photographic materials can be integral to determining the provenance of a photograph or group of photographs. In Photographs: Archival Care and Management, Diane Vogt-O’Connor recommends that archivists examine “captions, correspondence, journals, oral history interviews, [and] photo logbooks”2 to gain additional information about the authenticity of potential accessions. Such external evidence is crucial when determining the provenance of a photographic collection, and provenance and authenticity go hand in hand where photographic archives are concerned. Identifying an unbroken chain of custody and a collector’s intent and methods are important steps on the road to determining a photograph’s authenticity.
Archivists who work with photographs must also educate themselves about history and historical photographic processes so that they may use internal clues to determine the authenticity of photographs. Items seen in a photograph, such as cars, signs, and clothing, are important clues that can date a photograph to a specific time period. Although caution must be exercised when using this method -- clothes that are no longer in style may be still be seen 20 years after their heydey, for example -- historical knowledge can be an invaluable asset to an archivist. In addition, being able to identify historical photographic processes is a crucial skill for archivists. While some modern photographers still utilize historical processes, a well-trained eye will be able to spot the difference between a genuine original and a modern reproduction, and we should all know that the acetate negatives a collector claims are authentic mid-1800s artifacts are anything but.
The area of photographic authenticity changing the most rapidly may be determining whether a photograph has been altered. For over 100 years, this typically meant that a negative had been tampered with in order to produce a print that was more aesthetically pleasing or conveyed a different message than the original photograph. With the advent of both digital photography and digital imaging technology, it is both easier to undetectably alter a photograph and to acquire tools that help determine a photograph’s authenticity. While “[p]hotographic manipulation is not new…[w]hat is new...is the absence of any physical trail of evidence that lets the researcher see what was done.”3 This means that issues of provenance and intent must be examined even more closely when dealing with collections of digital photographs. But while modern technology can be manipulated, it can also work on the side of photographic truth. In their 2005 article “When Photographs Create False Memories,” Maryanne Garry and Matthew P. Gerrie assert that people “may not trust the famous, allegedly doctored photo of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his backyard.”4 In 2009, Dartmouth researcher Hany Farid used 3-D computer imaging technology to show that the shadows claimed to be inconsistent with a single light source were in fact perfectly plausible.5 Rapid advances in technology may soon help to settle other long-controversial questions of photographic authenticity.
As the guardians of photographic history, archivists endeavor to provide researchers with accurate descriptions of authentic photographs. Since its mere presence in an archive confers legitimacy to a photograph, archivists must use all the tools available to them to determine the authenticity of the photographs in their care. Examining the provenance and history of a collection, using historical knowledge to read internal evidence, and determining if a photograph has been altered are all important steps on the road to authenticating a photograph.
1 Elizabeth Kaplan and Jeffrey Mifflin, “Mind and Sight: Visual Literacy and the Archivist,” in American Archival Studies: Readings in Theory and Practice (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2000), 95.↩
2 Diane Vogt-O’Connor, “Appraisal and Acquisitions,” in Photographs: Archival Care and Management, (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2006), 95. ↩
3 Martha A. Sandweiss, “Image and Artifact: The Photograph as Evidence in the Digital Age,” The Journal of American History 94 (2007): 200. ↩
4 Maryanne Garry and Matthew P. Gerrie, “When Photographs Create False Memories,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 14 (2005): 321. ↩
5 Hany Farid, “The Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photos: real or fake?,” Perception 38 (2009). ↩
No comments:
Post a Comment