“We live in a culture increasingly shaped by photographic images. But these technologies develop more rapidly than our ability to theorize about their effect.” (Hirsch 14)
Two girls walk hand-in-hand on a narrow path lined by lanky trees. Their bodies are almost in perfect symmetry. [swipe] The same two girls, now accompanied by a boy, stand smoking in a parking lot; it is dark outside. A rack of magazines from indoors casts its image on the glass door; a cigarette glows in the middle of the double exposure. [swipe] The interior of a building – metal beams, glass panels, exposed brick – is lit up in a golden hour glow. [swipe] A boy crouches over his phone. The muted tones of his clothing blend in with his surroundings (the couch he’s on, a bookcase, a large piece of tile art, and an evergreen plant). [swipe] A deer looks back, its shape almost indecipherable amongst the woods at sunset. [swipe] Two to-go receipts from a coffee shop, timestamped at 2:22PM. The receipt for the small iced latte is still wet from a ring of coffee stains.
The description above is that of an Instagram “photo dump” – a collection of vernacular photographs published in a carousel format. The photo dump is a modern genre of vernacular photography – everyday photographic objects made and curated by (mostly) amateur photographers (Batchen 57), common, banal, public, and all-too-easy to overlook. Only the photo dump is vernacular photography on a scale never seen before. There are nearly 1.5 billion active Instagram users worldwide, all of whom are equally capable of producing photo dumps (Insider Intelligence). There are currently over 4 million posts with the hashtag “photodump” – an underestimation of how many photo dumps there are, accounting for only public and hashtag-bearing posts. Interest in producing photo dumps is recent and rising rapidly, with the search term peaking at an all-time high in 2023 (Google Trends). In addition to becoming mainstream, the photo dump is increasingly formalized and commercialized, inspiring a slew of how-to articles for “the perfect photo dump” – including attention from Vogue. The photo dump’s sheer scale makes it an interesting object to consider. Its role in the multi-million dollar social media industry, its arbitrary temporality and seemingly endless global proliferation promise it as a uniquely capacious way of seeing.
This essay will examine the photo dump as both an object and a practice, drawing on existing object studies on vernacular photography and the close-up. I will examine a sampling of photo dumps from my personal collection and volunteers (friends and strangers) to outline the photo dump’s characteristics (subjects, curatorial practice, and temporalities at play) as well as viewers’ material engagement with it. I will outline how the photo dump simultaneously functions as a personal archive and a tactile site of interaction with public audiences, offering the creator’s subjective curation for public meaning-making. This exploration of the photo dump as practice will propose that it represents “public interiority” – a practice essential to the digital age. Going beyond what it is and does, I will evaluate how the photo dump, belonging to a long lineage of vernacular photography, differs from other vernaculars (such as the snapshot) in creating affective response from viewers. I will extrapolate on the implications of having the photo dump as a way of seeing, dually operating as a keepsake and public projection of the self.
Part One: Object
I am, hopefully understandably, hesitant to abstract the formal structure of over 4 million photographic objects. Lucky for me, journalists at Vogue – the “fashion Bible” – do not share my hesitation. They readily offer an example to answer “[w]hat’s in an Instagram Photo Dump?”:
“[...] an off-center Aperol Spritz, an Italian pastry shop window, an overexposed shot of the beach in Split, a meme about jet lag, a plate of oysters lit by candlelight, a shot of the harbour in Dubrovnik, a photo of the Via Dante street sign (the Milanese grandmother eating gelato did not make the cut).” (Sinha)
Though not accompanied by the photographs themselves, this description is expressive enough to prove this carousel is an instance of the perfectly “low-effort, seemingly random and unedited” photo dump (Sinha). Photo dumps are most often photographs of “things” – non-living and inanimate objects, reminiscent of a still life. These photographs of objects either feature a clutter of objects, or are concerned with the detail/part of a larger whole (so more “a window beam that gleams in the sunset” than “the horizon extending beyond it”). They are selected for any arbitrary reason – an interesting composition, an intriguing detail, or other vague subjective determinations.
If there are human subjects in the photo dumps, they are never posed. In fact, humans are hardly ever static at all in the photo dump. They are often captured in motion, caught in the middle of an action, which may result in motion blur.
