Reaction to "Pictures for Rent" by Abbot Miller

I have a friend whose father-in-law is a stock photographer. I remember her showing me teen devotionals and family planners featuring her and her husband and kids at various ages. It is just kind of odd looking at people you know posed in "stereotypical" life situations.

I thought Abbot's definition of the word "stereotype" and its historical link to the stereoscope made for an interesting opening to this discussion of stock photography. I think it is ironic that the stereoscope used optics to imitate depth while the current psychological term "stereotype" denotes a certain amount of superficiality to our understanding and categorization of life.

While the article discussed the quaintness of stock photography from the fifties, I couldn't help but to picture those silly greeting cards and calenders that re appropriate fifties advertisements to outrageous comics with feminist messages. The housewife in a pinched-waist dress, presenting a fully frosted cake under injected typewriter script "My cakes kick ass." I just think its amusing how clearly stock photography chronicles the values of the time and place it comes from. In today's culture, that simple cake mix advertisement brings up gender role, race, and class issues, while it would have been read simply as an advertisement in the fifties. In the political realm, location also affects the image literacy. I'm sure Japanese news photography looked very different than American recording the same events during WWII.

Abbot broke stock photography down into that meant for commercial use and that intended for news broadcast. Both intended to generate an instant reaction in mass viewing that coincides with the publishers intentions. I liked this quote:

"The striving for clarity and legibility (in both formal and conceptual terms) unites the products of stock photo agencies, whether they are artfully blurred still-lives or sharply focussed portraits."

Stock photography must be easily read, otherwise it is useless. Which is what separates it from artistic photography. It must be current or its targets will not relate to the subjects and style. It must be obvious and intentional. Which is what makes it so fascinating and hysterical once it is past its prime.