From my own readings, my understanding of the index in photography is the belief that the image shown has an almost one to one relationship with the outside world, i.e. with the object being represented. It's more of a philosophical statement about the nature of representation (the "objective" record or the index) and the "real", along the relationship between them. To say that a photograph is indexical is often used as a claim of its "inherent" objectivity ("the camera does not lie"). It is also used to "soften" its artistic value, thus the comments that straightforward photographic images are "just photographs" and have no inherent conceptual/artistic value except as a neutral record (an index) of a thing in itself.
In terms of your documentary, I suppose that one could say that the images have an indexical function, as far as their primary use as "objective" illustrations of a narrative, and perhaps, in its most obvious function, to "prove" that these people really do exist and that adding the images to the voice somehow validates the story being told.
But, from what I've seen from the clip, the "index" doesn't seem to be one of proving that the stories that are being recollected by the narrator have occurred (the way one would talk about the holocaust or other human atrocities and then showing or visually proving, via photography, the camps or the prisoners, etc). The narrator talks about the father being imprisoned for example but the the "index" is not of the imprisonment but a photo of the father having tea with his family. The images seem more like, "this is the person that I'm talking about," in which case the index is just connection between the photograph to "prove" the existence of the father, rather than "this is a photographic documentation" of the event.
... something like that.. What I'm trying to say is that, yes, the images (by virtue of their being treated as illustrative images rather than self-contained conceptual or artistic images, are indexical, but not any more than the indexicality of any number of disconnected photographs of family snapshots. Perhaps the images have meaning to the person who showed it to you. Perhaps you can record them describing the picture, the expression of their father and what it meant/means, the interaction that is going on within the figures in the image, etc. This might add a richer dimension to the narration. You could even film them holding the photograph and talking about it and filming their expressions and their hands as they recollect the stories to you...
Yes, what you're saying makes perfect sense and expands on my understanding of the indexical relationship in photography. I like your idea of depicting the characters describing the photographs. In fact, after my meeting with my mentor last week, we discussed a more 3-D approach to the depiction of objects and images in the documentary, like having someone point out the route of escape on a map of Iran, rather than just showing the map with voiceover. Unfortunately but understandably, I don't have photographs with the exact depictions of their story, like, photographs of the father in jail. I'm also trying to move away from literal representation, which will mean that the indexical relationship may continue to be "general" proof that the characters were in Iran and not "specific" proof that they were in the exact place being depicted. Thanks so much for your thoughts on this!
From Jonathan Macagba, 3/8/14:
ReplyDeleteHi Wendy,
From my own readings, my understanding of the index in photography is the belief that the image shown has an almost one to one relationship with the outside world, i.e. with the object being represented. It's more of a philosophical statement about the nature of representation (the "objective" record or the index) and the "real", along the relationship between them. To say that a photograph is indexical is often used as a claim of its "inherent" objectivity ("the camera does not lie"). It is also used to "soften" its artistic value, thus the comments that straightforward photographic images are "just photographs" and have no inherent conceptual/artistic value except as a neutral record (an index) of a thing in itself.
In terms of your documentary, I suppose that one could say that the images have an indexical function, as far as their primary use as "objective" illustrations of a narrative, and perhaps, in its most obvious function, to "prove" that these people really do exist and that adding the images to the voice somehow validates the story being told.
But, from what I've seen from the clip, the "index" doesn't seem to be one of proving that the stories that are being recollected by the narrator have occurred (the way one would talk about the holocaust or other human atrocities and then showing or visually proving, via photography, the camps or the prisoners, etc). The narrator talks about the father being imprisoned for example but the the "index" is not of the imprisonment but a photo of the father having tea with his family. The images seem more like, "this is the person that I'm talking about," in which case the index is just connection between the photograph to "prove" the existence of the father, rather than "this is a photographic documentation" of the event.
... something like that.. What I'm trying to say is that, yes, the images (by virtue of their being treated as illustrative images rather than self-contained conceptual or artistic images, are indexical, but not any more than the indexicality of any number of disconnected photographs of family snapshots. Perhaps the images have meaning to the person who showed it to you. Perhaps you can record them describing the picture, the expression of their father and what it meant/means, the interaction that is going on within the figures in the image, etc. This might add a richer dimension to the narration. You could even film them holding the photograph and talking about it and filming their expressions and their hands as they recollect the stories to you...
My response on 3/10/14:
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan,
Yes, what you're saying makes perfect sense and expands on my understanding of the indexical relationship in photography. I like your idea of depicting the characters describing the photographs. In fact, after my meeting with my mentor last week, we discussed a more 3-D approach to the depiction of objects and images in the documentary, like having someone point out the route of escape on a map of Iran, rather than just showing the map with voiceover. Unfortunately but understandably, I don't have photographs with the exact depictions of their story, like, photographs of the father in jail. I'm also trying to move away from literal representation, which will mean that the indexical relationship may continue to be "general" proof that the characters were in Iran and not "specific" proof that they were in the exact place being depicted. Thanks so much for your thoughts on this!
Wendy