Afghan Box Camera

Birk, L., Foley, S., 2013. Afghan box camera. Dewi Lewis Publishing, Stockport, England.


Gulbert would recite prayers and verses and blow on the camera, and then take out the photographs announcing, “A MIRACLE!”


In Afghanistan in the 1950s a simple hand-made wooden camera known as the kamra-e-faoree began to be used widely in the country for the first time.

Further afield in industrialised Europe and North America, patented relations had already appeared in the 1910s; whilst the photograph process the camera used was first introduced by William Henry Fox-Talbot in 1840s England.

In contrast […] to photography as a thing of the elite, the kamra-e-faoree brought photography to the common man and quite literally, to the street.

Only a narrow pavement slot was required to fit a camera, a chair and a cloth backdrop. The chair in which the customer posed for the portrait could also serve the photographer as a perch on which to rest or even sleep in quieter times. The camera lid provided a handy platform on which to place a pair of scissors and box of photo paper as well as hold a mug of tea and a saucer of sweets.

Continue reading “Afghan Box Camera”


The Body and the Archive

Allan Sekula, ‘The Body and the Archive’, pp.3-64, in:
October, Vol. 39 (Winter, 1986). MIT Press.


The sheer range and volume of photographic practice offers ample evidence of the paradoxical status of photography within bourgeois culture. The simultaneous threat and promise of the new medium was recognized at a very early date, even before the daguerreotype process had proliferated.

Continue reading “The Body and the Archive”

Why Material Visual Practices?

Asko Lehmuskallio and Edgar Gómez Cruz, ‘Why Material Visual Practices?’, pp.1-16, in:

Gómez Cruz, E., Lehmuskallio, A. (Eds.), 2016. Digital photography and everyday life: empirical studies on material visual practices. Routledge, London; New York.


The way we understand the camera, as part of a technology and as a tool, plays a crucial role in our understanding of photography.

Although a variety of differences can be found, many photo practices tend to continue along well-paved paths.

Of all the features taken can be shared over vast distances, shown on publicly available websites are used for a variety of other purposes, not all engage in the possibilities that digital photography affords. But importantly many do.

Continue reading “Why Material Visual Practices?”

Photo-genic Assemblages: Photography as a connective interface

Edgar Gómez Cruz, ‘Photo-genic Assemblages: Photography as a connective interface’, pp.228-242, in:

Gómez Cruz, E., Lehmuskallio, A. (Eds.), 2016. Digital photography and everyday life: empirical studies on material visual practices. Routledge, London; New York.


Photography, as we have understood it for more than a century, has radically changed and we are still in the process of those changes becoming stabilised.

The opening point of this chapter is that digital photography is shaping different ‘assemblages of visuality’ (see Wise 2013) from those of its photo-chemical predecessor.

I understand ‘assemblage’ following Latour’s (1990) ideas of a fixed arrangement between technologies, practices and discourses.

Continue reading “Photo-genic Assemblages: Photography as a connective interface”

Exploring everyday photographic routines through the habit of noticing

Eve Forrest, ‘Exploring everyday photographic routines through the habit of noticing’, pp.193-208, in:

Gómez Cruz, E., Lehmuskallio, A. (Eds.), 2016. Digital photography and everyday life: empirical studies on material visual practices. Routledge, London; New York.


Looking around me, I could see little that I thought was worth photographing. However, one of the photographers beside me suddenly stopped still, then, crouched down. I observed them at work as they moved around: making micro adjustments to their feet, fingers, shoulders and head movements, getting their body in the best position to take the picture.

Continue reading “Exploring everyday photographic routines through the habit of noticing”

Is the camera an extension of the photographer?

Martin Lister, ‘Is the camera an extension of the photographer?’, pp.267-272, in:

Gómez Cruz, E., Lehmuskallio, A. (Eds.), 2016. Digital photography and everyday life: empirical studies on material visual practices. Routledge, London; New York.


The act of finding meaning in the photograph is, of course, to engage photography as representation. This, in turn (if it is not to be an innocent reading), inevitably entails a measure of academic discipline and methodology: the semiological scrutiny of images treated as texts, with the aim of revealing or interpreting the meanings included within them.

With regard to photography, this is a developed practice that, over the last 30 years or so, became almost synonymous with photography theory.

Now the ongoing convergence of photography with computing and the rapid development of photography as a networked and computational medium have rendered photography radically more transient, relational, dynamic and polymorphous; we have witnessed a kind of supercharging of what it already was!

Continue reading “Is the camera an extension of the photographer?”

