Today, we are pleased to present the first interview of the Beyond Theory project in 2024. The interview was offered by Dr. Costanza Caraffa, Head of the Photothek, and Dr. Ute Dercks, Deputy Head of the Phototek at the Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florence and it was conducted by Juan Alonso and Giulia Martini, members of the ICA/PAAG Working Group.
Beyond Theory is a project of the ICA/PAAG Working Group, launched in 2022, which aims to provide content related to photographic and audiovisual management, offering operational possibilities through a pragmatic approach. The main objective of this initiative is to interview relevant and highly experienced professionals involved in different aspects of the audiovisual and photographic workflow.
In 2023, ICA/PAAG conducted two interviews. The first of the year was with La Digitalizadora, a “citizens’ platform” created in 2019 with the aim of accompanying social groups and individuals in the digitisation, description and dissemination of their audiovisual memory, preserved in analogue supports (video recordings and films) that are in danger of decaying. The second was with Ivonne Ng (WITNESS), who supports people to create and use archives for human rights change and accountability. She supports and trains grassroots partners, produces shareable learning materials and advocates on issues related to human rights archives.
We invite you to scroll down to read this new interview about Photothek, photo archiving and more!
INTERVIEW
- Your curriculum is largely connected to the world of research and academia, but your current position has a lot to do with archive management. How do these two roles interact with each other? Is there a prevailing one?
We believe that the connection between research and archival management, not only in our personal biographies but also in the broader context of the Fototeca, is a strength. As researchers, we bring our individual academic biographies, shaped before our involvement with the Fototeca and often extending beyond the realm of photography. Our research agenda is drawing both from the research goals of the institute and from the questions emerging from the archival management. This interconnection creates a dynamic and enriching environment. We believe that our roles as archive managers and archivists provide a unique perspective on the archive. We don’t see it merely as an abstract entity where theories crafted outside the archives can be applied. Instead, we integrate theoretical insights with the everyday experiences of managing an archive. This fusion not only enhances our research, but also contributes to the effectiveness of archival management.
- The KHI, including its Library and Photothek, was founded in Florence in 1897. Like many other photographic collections established around 1900, it was strongly connected to the library. The denomination of Photothek itself — that could be translated as “photo library” — refers to the world of libraries rather than to the world of archives. Has this aspect affected the ecosystem of KHI’s photographic collection? More generally, what do you think is particular to the Photothek’s collection in comparison with other institutions managing photographic heritage?
We believe that the names of institutions bear historical significance: for instance, the terms Fototeca in Italian and Photothek in German are currently in use. The accurate English translation is “Photo Library”; I questioned this term already in a publication in 2011. When one envisions a library, the image often conjured is that of a place with neatly arranged books on shelves, easily retrievable as needed (of course, while we use this metaphorical comparison, we acknowledge that a library encompasses much more complexity. We are well aware that a library transcends the simplistic image we’ve just described). In our perspective, a photographic archive, a term we prefer, extends beyond a mere repository of retrievable information. It represents a dynamic space where knowledge sedimentation occurs over time. Our view has been shaped by postmodern archival theory that in the 1990s started conceptualizing archives as dynamic entities constantly evolving, with knowledge not merely preserved but actively generated by archivists. Hence, we lean towards the designation of Photo Archive.
Nevertheless, we are flexible, understanding that historical or institutional reasons may lead to the use of terms like “archive” or “photo library”. In our view, it is more productive to define a photographic archive without being overly concerned about categorizing it strictly as a place of spontaneous sedimentation, as in the classical definition of an archive, or as more as a collection according to the traditional understanding. What holds significance is to uphold a conceptualization of the archive that can be extrapolated to libraries, promoting a dynamic and productive perspective reminiscent of an “ecosystem”. And this definition allows also to put more importance to the agency of the archivist producing the photographic documents and, in the end, producing the archive with its structures.
