Why do you take photos?

Image by Capt Kodak via Flickr

Watching the amusing Business Nightmares (BBC2, Monday), the interview with a former senior Polaroid executive stood out. Polaroid is of course a company whose core product simply became obsolete for the mainstream user. He commented: “We weren’t able to see that people wouldn’t want a hard copy print; it sure came as a heck of a surprise that people wouldn’t want one…”

Then he paused and sheepishly admitted “But I don’t either”!

For many, the physical photo album has indeed become quaint, but let’s face it, those physical albums were only rarely looked through anyway. Are their modern digital equivalents viewed more, for all their greater accessibility? Probably, but I suspect there is still only a spike of initial views and then increasingly rare subsequent views.

Some photographs are taken with artistic aspirations, though perhaps pretensions is a more accurate word for the many taken with this intent but in the absence of talent. Others are taken for purely documentary or illustrative purposes in mind, be they journalistic or commercial in nature.

But the majority of photos are simpler snaps; taken to solely to mark a transient experience and commemorate the passages of life’s rituals. The documentary quality of the image is almost irrelevant in these cases; the emotional power of these snaps are nearly all in the acts of taking and sharing the image. I don’t Facebook myself, having an aversion to acquiring yet another time sink, but I’m struck by the avid taking and sharing of images by those who are on such social networking sites. The sharing of a photograph has an interesting dynamic tension: it works to define the sharer’s identity, but simultaneously the highly communal act requires others to pay the photograph attention to render it this definitional power. The photograph can thus be seen as a social transaction between the taker/sharer and the community, where the utility of the transaction is a mutual strengthening of interpersonal ties and roles.

This is a similar role to that of photos in their former hard copy incarnations. The leafing through the physical photo album was a ritual done at time of social or emotional need, to remind self and others of their respective roles through a remembrance of the emotional content of times past. This is the mythic power of the photograph, where it is not the content that matters, but the symbolism.

The photo is a conduit to emotional social resonance, similar to ancient folklore passed on through the oral tradition, or engrained ceremonial ritual such as we recently witnessed in the Royal Wedding.

If you have a favourite photo, do you love it for the image, or the emotional memory it evokes?

The Modern-Day Monk

It is not surprising that several guests at Friday’s Royal Wedding were anonymously quoted as “feeling jaded” yesterday. Anticipation of great events is commonly followed by a drained numbness, even if the event meets elevated expectations. Life thus passes by as a series of interspersed highs and, if not lows, mediocre neutrals. Is this the sum total of the human experience?

Man has historically found three ways to neutralise this nihilistic perspective: fame, religion and propagation.

Fame, with its associated glamour, can be fleeting or it can last a lifetime. Occasionally it outlasts its originating source and is considered worthy – or notorious – enough to be important to historical and cultural record. Whether transient or semi-permanent, its nourishment to the famous person is thin when weighed against the permanence of death. It can sustain the mind in the short-term, but is ultimately lacking.

To combat this failure of Temporal Power to assuage anomie, religion developed to offer believers escape from death, whether through reincarnation or heaven. Such Spiritual Might remains a comfort to many, channelling and guiding human emotion into soothingly predictable paths. Like Temporal Power, it offers individuals a larger sense of self that is part of a grander existence than Hobbes’ description of Man’s life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

But for many, meaningful fame is impossible (the Warhol-esque 15 minutes of reality TV or social networking hardly counts) and religious faith escapes them, or is actively shunned. Frequently, their final refuge is propagation and it is a rare parent indeed that does not think of their children as the best thing they ever did.

Creating the next generation is certainly a valuable role; I would not want to see the human species wiped out! But does it truly offer a solution to the impermanence of man? I suggest not; the real essence of even the best of parents is lost from collective memory within at most four generations. As long as the parent does not think too deeply about this inevitable historical dissipation, Familial Legacy can substitute for either Temporal Power or Spiritual Might and stave off despair at the prospect of death.

What if none of the above are to the liking of the individual, if all are thought to fail the essential test of overcoming fear of death and giving life meaning, what then?