Between Bodies and Machines

Eve Forrest, ‘Between Bodies and Machines: Photographers with Cameras, Photographers on Computers’, pp.105-122, in:

Rubenstein, D., Golding, J., Fisher, A., 2013. On the verge of photography: imaging beyond representation. Article Press, Birmingham, UK.


This discussion has two aims. The first is to move discourse on photography away from the dominant representational framework that often ignores the doings of the photographer.

Continue reading “Between Bodies and Machines”

From Snapshots to Social Media

Introduction, pp.1-3, in:

Sarvas, R., Frohlich, D.M., 2011. From snapshots to social media: the changing picture of domestic photography. Springer, London; New York.


We are indeed witnessing a great change in domestic photography: the constellation of technologies, businesses, conventions, practices, artefacts, etc. that constitute photography has changed. However, the change has not come about overnight. It has been happening since the beginning of the 1990s, when the first digital consumer camera became available.


In this book we identify three consecutive paths in the history of domestic photography: the Portrait Path (ca. 1830s-1888), the Kodak Path (ca. 1888-1990s), and the Digital Path (starting in the 1990s).

Each of these paths is characterised by an innovation that disrupted the existing status quo  of technologies, businesses, and practices related to the creation of images within the domestic sphere. Each disruption was followed by an era of ferment in which technological change, business actors, and changing practices interacted to form a new status quo – a new path.

[…] the main audience for this book is researchers, engineers, and designers of digital imaging technologies, social media and Web services or other products relying of mediated social interaction.

[…] technological change is not linear by marked by discontinuities that have potential to disrupt whole industries.


In summary [of Bill Buxton’s text] no professional theatre critic could ignore the historical and societal context of a new release, yet in technology reviews, the historical, cultural, and political contexts are often absent.

A consequence of this absence is that issues such as privacy, power social structures, and economic factors are almost missing from design-oriented science and engineering research.

In the context of photography, a clear gap exists between research on interactive system design and visual media studies (including traditional photography studies).

Our objective is to bridge this gap between interaction design and visual culture studies by presenting a socio-technical history of domestic photography: the technologies, the business models and commercial organisations, regulation, people and their practices, and broader phenomena in society.

Our analytic lens in studying the history of domestic photography is the concept of a technological path, which has its background in science and technology studies (STS) and in technology management literature.

In studying the technological paths in domestic photography (and those paths that did not become dominant), we do our best to find a middle ground between interaction design research, which has a technology-centric background, and visual culture studies, which have a strong background in cultural studies.

By adopting an analytical approach from science and technology studies, we hope to contribute in both ways: to interaction design by emphasising the historical study of technologies as socio-technical constellations of heterogeneous actors and, second, to visual culture studies by emphasising the agency of these socio-technical constellations in shaping and maintaining specific visual cultures.

The Gestural Image

Frosh, Paul (2015) ‘The Gestural Image: The Selfie, Photography Theory, and Kinesthetic Sociability’, International Journal of Communication 9: 1607–28


The selfie is the progeny of digital networks. Its distinctiveness from older forms of self-depiction seems to derive from non-representational changes: innovations in distribution, storage, and metadata that are not directly concerned with the production or aesthetic design of images.

Instantaneous distribution of an image via Instagram and similar social networks is what makes the phenomenon of the selfie significantly different from its earlier photographic precursors.

[…] the immediacy, ephemerality, and incessant performativity of contemporary everyday photographs are primarily explained with reference to the combined ubiquity, mobility, and connectivity of smartphone devices.

Once nonrepresentational technological changes are made analytically preeminent, what role remains for an aesthetically oriented and medium-specific intellectual tradition like photography theory?


[…] the recent prominence of nonrepresentational practices echoes a recurrent tension of photography theory that has long divided scholars: an ontological commitment to the (largely semiotic) “essence” of the medium, which tends to privilege the discrete photographic image as an object of aesthetic analysis, versus historical conceptualizations of photography as a fluctuating constellation of devices, material cultural practices and respresentational forms.

Understanding that a particular image is a selfie (rather than just a photograph of, say, a face) requires viewers to make inferences about the nondepictive technocultural conditions in which the image was made. It requires, among other things, that these viewers have been adequately socialized through having seen, taken, or heard tell of selfies.

The selfie prompts us to ask how it can be explained using concepts fashioned to illuminate the traditional aesthetics of photography and how it might configure these concepts to forge new directions for theorizing both photography and digital culture.