- Starting in 2009, the KHI Photothek has been the main promoter of “Photo Archives”, an open-ended series of international conferences and scholarly activities developed in collaboration with other international partners and dedicated to the reciprocity and interaction between photographic archives and academic disciplines. The proceedings of these conferences were published in different volumes and represent an influential theoretical contribution to the field of photographic archives. A relevant suggestion was the “[…] need to acknowledge and to embrace the subjectivity of photographs and their preservation contexts as they allow us to re-approach them as autonomous ‘objects that exist in time and space’ (Caraffa, 2015, vii) rather than mere visual representations on a material or digital support”1. Has this concept influenced the way the Photothek’s collection is organized? If yes, how?
We identify two distinct themes here: the conference series and the concept of photographs as tangible objects existing within the dimensions of time and space. We find the latter to be a pivotal concept that has significantly shaped our endeavors over many years. It originally emerged in the realms of anthropology, particularly within British visual anthropology, as well as archival studies. We owe a debt of gratitude to two scholars who greatly influenced our perspective on photographs as material objects: Elisabeth Edwards, a distinguished British anthropologist, and John Schwartz, a Canadian scholar in archival studies and historical geography.
When we started the process of reassessing the functions and value of the Photothek, integrating this notion of photographs as material objects into the discipline of art history became crucial. This foundational idea has underpinned our work for the past 15 years. It is important to note that the Photothek’s collection has existed for over a century, comprising hundreds of thousands of photographs. Although we cannot retroactively alter the organization of our holdings based on this new conceptualization (and we don’t even want that), we engage in rigorous study, interrogation, and investigation of our holdings. This approach has allowed us to not only view photographs as instruments of research, but also as objects of study themselves. Consequently, we have extended this investigative lens to the archive as a whole, exploring its configuration, organization, classification system, and its broader “ecosystem”. We now contemplate photographs in terms of being material and social objects existing in specific temporal and spatial contexts. This perspective has had a profound impact on various activities within the Fototeca, including our digitization processes.
- In addition to the archival ecosystem, another crucial factor for the understanding of photographs is their production context. American documentary photographer Lewis Hine said that “while photographs may not lie, liars may photograph”, and this holds true also for those who use photographs, as proved by the proliferation of fake news on social media platforms. One of the risks in managing photographic archives is the loss of the principle of provenance, a fundamental of archival methodology. Institutions, corporations, or departments at times tend to isolate photographic and audio-visual documents from their original context, to group them by format (slides, cassettes, positives, Betacams…). Yet, for archives context is key: a single photograph generally holds no value on its own, but rather as part of a context and participate of and to its significance. Context allows users (citizens!) to read photographic documents in a more objective way, developing their own interpretation without being manipulated by other constructed narratives. How does the KHI Photothek ensure context preservation and uphold the principle of provenance?
The concept of an archival ecosystem is something we developed at the Photothek more than 10 years ago. Despite the widespread use of the term “ecosystem” in various research fields today, its application is not inherently obvious. For us, it forms the foundation of our approach in considering not only photographs as social and material objects, but also archives as material, dynamic configurations wherein photographs engage with each other as well as with the classification system, the labels, the organization of the archive, its digital structure, and, of course, with archivists and scholars.
Our emphasis on the ecosystem is not intended at all to highlight competition among individuals, as some disciplines might use the term; rather, it serves to underscore interactions. This approach, combined with the material perspective, enables us to transcend traditional hierarchies and value systems prevalent in art history. Art history, rooted in the notion of unique works of art and artist authorship, finds it challenging to accept the value of our sometimes dusty, blurred photographs lacking a singular author and featuring multiple originals. Referring to Nina Lager Vestberg, we believe these photographs possess an “archival value” beyond artistic or documentary value. While the Fototeca was initially established within a research institute to document Italian art and architecture, we acknowledge a broader potential for these images. Considering this conglomerate as an “ecosystem” accentuates interactions between different actors and entities, allowing us to move beyond conventional hierarchies of value.
However, I must say that we disagree with the assertion that a single photograph has no value on its own. Each photograph holds intrinsic value, with its significance unfolding in different ways when viewed individually or within a broader context. Within our archive, each photograph has an original context, such as being part of a photographic campaign organized by an art historian in a specific moment in the frame of a specific research project. Yet, within the archival context, new possibilities emerge, leading to different investigations and pathways. The photograph’s journey within the archive—from being part of a specific campaign to residing in a certain box based on the archive’s classification system—creates additional layers of context. This multi-layered context allows for diverse lines of inquiry.
Regarding the preservation of context in our Fototeca, while the idea wasn’t initially considered as such in our institution’s long history, there has been a necessary preservation effort due to the KHI’s founding as a private institution. Scholars contributed not only financially, but also by donating their photographs and books. This tradition persists, even after becoming a Max Planck Institute in 2002. The institute acknowledges this support and has been meticulous in documenting the provenance of holdings. In addition, from the very beginning there was the need to trace photographers for copyright reasons, rather than for an inherent interest in the photographers themselves.
The wealth of provenance preservation and context documentation in our holdings is recorded among others on the cardboards of the photographs and in the card catalog as well as in our inventory books. From the outset, there was a commitment to documenting this collective work, contributing to the richness of the Photothek, which we consider not just as a repository, but as an archive built by a community of individuals over time.
- A low-intervention archival policy is more respectful of the original context and facilitates a more comprehensive analysis, but preserving or digitizing every element is not pragmatic. It is good practice to carry out a selection, since collections have multiple duplicates, redundant or poor-quality photographs. This approach allows a greater documentary relevance in searches, as well as the optimization of the generally limited resources allocated for digitization and for both physical and digital preservation. In addition, published and documented procedures ensure the objectivity of the selection management process. What is your opinion? What approach and procedures has the KHI Photothek adopted concerning the selection of images?
Certainly, the process of selection is inherent to our work. We assess the quality of images, considering their content and whether similar images are already present in our collection. However, what was deemed a duplicate a hundred years ago may now be one of the most intriguing photographs in our archive, and this for various reasons. While we have established criteria, it’s crucial to recognize that the criteria themselves are never definitive. Our primary objective remains to maintain a comprehensive collection of photographs documenting Italian art. Therefore, our main mission is to continually question and reassess these criteria, recognizing that exceptions may be necessary. The application of criteria is a human endeavor, carried out by archivists who, in specific situations, may decide not to acquire a photo campaign due to poor quality. Conversely, a different situation might lead to the acquisition of a poor-quality photo campaign if it captures something otherwise undocumented or because the donor holds significance for reasons beyond photographic quality. In such cases, seemingly inadequate documentary photographs may evolve into epistemic objects with profound value in the future. In recent years, we have observed a noteworthy phenomenon where many of the photographs we previously discarded have gained new significance over time. A notable example is the category known as “doublets,” which were replaced by newer photographs, particularly during the 1920s due to spatial constraints. Initially kept separately, often serving as objects for exchange, these doublets may not have contributed significantly to the study of the photographed work of art at the time. However, they have reemerged as valuable today for alternative reasons, such as their provenance, their role in the history of the photographic object, insights into photographic techniques, retouching methods, and similar aspects. Consequently, these discarded photographs are being reintegrated into our collection. This evolving perspective on the discarded photographs highlights that the selection process is dynamic and ongoing, rather than a conclusive or final determination. A similar scenario unfolds with slides, which are kept in a separate storage due to spatial considerations. Remarkably, these slides and their corresponding inventory books now serve as crucial resources for reconstructing lectures that hold paramount importance in our research, particularly from the point of view of the history of science. Currently, efforts are underway to reintegrate these slides back into our collection. This continual reevaluation underscores the fluid nature of our archival curation and the continual reassessment of the values these materials hold in different contexts over time.
To navigate through the vast quantity of materials, it is imperative to remain aware of decisions made in the past regarding objects that were discarded or not accepted. Additionally, we approach our work by understanding the archive through a close examination of individual photographic objects or groups of objects. This close-up readings allow us to unravel the complexities of the archive, as a broader perspective alone would not suffice. Through this dual approach, we strive to come to terms with the decisions made in the past and gain a nuanced understanding of the archive we navigate.
- In a recent article2 you discuss digitization standards that are able to record the material complexity of photographs and archives and you pragmatically suggest some methodological tools: “Photo-objects should be digitized in high resolution, not only the images, but the entire card mounts and if necessary, the back too.” An interesting initiative in this direction was the 3D digitization of a collection of daguerreotypes carried out by the Centre for Image Research and Diffusion (CRDI) of Girona and now available on Europeana. Although it cannot replace in-person consultation, it is undeniable that digitization could satisfy the needs of a large part of the users. When do you envision technology potentially substituting the need for direct engagement with an original? In which cases do you believe physical consultation should override preservation needs?
In our perspective, even advanced 3D technology cannot replace the direct engagement with an original artifact. In the project, CENOBIUM, focusing on the 3D scanning of medieval cloister capitals, we have encountered the notion that on-site viewing may become obsolete.3 This echoes historical debates around 1839 and the subsequent years, when concerns about the impact of photography on the direct experience of originals were raised. Similarly, 3D technology is viewed as just another tool in our toolkit.
We firmly believe that no form of digitization can serve as a true substitute for consulting analogue holdings. While digital files may offer unique capabilities, such as detailed zooming, that are not possible with analogue photographs, these represent distinct experiences. It’s not a linear evolution, nor is it a straightforward surrogate. While we appreciate projects and techniques that harness the potential of digital media to capture various material aspects of analogue photographs, we maintain that these are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Integration, rather than replacement, is key in our perspective. The digital and analogue realms should be viewed as synergistic, and dismissing the analogue in favor of the digital is not an approach we endorse.
- Item-level comprehensive description is very valuable for users, but it is costly in terms of time and human resources. Also, digital technology has greatly increased the production of images, rendering image level description less and less feasible. To enhance accessibility, a multilevel description strategy is thus often a better option. By contextualizing the image, this approach also ensures a more objective understanding and guarantees access to photographic collections that might otherwise demand years for item-level detailing. Finally, there is an ethical dilemma: to what extent does the substantial investment of time and resources required by item-level description of certain collections produce a meaningful return? What is your perspective on multilevel description? Does the KHI Photothek undertake batch description initiatives? How does the KHI Photothek address the challenge of providing access to a multitude of images?
In our experience, maintaining a detailed description at the item level remains valuable. While preparing these data for the Semantic Web poses challenges, the task would be nearly impossible with less detailed records. Consequently, we persist in the meticulous cataloging process, having not only sustained it but expanded it. Numerous fields and levels have been incorporated to provide comprehensive details about the photographic object itself, encompassing aspects like photographic techniques, materials, image manipulations, photographer information, and the relationships between negatives, paper prints, and their respective digital reproductions.
The utility of item-level cataloging varies based on the institution’s mission and the nature of the material being handled. For instance, the Historical Archives of the European Union may have a distinct mission compared to a photographic archive within a scholarly institution, where item-level cataloging remains highly beneficial. Acknowledging the resource-intensive nature of this endeavor, we recognize the need for a balanced approach. In our case, the gradual distribution of resources over an extended period is not a constraint, considering the simultaneous consideration of copyright issues during digitization and cataloging efforts.
While managing the challenge of providing access to a vast number of images, the choice of platforms becomes crucial. We are actively present on several platforms, including Europeana, the Bildindex der Kunst und Architektur (a prominent German platform among art historians), and PHAROS, a multinational project involving 15 institutions, primarily in Europe and North America. This collaborative effort focuses on art, historical, and documentary photographs, working towards establishing a comprehensive platform. However, achieving interoperability, not merely as a concept but as a practical reality, remains an ongoing challenge in this multifaceted endeavor.
- In relation to digitization, there is less and less consensus regarding the choice of master format. Many relevant institutions recommended the TIFF for archiving master files, but this has changed in recent years. The fact that the camera has prevailed over the scanner for the digitization of still images, along with the evolution of other formats, has prompted leading institutions to update their technical guidelines. For example, the CRDI of Girona uses RAW as the master format: as a kind of digital negative, in fact, it affords greater processing flexibility and a lighter file size compared to TIFF. On the other hand, the fact that RAW is a proprietary format introduces risks in terms of future digital preservation. Similarly, the skepticism towards JPEG2000 has decreased and some institutions have adopted the DNG. What is the KHI Photothek master format? Why was it adopted? What are your digital preservation policies?
Typically, our archival workflow involves handling master and positive files in Tiff format, which are then stored in the LTA (Long-Term Archive). However, we also encounter proprietary RAW formats from the camera, specifically the IIQ format, especially in the context of digital photo campaigns. This practice has evolved in response to technological advancements and the adoption of newer camera systems over the past few years.
