“Counterarchives” and the aesthetic aspect of photography

I found very interesting how photography, since its origins with the stereograph and other formats, had “the issue of the archive”. As already discussed in other classes, we often think that the problem of excess of data / documents / material is only a question of our time, however John Tagg’s text presents the fascinating discussion around the mass production of stereographs in 1859. Thus, classification and organization of photographs and stereographs were since the beginning an issue to be solved, and the handbook The Camera as Historian represents this issue very well. It does so, mainly because it shows how every choice of classification system reveals its power relations, social rules and, as Tagg says (inspired by Foucault) “the space of the file is the space of disciplinary machine”.

With this in mind, it was a great discovery for me to think about the idea of “counterarchives”. Though the commandment aspect is intrinsically part of any archive, the idea that “forgotten” or “lost” archives have the power to create a new narrative about society, especially the ones that suffered from a regime of terror, made me realize how important each archive is in relation to the discussion of truth. The fact that “Archives still retain, therefore, a particular and perhaps privileged relation to the field of truth…” is an engaging form to relate with archives, and it improves the discussion about History and narration. Yet, it was not very clear to me what the author meant with the statement that “archive cannot be taken over but has to be smashed.” I understand his concern about the danger of using archives in the study of history as an element of real truth, however the idea of “smashing” was not clear (maybe an English issue for me?)

Finally, I would like to add a comment about Douglas Crimp’s text concerning photography collection and the NYPL case. I found very interesting how, when Julia van Haaften started organizing the photography collection in 1977, photography “changed” its role, gaining autonomy from the document / archive / subject it was coming from, and embodying an aesthetic element. Thus, becoming art. When the author gives the example of Cartier-Bresson’s photographs that would not only represent the information in the photo, but also the expression of an artist, I ask to myself: if each photo has this “double” aspect (information and artistic intension or interpretation), how should we organize them? If until now photography has usually been classified through author’s name, date or subject, would it be possible to create a classification related to the aesthetic experience? If so, which “elements” of the artistic interpretation would be used? And then, after all, wouldn’t these topics of organization also reveal its apparatus?

One Reply

  • Thanks, Cristina! Great questions about photo classification!

    In regard to your comment about “smashing” the archive: I think it refers to need, in regime change, to completely obliterate traces of the past order. You might recall the Matthew Battles book from our lesson on libraries; he relays how, throughout history, libraries and archives are frequently commandeered or *destroyed* in regime change. In the latter case, the new leader wants his “wipe clean” his new subjects’ identity, to force them to rebuild their identities and histories under new leadership.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *