C&C Homework Assignment:
Old and New Family Photographs.
The first photograph was taken in the 1890s and shows my great grandmother Jessie Mogford outside her family home in Rutland. She is the babe in her mother’s arms. The second photo was a snap shot taken this summer on a family trip to New York. It was taken with a compact camera using the self timer button. The obvious main difference is that the older photograph is in black and white and the second is in colour. The next most obvious difference is that the second one is a lot less formal, but that is as much due to the method by which it was taken as the changing family structure.
The first picture, even though it is taken outside would have needed a long exposure. This required a tripod to keep the camera steady and a commitment from everybody to keep very still. This meant a more rigid, sustainable pose. I guess these poses would have been directed by the professional orchestrating the picture rather than capturing the mood of the moment and a sense of mucking about in a private space as in the modern shot.
There is also a lot less formality in the style of dress. In the Victorian photograph everyone has their mouth shut and their very best Sunday clothes on. The father is showing off his pocket chain and wears a boater. The mother also wears a hat. Two of the girls wear elaborate bonnets and the boy wears a cap. In the modern ‘snap shot’ my sister Holly and my Mum have their mouths open, dad is in flip flops and mum has bare feet. Dad’s sleeves are rolled up and Holly is in shorts. We are dressed more fro the beach than the Bronx.
The first photograph is unusual for its time in that it is an exterior shot. The main ‘prop’ is the double fronted thatched cottage. This was a source of great pride to my great, great grandfather who had risen from very humble beginnings to own a shirt factory so he was able to buy a comparatively large house for his wife and six children. It’s a picture that says “I am a man of property”, whereas the ‘props’ in the second photo are about travel and leisure: a light tan, a New York apartment, and an i pod.
Another obvious difference between the two is the position of the father. Jessie’s father stands in the very centre of the photograph but untouched by any member of his family. His son reflects his body language but stands apart. The females sit at his feet implying that the men are in charge. In complete contrast, In the modern picture, my little sister takes centre stage, we are squeezed togehter (although I’m trying my best to appear aloof) and the ‘Patriarch’ (ie: Dad) is squashed at the back. I think this says something about the dominance of the children in modern life compared to the Victorian era. The size of the family is also much larger in the Victorian era. This reflects a greater degree of choice over family size.
Finally the history of each picture is revealed in the state of the paper on which it printed. The old photo is printed on extremely good quality paper and seen as an investment piece but it was clearly carried around rather than framed as it has been folded and re folded many times in its 120 year history, whereas the modern print was produced at home on cheap paper and is completely disposable.
The first picture, even though it is taken outside would have needed a long exposure. This required a tripod to keep the camera steady and a commitment from everybody to keep very still. This meant a more rigid, sustainable pose. I guess these poses would have been directed by the professional orchestrating the picture rather than capturing the mood of the moment and a sense of mucking about in a private space as in the modern shot.
There is also a lot less formality in the style of dress. In the Victorian photograph everyone has their mouth shut and their very best Sunday clothes on. The father is showing off his pocket chain and wears a boater. The mother also wears a hat. Two of the girls wear elaborate bonnets and the boy wears a cap. In the modern ‘snap shot’ my sister Holly and my Mum have their mouths open, dad is in flip flops and mum has bare feet. Dad’s sleeves are rolled up and Holly is in shorts. We are dressed more fro the beach than the Bronx.
The first photograph is unusual for its time in that it is an exterior shot. The main ‘prop’ is the double fronted thatched cottage. This was a source of great pride to my great, great grandfather who had risen from very humble beginnings to own a shirt factory so he was able to buy a comparatively large house for his wife and six children. It’s a picture that says “I am a man of property”, whereas the ‘props’ in the second photo are about travel and leisure: a light tan, a New York apartment, and an i pod.
Another obvious difference between the two is the position of the father. Jessie’s father stands in the very centre of the photograph but untouched by any member of his family. His son reflects his body language but stands apart. The females sit at his feet implying that the men are in charge. In complete contrast, In the modern picture, my little sister takes centre stage, we are squeezed togehter (although I’m trying my best to appear aloof) and the ‘Patriarch’ (ie: Dad) is squashed at the back. I think this says something about the dominance of the children in modern life compared to the Victorian era. The size of the family is also much larger in the Victorian era. This reflects a greater degree of choice over family size.
Finally the history of each picture is revealed in the state of the paper on which it printed. The old photo is printed on extremely good quality paper and seen as an investment piece but it was clearly carried around rather than framed as it has been folded and re folded many times in its 120 year history, whereas the modern print was produced at home on cheap paper and is completely disposable.
Capturing Movement - 09/10/11
Photo Analysis: The Journalist, the Vulture, and the Child
This highly controversial and and thought provoking Phtot of a vulture stalking an emaciated sudanese girl who'd collapsed on her way to a feeding station won photographer Kevin Carter a Pulitzer Prize in 1994. Carter also become notorious for sticking to the journalistic principle of being an observer and not getting involved -- he left after taking his photo and neither he, nor the New York Times, which first published the photo on 26 March 1993, knew what happened to her. (Looking at the photo, it's hard to imagine a pleasant ending.) A few months later after collecting his Pulitzer, Carter committed suicide, the violence he'd encountered in his life as a journalist, especially in South Africa, becoming too much to live with.