The decision to primarily utilize Tiff formats stems from the initial stages of our digitization projects in 2002 when we established backups at two MPS (Max Planck Society) datacenters. At that time, these datacenters only accepted Tiff formats, leaving us with limited options. RAW formats, due to their proprietary nature, are backed up on servers at the KHI itself. However, they are not included in our long-term archiving strategy due to the challenges associated with proprietary formats. This approach reflects our adaptation to both historical constraints and the ongoing evolution of technology within our archival practices.
- Image search is not always text based. There are purely visual systems, known as Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR), that allow users to initiate searches using images themselves. Notably, Google itself allows similarity searches. What is your point of view on this kind of technology? Do you think that visual search can play a role in photographic archives?
Certainly, this technique is especially valuable when examining different paper prints originating from the same negative. We’ve successfully employed this approach within PHAROS, leveraging it to align metadata from photographs that might be cataloged differently or, in some instances, not cataloged at all across diverse archives. For instance, consider our shared Alinari photograph of the Cathedral of Florence. Employing visual matching of paper prints proves instrumental in consolidating metadata, addressing challenges related to multilingualism and other complexities inherent in diverse archival practices.
- Lately there has been a lot of discussion about the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the social transformation it is expected to cause. Many Digital Assets Management (DAM) systems are already integrating automatic content description tools, including facial recognition of individuals and emotions. To what extent do you think AI could be useful in managing photographic archives? Could machines replace the descriptive work of a photo archivist?
Hmm, probably not. Perhaps for recording basic data like inventory numbers and analyzing captions. However, AI alone is insufficient for the comprehensive scientific recording we conduct at the Photothek. Our cataloguing approach addresses not only the photographs themselves but, in the first instance, the works of art they depict. The process entails extensive research to gather the latest knowledge about the buildings and art pieces, comparing various sources, and forming our own scholarly opinions within the framework of the Photothek’s classification system.
The archivist’s agency plays a pivotal role in shaping this process. We don’t merely consult scholarly literature; we actively develop our own perspectives as scholars, even in relation to the photographs of these works of art. We strive to integrate relevant insights from literature into our classification system. A typical decision point arises when a work, long deemed anonymous, is attributed to a specific artist in a scholarly article. The question then becomes whether to relocate the photograph from its current box, like “Florentine Gothic paintings,” to the box dedicated to that artist. This decision varies—sometimes we move it, sometimes we retain its original placement. Our ultimate goal is to facilitate user access, making it easier for them to locate the photograph. In such cases, we update the metadata with the new attribution but leave the photograph in its original box. This illustrates just one example of the multifaceted levels at which the archivist’s agency shapes the photographic objects and their potential uses.
Moreover, the art works we photograph often include unpublished pieces that constitute valuable research material. This depth of engagement goes beyond a Google query level and highlights the distinction between the work conducted in a scholarly research institution and that in other institutions with different perspectives and scopes. It’s not a critique, but an acknowledgment that the institution’s purpose profoundly influences the context of the photographs.
- Another dramatic transformation induced by technological advancements is the shift in the way we take images. The interesting study by the Spanish photographer and author of “Pandora’s Camera: photography after photography” Joan Fontcuberta, suggests that photography no longer serves the purpose of documenting or recalling historical moments, but that is rather part of the experience that is quickly shared through messaging and posting. How could this impact the study of photography? What role should archivists and image managers play in this contemporary society? And how to deal with the often-volatile images posted on social networks owned by private companies?
I have a profound appreciation for Joan Fontcuberta, and I am convinced that his statement is intended as a deliberate provocation. While it’s undeniable that photography traditionally serves the purpose of documenting and preserving historical moments—a principle still evident in our archival practices—we recognize that photographs transcend mere documentation. While we proclaim that our photographs extend beyond being mere records of works of art, the prevailing trend in societies emphasizes this utilitarian role.