Portraits (including “selfies” of the creator), or generally faces, are rarely if ever featured in a typical photo dump. Faces are likely treated with a blunt crop-out or extreme zoom-in, meant to obscure a view of the entire face. If included in a photo dump, these faces have a candid quality in their pose, expression, or setting – a sheepish smile caught by surprise, a crummy frat house porch as background. This candidness is further enhanced by slight imperfections of the photo – overexposure, out of focus, an overexaggerated zoom, a tilted framing, etc. These perfect imperfections contribute to the slice-of-life, detail-oriented quality of the photo dump.
The photo dump, then, privilege the object over the human and the detail over any grander scenes. These objects and details together comprise a response to the arbitrary passing of time – an “April,” a “semester,” a “year,” or the time it takes for one’s camera roll to fill up – unlike typical Instagram content, which commemorate the memorable event. In other words, the photo dump does not record discrete disruptions to the creator’s everyday life – a concert or a fervorous night out, all-too-Instagrammable moments – but is instead the mundane outtakes of life itself. Note that this temporal dimension of the photo dump is only legible to its viewer via the caption, if at all. The photos in above are in fact various Instagram users’ “overdue spring dump”, “sumemr [sic]”, and “dispatches from fall” – all arbitrary and arguably subjective time units, fluid with indiscernible beginning and end points.
Beside the ambiguous time frame of its capture/curation process, the photo dump contains a multitude of temporalities due to its existence on social media. It is at once permanent and (pseudo-)ephemeral. The photo dump feels ephemeral. It is marked by the instantaneity of the publishing action, the relatively short period of time that it is actively shown on followers’ Instagram feed, and the possibility of pseudo-vanishing (due the creator’s deletion or archive action). Yet, the photo dump retains photographic indexicality and therefore permanence of the experiences photographed. In featuring only the suggestive details, the photo dump serves as an abstract index for the real experiences it captures. Sensitive to the algorithmic nature of social media (that on which the photo dump lives), I use “index” here in the computing sense, to mean a pointer to a real value stored elsewhere. The pointer – index – is a hollow object whose purpose is to facilitate search for the actual, substantial value it represents. This index model is indeed applicable for the photo dump: the inanimate objects and the in-motion humans of the photo dump point towards the holistic experience that exists beyond these details. The wholeness of experience is stored elsewhere, within other photographs that do not make it to the photo dump or in human memory. The photo dump does not “embalm time” (Bazin 14) because it contains a physical (chemical) trace of the photographic subject’s presence, but because of the permanence of the Internet. Any image posted to social media has the potential to be preserved, duplicated, and replicated indefinitely (Thorbecke). This data permanence, together with the index-pointer quality of the photo dump photographs, constitutes a digital indexicality unique to the photo dump.
I should note that these complex temporalities are inaccessible to the viewer of the photo dump, who can be any other Instagram user. The viewer is obscured from the capturing and curation process of the photo dump. They only have approximate ideas about when the photos are taken or why particular photographs are selected. Ultimately, the viewer’s material engagement with the photo dump is a process completely detached from the creator. Discrete as it is, this material engagement is crucial to our understanding of the photo dump – after all, this viewing process makes up the social quality of the social media object I am examining.
The viewing practice of the photo dump is highly interactive, tactile, and reminiscent of viewing a close-up in film. This may be a surprising observation, considering the vast differences in every single facet of the respective mediums. However, like the moving-image close-up (Doane 107-109), the photo dump is concerned with the detail or parts of a larger whole. Hosted on phone screens, usually held 8-12 inches away from our face (Yoshimura et al), the photo dump is viewed in close-up first and foremost because we, viewers, are very close to it. Presented with only the suggestive details, the viewer instinctively fills out the larger image beyond the fragments they can really see. This cognitive fill-out action is an attempt to re-contextualize the close-up image that naturally became de-contextualized in the curation process. For example, the photo below shows a single photo in a typical photo dump. This photo is already de-contextualized, extracted from its spatial and temporal context (when was it taken, who was/were in it, why were the pies being made, etc.) in order to be presented in a “dump” with other images. It is a part of a larger whole image, evident from the way some objects are cut off: a missing half of the rolling pin, the pie-maker’s obscured right hand and upper body, the very edge of the larger apple pie. As a viewer, I immediately recognize the fragmented quality of this image, and thus am compelled to imagine the rest of the image.
I say a photo like this is concerned with the detail, or about the detail, simply because it’s not about a whole scene. (The scene is simply missing. The camera’s focus being on objects and textures instead of an overarching action supports this observation.) Engaging with the photo dump represents a novel mode of interaction with such detail – a physical tactility, stemming from the way we tap/double-tap to “like” and swipe to view the post. The photo dump is not just an array of singular photos. It is the photos put in motion at the viewer’s fingertips. Below are the images preceding and succeeding the previous photo; and here I – bound by the limits of the essay form – humbly ask that you imagine these photos appearing one by one.
As one image becomes visible in the viewport, its neighbor goes out of view. Due to the individual images’ proximity to each other and the fluid, continuous flow that links them all together, I – viewer – am compelled to make up a relation between these images in a manner similar to the Kuleshov effect in film. These features of the photo dump’s material engagement demonstrate that while not all-explanatory, the viewing practice of the film close-up is particularly useful in analyzing how we engage with the photo dump.
The sheer scale and ubiquity of the photo dump makes it an elusive object, but nevertheless it is restrained by its life on social media and existence within the traditions of photography. Its peculiar subjects, fascination with the detail, multitude of temporalities, and highly interactive viewing practice make it an extremely rich object to examine. Next, I will explore the practices that shape the photo dump, drawing more extensively on its private and public functions.
Part Two: Practice
The set of practices that dictate the photo dump’s functions for its creator and viewer are, of course, informed by the object’s characteristics. The interplay between its function as a personal archive and a site for public meaning-making allows the photo dump to represent public interiority – a public-minded, publicly-broadcasted interiority completely novel and unique to this photographic object.
Instagram profiles are themselves personal archives. Brimming with data and records of individuals’ browsing habits, engagement with wide ranges of content, expressions of sentiment across multiple formats (24-hour stories, posts, videos, comments, likes, etc.), each Instagram profile is indeed “a set of documents [...] that provides evidence of an individual’s activities” (“Personal Archive”). The amalgamated nature and the permanence of social media, too, point towards the multimodal and post-thumous qualities that characterize the personal archive (Ashenfelder).
The photo dump is a part of this archival mode. Creating a post is an action responding to an archival impulse. Instagram posts, of which the photo dump is a subset, first and foremost are addressed to the creator themselves to document or communicate with “their past, present, and future selves” (Bruegger 64). In this practice, the photo dump is reminiscent of a myriad of other vernacular photographies. Vernaculars do often make up the personal archive (Ashenfelder), and they also serve to communicate to the person’s successive selves. Among these are the baby photo – to remind the subject’s future self of their past self, or the snapshot, perhaps taken in front of monuments to triumphantly declare to the subject’s past self that their present self has made it to “this place, finally!”.
The photo dump is also an archive because it functions as one, enabled by its indexicality. Looking at a photo from a photo dump (the index) the creator is reminded of the rest of the image/experience (the substantial value stored elsewhere) that it signifies. Consider the image below as an example. Two people walk side-by-side towards a parking lot in the distance. Their shadows trail behind them, lush trees tower above them. The afternoon sun peeks through the canopies. By all accounts, this photo shows a mundane, nondescript scene.
Now, this is a photo I took and posted as part of my winter 2022 photo dump. To me, the scene is hardly nondescript. The two people in the photo are my high school friends. It was taken on my winter break, when we visited Rice University; we were walking at the periphery of campus on a typical warm Houston afternoon. As an index, this photo points towards an array of experiences – the walk we went on, my junior year winter break, my first time in Houston, etc. From the photo alone, I am able to recall the substantial (and meaningful) experience it is a sign of, thanks to its indexicality. This process is archival – it describes my activities, the photo dump acting as indexes for my experiences. But it is also deeply personal: the photo dump curation practice – selecting the details to publish – is a subjective process. I chose this photo because it points towards a lovely experience that only I experienced, yes. But more so because my friends are in motion in a beautifully effortless way (to me) – look at that casual arm swing! – and are lit just right. The criteria for the photo dump thus lies in the detail, which depends entirely on personal judgment.
Photo dump curation is personal also in the sense that it is only legible to the creator and completely inaccessible to any viewer. Consider the pie image again, which comes from a volunteer’s photo dump:
Unlike the previous photo, there is very little I can tell about why this photo is chosen. I cannot articulate which detail exactly I am supposed to be drawn towards. I am most drawn towards the amalgamation of textures and objects, the swirls of the pie and how the hand appears to be going against it. But ultimately the photo appears banal to me. I can speculate that the creator, in selecting this photo, must have been enamored on some level by the personal (private) experience it’s a sign of, but more importantly by something about this photo – the detail, personal judgment. But precisely what the answers are, I do not and will never know.