Enter the Modern-Day Monk.

The archetype of the man who seeks spiritual enlightenment through disengagement from the world is an ancient one. We see echoes of his presence in all the major world religions, mythologies and philosophies. Traditionally, the Monk has sought physical separation from the world; either to wander alone or in the company of select fellow travellers on a similar journey. He has used asceticism as a tool to aid enlightenment. Asceticism encourages the abandonment of sensual pleasure and material wealth, deeming these to be distractions from personal growth.

The Modern-Day Monk follows a different path to individuation. It is not physical abandonment of the world that is important, but intellectual detachment. This detachment from the value systems of others (the Temporal, Spiritual and Familial spheres) nonetheless permits material and emotional engagement with the world. He is able to weigh up and measure situations and people rapidly, allowing only positive effects through to his inner self. He comes across to others as tolerant and moderate, as he has no need to be otherwise. He enjoys the world, but does not let the world rule his inner heart. And in the face of new challenges, he has an inner core of willpower – a clear sense of self – to neutralise against torment.

The more philosophically (or religiously) minded will have already identified the characteristics outlined in the preceding four sentence as the Four Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Temperance, Justice, and Fortitude respectively. The virtues are named Cardinal for being the hinge (L. cardo) upon which rests the door of life. It is not the door to a physical retreat from the world as the first step to an afterlife. It is a system to support and enhance our human desire to be part of the world, while not being ruled by it.

The Modern-Day Monk lives well, as well as wisely.

Psychology of Clothes Case Study: Royal Wedding

The happy couple driving off, photo courtesy The Telegraph

Congratulations to the happy royal couple!

Everyone loves a pageant and today’s ceremonies certainly fall into that category. Even a hardened cynic can’t help but smile at the spectacle and extravagance of the day.

Now it’s time for the task of figuring out not what they wore – there are a million other sites for that, including The Telegraph – but why they wore it.

In truth, despite it making poor copy, I think almost everyone struck an appropriate and resolutely “on message” tone.

Carole Middleton, as mother of the bride, had perhaps the hardest job. Every considerate mother must appear calm and elegant while never appearing to be trying to upstage the bride. Her last-minute choice of a Catherine Walker dress was perfect for this purpose. Perhaps it is a trifle subtextually awkward that she was one of the late Diana’s favourite designers, but it nonetheless looked decidedly in tune with her role today. It is interesting to note she was initially meant to wear a different dress; I’m curious to know what aspects of that dress she disliked.

Pippa Middleton had to be pristine, yet unintimidating, as the maid-of-honour. Her deceptively simple white gown sent out all the right messages, with more than a whiff of vestal virgin about it. It lent her authority beyond her years, and a discreet sexuality, while still being superficially innocent.

Kate herself wore a Sarah Burton/Alexander McQueen wedding dress. In keeping with that house’s sense of humour, it was elegant with an underlying trace of cheekiness in using the lace and veil to evoke an almost nunnery image. Parallels with Grace Kelly and contrasts to Diana are already being drawn, but it was entirely in keeping with her intent to appear more relaxed than some previous royal brides, while still being traditional.

The men in ceremonial uniform generally looked correct, and most of those in morning dress were fine too. But men have fewer opportunities to send subversive messages on these sort of occasions, and to get it wrong. Most of the details are so prescribed that room for expression is limited. One might wonder why William chose that particular uniform to wear, from the range to which he is entitled, but I think that’s a fairly barren field to plough.

The only minor faux pas was David Beckham wearing his honour on the wrong lapel, which speaks more about the unexpectedly elevated position in the world he finds himself sometimes, than about any deliberate intent. There was some pre-wedding controversy as to whether Prime Minister David Cameron would wear a morning suit, although of course in the end he did. While it must have been tempting to send a calculated political message of “normality” by opting for a lounge suit, it would come across as both false and prideful (akin to Gordon Brown’s avoidance of formalwear at the annual Mansion House dinners). The morning suit was more in keeping with the occasion than a lounge suit would have been, although I feel compelled to note that the trousers could have been hemmed another inch and still offered a half-break. Perhaps that is his way of ceding to an everyman look, as those who’ve attended any wedding with the groom in a rented morning suit would attest… In any event, his wife Samantha also did her bit for appearing in touch with the High Street by wearing a (relatively) inexpensive Burberry dress and no hat. She still looked impressive.