In discussing archives as “ecosystems” and photographic documents as products shaped by individuals—archivists in our context—, I believe this perspective provides a nuanced response. Archivists and image managers possess the ability to refine their perception of the intricate relationships within photo archives. Even in archives seemingly detached from broader societal currents—such as ours, focused on ancient monuments in Italy—reflection on the circulation of images proves essential. Adopting a material approach facilitates the exploration of how image circulation influences not only scholarship, but also wider societal dynamics.
Our archives harbor immense potential for studying the historical circulation of images, tracking their movement within our classification system. This not only aids in reconstructing the original context of photographs and understanding the archival practices of art historians, but also contributes broadly to the study of image circulation. The contemporary phenomenon of instant image sharing through messaging and posting has become a topic of discussion in art history. Here, a transdisciplinary approach proves valuable, drawing on disciplines such as media studies and anthropology. This field of study, in particular, has grappled with issues related to images posted on social networks for the past 15 years. While there may not be a definitive answer to the challenges posed by the instant sharing of images in our society, acknowledging the rapid pace of image circulation is essential.
Considering this acceleration as a historical phenomenon helps us avoid falling into the trap—and Fontcuberta also stresses this fact—of succumbing to the rhetoric of the 1990s, which portrayed the digital revolution as a total erasure of the past. In line with Lisa Gitelman’s insight, it is essential to acknowledge that all media were “always already new”, underscoring the changing nature of our interactions with images over time.
- The KHI Photothek is a very active institution and has established itself as a center of cutting practices in the realm of photographic archives. You host exhibitions, work with researchers from all over the world, offer study grants, and organize international conferences and seminars; you also try to address the subject of contemporary images production. In terms of dissemination, you are far ahead of other institutions in the photographic heritage milieu: this gives you visibility, but it also demands a great commitment of time and resources that may affect other archive obligations. To what extent and why do you think this activity is important?
This activity is fundamental and a guarantee for the sustainability of our archives, not only at the Photothek. While photographic archives are experiencing a positive momentum in research with numerous global initiatives and research projects, they continue to face precarious conditions. Although there is an increasing number of projects and financial support available, there are still many photographic archives that struggle to access these resources or are overlooked altogether. While visibility for photographic archives has improved, a significant number remains hidden from view. It is through proactive engagement, research promotion activities, connections with scholars, invitations to diverse audiences, and funding applications that an archive can—allow me this strong concept—“legitimize” its existence.
In this sense, I would like to emphasize an additional aspect of our activities, which involves an increasing number of collaborations with artists. This dimension is crucial as it contributes significantly to shaping our perspective on archives. The endeavor to make archives open, useful, and impactful for society extends beyond scholarly and research-oriented collaborations, to include engagements with the broader public. A noteworthy artistic project in this regard is the collaboration with artist Massimo Ricciardo and our recent book “Encounters in an Archive”, co-authored with Amir, a group of cultural mediators, particularly from Africa. The book explores encounters between objects of migration and photographic objects from the Photothek, addressing urgent questions and issues of our time.
Opening the archive to artistic projects goes beyond merely offering it as a space for exhibitions; it involves actively challenging the archive through artistic endeavors. The groundwork laid in recent years has been instrumental in making us receptive to the questions and challenges posed by artists. This openness has been pivotal in fostering meaningful collaborations.
- About Dr. Costanza Caraffa
Dr. Costanza Caraffa has been Head of the Photothek at the Kunsthistorisches Institut (KHI) in Florenz – Max-Planck-Institut since 2006. She holds a PhD in art history and before taking up her role as Head of the Photo Archive at the KHI of Florence she has been collaborating as a researcher with various academic institutions such as the Bibliotheca Hertziana (Rome), the Mendrisio Academy of Architecture (CH) and the University of Lugano (CH). In 2009 Caraffa initiated the “Photo Archives” conference series and authored the Florence Declaration – Recommendations for the Preservation of Analogue Photo Archives.
- About Dr. Ute Dercks
Dr. Ute Dercks, an accomplished art historian, earned her Ph.D. in 2002 from Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf. With diverse roles in research and curation, including at Schloß Benrath and the Kunsthalle Hamburg, she has been a Scientific collaborator in the Photothek of the Art Historical Institute in Florence since October 2004. Dr. Dercks currently serves as the Deputy Head of the Photothek, contributing to the advancement of art history.
