Why We Should Look at Photographs & Objects

Amanda Fortini of New York Magazine wrote this piece on photos of celebs in their homes:

If these images reveal much about the time in which they were taken—the white shag rug of the sixties, the pro-choice poster of the seventies -- they reveal more about the celebrities captured therein. In one photo, Gloria Steinem, miniskirted and bare-legged, stares wearily from her paper-strewn office, subverting the stereotype of the frumpy, single cat lady by holding her own cat in her lap. Or perhaps the cat provided a bit of comfort; Steinem, who would soon testify at the Senate ERA hearings, looks like the pressures of being a feminist icon might have been getting to her. Then there is Gypsy Rose Lee, her bare feet surrounded by countless crumpled drafts of The G-String Murders, her mystery novel-in-progress.

Viewing these photographs, saturated as many are with personal detail, feels slightly illicit, as though one has just rummaged through a stranger's medicine chest or taken a furtive peek in his refrigerator. But it also demystifies the subjects depicted.

You can see the photos and read more at the site, but I have to share the parting words:

"Only because history is fetishized in physical objects can one understand it," Susan Sontag wrote. In one sense, these images are themselves fetishized objects; they are fascinating curiosities. But the physical objects they capture are also historical artifacts, a way of making history concrete. In this sense, we might view them as mini-biographies, visual narratives that disclose not just the aesthetic choices made by the inhabitants, but much about their personalities as well. Some let it all hang out, while others give nothing away.