Finally, leaving the main wedding party – and subtext – aside, I think my personal favourite outfit was Zara Phillips’ lovely silver dress. If I was feeling bitchy, I’d point out that Princess Eugenie chose an unfortunate silhouette, that Sally Bercow (the Speaker’s wife) showed too much flesh, and that Justine Thornton (Ed Miliband’s fiancee) looked totally out of her depth. But it’s a day of celebration, so I’ll stop there.

Although I do feel compelled to add, in Private Eye lookalike tradition, that Princess Beatrice has probably watched Conan the Barbarian a few too many times…

Everyone loves a Royal Wedding

It seems keeping secrets is still possible in our modern world.

Until the news broke with an official statement at 10.30, no-one knew that Prince William was engaged to his long-term girlfriend Kate Middleton. That in itself is worth noting, given how frequently and easily official secrets leak out to the media.

It’s also striking just how welcome the news is to almost everyone. Let’s take a look at all the delighted vested interests:

The Royal Family – always in need of good PR, especially in recent years. They will be hoping that this results in some degree of stability to the future of the Monarchy, and there’s little doubt that William and Kate (sorry, Princess Catherine!) are a more attractive and personable couple to take centre stage in terms of the public image of the Royal Family than Charles and Camilla.

Politicians – Prime Minister David Cameron was apparently informed of the news by a surreptitiously-passed note in the middle of a Cabinet Meeting, and later made a public statement welcoming it as “a piece of unadulterated good news”. Given the necessary public spending cuts he’s having to make to reduce the deficit, and the general economic malaise despite a slow recovery, having something pleasant and fluffy like a Royal Wedding to talk about certainly helps. Politicians of all stripes enjoy a grand national event, as it gives them an opportunity to get wide media exposure with a minimum of controversy.

Businesses - It’s boom-time for the commemorative souvenier merchandising industry. There’s already the London Olympics in 2012 to gear up for, but with a Royal Wedding in 2011 too, we soon won’t be able to move for crested china cups and tea-towels. The betting industry will also be happy to have another grand event to take bets on, the Queen’s hat colour, the type of wedding dress, and more. Talking of the dress, you can rest assured that the bridal industry will be in a state of high hysteria from now until the wedding. They’ll be joined by the glossy magazine publishing industry in swooning over every new announced detail.

Republicans - those against the Monarchy will also be secretly happy about the wedding, as it will automatically give them a little bit more oxygen of publicity. Saying vaguely controversial things about the wedding and its cost will now garner more column inches.

Terrorists and protestors - those unhappy with the government, or the country itself, will be thrilled to have a new event to target. Expect stringent security around the Wedding itself, but any major terrorist event on (or around) the date of the Wedding will gain much airtime and may be much harder to stop given that resources will inevitably be pulled towards the gravity well of the Wedding itself.

The Media – lazy journalists and rolling news channels around the world will be rejoicing at the ready-made stories and headlines that will easily fill any blank space or airtime from now until next Summer. And the Wedding Day will doubtless have sky-high TV ratings. I’m sure Twitter, Facebook, and WordPress as well as other online news and discussion sites will be experiencing traffic spikes, and so page/ad views.

So, you see, everyone has a reason to be happy…

Rejoice, Rejoice, again I say, Rejoice!

Related Articles

• GUEST LIST: Will Obamas attend royal wedding? (politico.com)
• Royal wedding: David Cameron congratulates Prince William and Kate Middleton (telegraph.co.uk)
• Royal wedding: Kate Middleton’s relationship with the press (telegraph.co.uk)
• Royal Wedding Bells: Prince William, Kate Middleton to Wed (abcnews.go.com)
• Prince William, Kate Middleton ENGAGED: Royal Wedding Next Year (huffingtonpost.com)