[…] selfies conspicuously integrate still images into a technocultural circuit of corporeal social energy that I will call kinaesthetic sociability. This circuit connects the bodies of individuals, their mobility through physical and informational spaces, and the micro-bodily hand and eye movements they use to operate digital interfaces.


[regarding the selfie and indexicality]

Given this intellectual commotion, what can we learn from the selfie about photographic indexicality that has not already been said? Two things: first, that the selfie as an index is less a trace of a reality imprinted on the photograph than of an action enacted by a photographer; second, that the selfie exploits in favor of connective performance rather than semantic reference.

Like much everyday digital photography, the selfie tips the balance between these forms of indexicality. The advent of photography as a “live” medium, using digital networks to connect interlocuters in space rather than time, brings it closer to a conversational practice that draws images and their referents into the immediate moment of discursive interaction (which applications like Whatsapp and especially Snapchat both promote and exploit).

The selfie is a form of relational positioning between the bodies of the viewed and the viewers in a culture of individualized mobility, where one’s “here” and another’s “there” are mutually connected but perpetually shifting. It continually remolds an elastic, mediated spatial envelope for corporeal sociability.


[The selfie] points to the performance of a communicative action rather than to an object, and is a trace of that performance.

These arms assume the role of the pointing finger: They implictly designate the absent hands and their handheld devices as the site of pictorial production.


The body is inscribed in part into an already existing order of interpersonal signification – gestures have meanings in face-to-face interactions – but it is also inscribed as a figure for mediation itself: It is simultaneously mediating (the outstretched arm executes the taking of the selfie) and mediated (the outstretched arm becomes a legible and iterable sign within selfies of, among other things, the selfieness of the image).

One key feature of conventional photographic composition that has remained relatively unchanged across the analog-digital divide is the spatial separation between photographed objects and the photographer’s body.

Taking a conventional photograph means, as a rule, not being in it.

Traditional camera design and use – of both analogue and digital devices – means that the camera is not just a machine for making pictures; it is also a barrier between visible photographed spaces and undepicted locations of photographing and viewing.


Three features of smartphone design enable the selfie to challenge this spatio-representational segregation: They can be held and operated relatively easily by one hand, they display an image of the pre-photographic scene large enough to be viewed at arm’s length, and they include front- and back-facing cameras.


The space of photographic production or enunciation is effortlesslyunified with the space of the picture itself, and not photographing oneslef as part of an event or scene becomes an aesthetic, social, political, and moral choicerather than a sin qua non of the photographic act.

The camera becomes literally incorporated, part of a hand-camera assemblage whose possibilities and limitations are mutually determined by technical photographic parameters (available light, field of view, angle, etc) and the physical potential and constraints of the human body.

The most important embodied constellation consists of (1) moving one’s outstretched arm holding the smartphone or tablet at a calculated angle before the face or body, (2) the sensorimotor coadjustment of those body parts that are to be photographed (frequently the face and neck), and (3) the visual and spatial coordination of these two in composing the image to be taken via the device’s screen.

No longer does [compose] refer to the arrangement of elements in a representation who origin it hides; now it refers to the act of posing together, mutually emplacing the photographing body and the depicted figure.


The dominant figuration of the body shifts from the still, invisibly directed pose of others in traditional everyday photography to the dynamic, visible, self-animated gestural action of limbs and faces in selfies.


[referring to two images]

These athletic examples remind us that taking selfies is not natural to the body: it is an acquired skill and requires practice, the attainment of limbic and manual dexterity (activating the right button or icon to take the picture while often holding the device at extreme angles to maximise headspace), and the calibration of the body to the technical affordances and desirable representational outcomes.

The selfie is both expressive and disciplinary: This is the duality of most kinds of sensory inscription. Just as the moving body is the platform for the smartphone, so the device is the picturing agency that motivates, justifies and disciplines the body’s performance.


Yet that gesture not only composes technicity and embodiment in the moment of image production; it also constitutes a deictic movement of the body that draws attention to the immediate context of image viewing and to the activity of a viewer.


[…] the outstretched arm (or prosthetic stick mount) doesn’t just show the photographer depicting himself. It also draws the viewer in as a gesture of inclusion, inviting you to look, be with, and act.


Rather than forming a barrier between photographer and viewed, the smartphone camera produces a reflective image for beholding oneself, resembling nothing as much as a pocket make-up mirror.


[citing work in neurology and psychology]

Put very crudely, responses to representations are built upon embodied simulation of what is shown: neurological or unconscious mental processes that perform bodily and sensory limitations, as it were, offline.


