But since Judy mentioned the Shroud of Turin, I can't let this opportunity go
by without relating the following (rather dreadful) true story which concerns
the far reaching effects of ideas of photography. Some may even say here that
photography can be rather insidious.
An English forensic scientist was called during a court trial here in Australia
in 1982 (along with hundreds of other experts), to give evidence on the
clothing of a tiny child who had been snatched by a dingo from a tent while
sleeping. The child, Azaria Chamberlain, and her family were camping at Ayers
Rock in central Australia. This was August 1980. Two years later the child's
mother was convicted of her murder (no body had been found) and jailed. The
*scientific* evidence of Prof James Cameron was significant in her conviction.
He claimed to be able to see a bloody handprint on the child's knitted clothing
which had been, belatedly, found half buried in the desert sands. Cameron
insisted that it was a small hand print he could see - it was just like that of
a woman it was concluded. Others could not see this as clearly as he insisted
he could. It was revealed, later, that Cameron had actually worked on the
Shroud of Turin and was particularly interested in it. The idea of the image on
the Shroud had obviously stayed in his mind.
This was a very very big case here. The mother, Lindy Chamberlain, was released
after some years in jail - her conviction finally in doubt. But she was never
pardonned as far a I can remember. The concept of the Shroud of Turin became
significant in this case. The idea of a residual image of the perpetrator
herself, a hand print stubbornly embedded in the fibres of the child's
clothing, once implanted in the public's mind, had everyone looking at the
child's garment. Everything in this case and a lot more, appearded in the
media, photographs were critical in so many ways and it became a popular trial
by media. Debate raged. Was there a hand visible on the clothing or wasn't
there?
In fact the whole case was absolutely loaded with fascinating photographic
references, pictures and photo-philosphical problems. From the prosecution's
claim that the dead child's body had been stuffed into the father's camera bag
(yes really), to photographs of all kinds used as evidence. Photographs of bits
of the family car for example, were otherwise quite unintelligible without
expert interpretation. *Blood stains* were carefully pointed out to the judge
on numerous photographs. But these blood stains when tested properly later,
turned out to be a chemical used in car manufacture - where they were found.
Now how do you deal with that? - Photographs which picture something, but which
are meaningless until given meaning, or rather, interpreted and put into words
and sentences by someone who, supposedly, knows?
Many on the this list (well, OK, some people) may remember a film in the US
called *A Cry in the Dark*. In Australia it was *Evil Angels*. It quite well
recounted this shocking drama.
I could go on and on, which might be already evident. I made a huge number of
photographs (yes many in alternative process too) on this and exhibited them
first in 1984 or 1985. The local art community was rather horrified that anyone
should use this as a subject, and that I should express an opinion on the
matter too. But I was outraged, I thought there were essential matters of
principle at stake here and of course, was greatly stimulated by the fact that
photography had been so influential and that the Shroud of Turin could possibly
bear on the matter as it had. Ten years later a few people said to me what a
good show the first one was, and someone re-exhibited some of the early work.
sigh :-)...
I've tried to be brief and as a result have probably sacrificed clarity here
and there. But photography is so complex.
cheers all
Catherine