It has long been the case that people have pictures on their mobile devices, their camera phones, normally of friends or families, and before the invention of the camera phone it was not unusual for people to carry a photograph of their partner or children in their wallet or purse. This action has been happening ever since the birth of photography and one of the first industries to embrace photography whole heartedly was the portrait studio.

But why carry a picture of those people? People that you probably live with, see on a daily basis, talk to regularly and have a close personal relationship with. It’s not a case that you will forget what they look like, in fact it’s probably a case that those people might not resemble the people in the photograph because of aging and other life events.

One reason, and probably the main reason, is because it forms a point of contact between the viewer and the subject. By seeing a photograph of a husband or wife it can evoke memories of events, either good times or sad occasions and prove to be a trigger for nostalgia. It can even help to resurrect friends and relatives that have passed away or to help strengthen our own cultural and personal history. Cynthia Freeland summarises this phenomenon by stating “it speaks to one of the primary reasons why we value portraits and care about having them: they sustain our connections with people, offering up a kind of immortality and contact with loved ones when they are absent.”[1]

However, it is also necessary to acknowledge that the photograph operates on two levels, iconographical and iconological, first developed by Panofsky. This is similar to the Saussure system of semiotics, which asserts the theory that what is shown is denoted and what is interpreted is connoted. So, the person in the portrait is the icon and the emotional or cultural value of that person is then interpreted. Consequently, by using iconology the photographic portrait is opened up to the entire history of art, ranging from cave paintings through to contemporary times. By using this action, the depth and meaning of the portrait is multiplied almost infinitely instead of being isolated to a brief and linear definition.

So, when viewing a photograph, it’s not just a case of seeing a familiar face, but it either forms or strengthens a bond between the subject and the viewer. But, it is often a case that the photograph which is chosen is because of the interpretation, the iconology of the image, has more resonance than the subject matter. If this was not the case, then any photograph of a relative or friend would be chosen, but everyone has a tendency to choose the photographs they like, that resonate in a certain way. To put it simply, we choose an image of a partner that accentuates their beauty, character, humour, etc. because this is how we want to remember them.

This action, which is done unwittingly, warps the perception into reinforcing the preconceived notions of the viewer. It confirms and strengthens their own perception of the person depicted in a positive and unthreatening way. Sontag thought along similar lines by saying “The primitive notion of the efficacy of images presumes that images possess the qualities of real things, but our inclination is to attribute to real things the qualities of an image”[2]

So, we now have a situation where an image is chosen because it makes the viewer think about the subject in a certain way to evoke qualities that can be attributed to the person depicted. With the family photograph this action can be performed with a large degree of trust and wisdom that the depiction will be relatively honest and truthful. But what if the person depicted is only known through their imagery? What if the person depicted is a celebrity and is personally unknown to the viewer?

The celebrity, normally, wants to be seen in a positive way, probably demonstrating the cultural values of the society they were raised in. Consequently, they would want an image that emphasises, for example, a sense of beauty or of being a caring family member and a photograph that shows these qualities is then attributed to the celebrity. It’s not a case that the celebrity does genuinely have these qualities, but the image. Because of this dynamic the celebrity, or anyone, can construct an identity through carefully selected photographs which can be totally false, but be perceived to be genuine. A brilliant example of this phenomenon is Cindy Sherman’s Film Stills series, where she is photographed in different costumes and scenes that depict stereotypes used in films.

So, by being able to either consciously or unconsciously manipulate the dynamic of contact, of forming a connection between the viewer and the subject, the interpretation can precondition the selection of the photograph. It can be that a hidden agenda is being unwittingly used, or a case of cynical manipulation, but the selection is never taken without being preconditioned and controlled.

[1] Freeland, C. 2010 Portraits & Persons, P43, Oxford University Press, Oxford

[2] Sontag, S. 1971 On Photography, P58, Penguin Classics, London