The selfie invites viewers, in turn, to make conspicuously communicative, gestural responses. Sometimes, viewers respond to selfies in kind, taking reactive selfies that themselves summon further response. Here sensorimotor mirroring is almost literally achieved. In most cases, however, the action is displaced into other physical movements that execute operations – “like,” “retweet,” “comment,” – via the social media platforms on which the selfies are seen.

Like the selfie, such operations are also performed through sensorimotor actions that are semiconscious yet habitual to the degree that we might even call them “reflex”: fingers swiping and tapping apps on touchscreens or scrolling, moving, and clicking a mouse attached to a desktop computer.

As a gestural image, then, the selfie inscribes one’s own body into new forms of mediated, expressive sociability with distant others. these are incarnated in a gestural economy of affection as the reflex bodily responses by which we interact with our devices and their interfaces: the routinely dexterous movements of our hands and eyes.


Response is crucial. Phatic exchanges stage sociability as a binding affective energy transferred between individuals in interpersonal settings, and response is an embodied social reflex – it is hard not to perform it.

The selfie is a preeminent conductor of embodied social energy because it is a kinesthetic image: it is a product of kinetic bodily movement; it gives aesthetic, visible form to that movement in images; and it is inscribed in the circulation of kinetic and responsive social energy among users of movement-based digital technologies.

[…] the selfie makes visible a broader kinesthetic domain of digital culture that is relatively overlooked as an object of analysis.

Gestures of Seeing: Amateur Photographers in the News

Becker, Karin., 2015. Gestures of seeing: Amateur photographers in the news. Journalism 16, 451–469. doi:10.1177/1464884913511566


Over the past decade, the camera in the hands of the amateur has become a common attribute of the news photograph.

The gestures associated with amateur digital photography have in turn gained meaning that alter the situations, places and settings where they are used.


Immediately identifiable and easy to identify with, the gesture of the raised camera freezing the historical moment frames the event and provides the viewer entry into the event as participant.

Understanding photography as a cultural performance is critical to the ways the image of the non-professional photographer signifies in a photograph of a news event.

[Becker uses the concept of performance following Geertz (1973), Hughes-Freeland (1998, 2001).]

Photography is, the, not only a technology of visual representation, but more profoundly, following Frosh (2001: 43), a ‘constitutive type of (visible action) within the social world.’


Taking pictures becomes a ‘performance of representation’, an enactment of social knowledge of photographic practices and of the networks of power and play that arise within the nexus of photographers, viewers, and those who are photographed. Photography is in this sense ‘a manifest performance of the power to make visible’. (Frosh, 2001:43)


The image of the amateur draws on meanings that are embedded in the cultural knowledge of private domestic photography and its rituals.


The gesture of the raised camera has become universally recognised as a signifier, an annunciation of the event’s significance.

The gesture of holding up a digital device to take a group self-portrait in enacted and recognised all across the world. The same is true of raising the camera to take a picture of a screen, now common during historic ceremonies and sporting events that are broadcast the public viewing areas.

With the widespread use of digital imagery, these performances of photography – photographing the self, the event, and the event on screen – have become central to commemorative and celebrate media events.

Examining these gestures as they appear in news stories is consistent with moves in performance studies toward analysis of cultural ‘enactments’ and ‘speech events’, a term applied to different modes of communication, and the emergent dimensions of their multi-semiotic modes of meaning.

The performance can thus be seen as a bounded arena where the participants’ relations to each other and to the performance involve a qualitative assessment that takes into account previous performances.

Compared with the discourses and material practices that compose everyday life, performances are stylised and self-reflexive enactments, commenting on and transforming that which is taken for granted, and making it visible and available for reflection.


The performance of photography is not in the first instance visual, but physical and multi-sensory, as a way of situating one’s self in the world. Photography here is not about looking. Rather it provides haptic connection to another space.

[when these images are published:]

The audience or viewer, in turn, is being asked to acknowledge and reflect upon these gestures as part of the news.


[…] who holds the camera also has a bearing on how we interpret the photographic act.


The amateur becomes a figure in the news in the decade of digital photography’s breakthrough, a period that coincides with key historical events where professional’s access was inadequate to the task of reporting them.

[reference to 9/11 – see Hirsch, 2002.]


The media’s ritualisation of the amateur as witness builds in turn on two distinct yet interrelated additional forms of ritual practice: on the one hand, the rituals of domestic photography as private yet culturally shared practice and, on the other, public occasions of celebrations, commemoration and trauma where photography is interwoven into the rituals of observing, interpreting and giving meaning to these events.