The absolute inaccessibility and deeply subjective privacy of the detail characterizes the photo dump’s curation practice. Against this inaccessibility, the photo dump’s viewer engages in a highly involved and tactile meaning-making process. The viewer, on recognizing that the image is evidently part of a larger whole, fills out the rest of the image beyond the details they really see. In Part One, I described how this fill-out process is an attempt to re-contextualize the decontextualized detail. Having outlined the absolute inaccessibility of this (decontextualized) detail, I want to highlight how speculative and subjective this re-contextualizing attempt really is. Let us reconsider the pie image. Visualizing the pie maker makes tangible the detail’s inaccessibility: the nondescript yet focal detail – the hands – tells the viewer little about the pie maker or the photo. They could have been anybody – a friend, a cool aunt, an older sister, or the creator themself. If the photo features a friend making apple pies with the creator in a college dorm, this photo perhaps has captured a rare and wholesome break from studies. If the photo features a kind older sister joining the creator in their childhood home, this photo perhaps has captured a nostalgic re-creation of a childhood memory. I can go on, as I’m sure you can, too. But for all we (or any viewer) know, all of these interpretations are equally false, because the whole evoked by the detail is forever inaccessible.
The viewing practice of the photo dump is evocative of the viewing practice for a film close-up, which also privileges the (decontextualized) detail over the scene, or any parts over their larger wholes. Writing about the close-up, Eisenstein recalls his first childhood memory (Eisenstein 6). By the same logic that all photo dumps are in close-up due to phones’ proximity from our eyes, childhood memories are also always in close-up (Parker). Beyond this material condition, Eisenstein’s childhood memory/series of images is in close-up because it is impressions of the detail, described in great tactile proximity. The detail morphes into an increasingly larger whole as Eisenstein builds on his memory and autobiographical facts. The branch of lilac became the crocheted net of a bed, then an embroidered flower, then a Japanese folding screen, then the flat foreground composition of said folding screen (Eisenstein 6-7). These presumably more accurate larger images are constructed partially from the visual cues within the image itself, but more so from his subjective experiences – recollections of childhood safety, aesthetic fascination, and family homes. The meaning-making of the close-up, then, is highly subjective and independent from its material reality or larger whole. The same process is operative when a viewer looks onto the photo dump, similarly a collection of decontextualized details. The viewer’s meaning-making via filling out the detail is completely dependent on their subjective inferences. This process is also highly involved, drawing on the viewer’s associations, speculation, and active imagination. Published for public viewing, the photo dump is a site for communal meaning-making that saturates each detail with subjective (and unequivocally speculative) interpretations from the public of viewers.
At the same time, the viewer also constructs meaning from the photo dump by creating a relationship between images, having put them in continuous motion by swiping. The touch, by itself, gives a false impression of demystification at the viewer’s fingers (Batchen 61, quoting Barthes), or the illusion of physical intimacy to the image (Batchen 68). This impression is, of course, false because the whole image or the experience it points to are inaccessible to the viewer. Nevertheless, the photo dump – that array of decontextualized details – receives yet another layer of meaning derived from tactile public interaction. The photo dump below, for instance, suggests to me a vague domesticity: magnets (for fridge poetry), a kitchen with warm overhead lighting, a library. That the library is one I happened to know well affirms the derived domesticity. Thus this tactile interaction, too, is imbued with the viewer’s subjective inferences, memories, and associations.
For all the subjectivities and inaccessibility at play, the practices surrounding the photo dump are interconnected. In other words, there exists an interplay between the photo dump’s function as the creator’s personal archive and as a site of public meaning-making. The creator and viewer will eventually collide: the viewer letting their seeing be known via social media emotes – likes/comments/shares, the creator seeing themselves being seen by the viewer.
The photo dump, thus, represents a sense of public interiority. To start, the photo dump decisively projects interiority. Its curation process denotes how the creator views their experiences, how they want their future self to look at the future-past they have indexed. That interiority is publicly broadcasted. The publishing action in itself makes the photo dump an outward facing declaration – “see, my experiences!”, even if that seeing is inherently obscured by the inaccessibility of the detail. But in offering their interiority for others’ view, the creator allows their interiority to become publicly constructed. The audience, the public of viewers, would actively consume and add to the photographic object while engaging in their comprehensive meaning-making process – touching it, imagining the wholes beyond its details, speculating on inter-image relations. This public interiority is important because it is unprecedented. No other photographic object is capable of such complex interaction at the same level of ubiquity. The photo dump is imbued with both public perception and private subjectivity. It forces personal archival impulses to collide with onlookers’ meaning construction through highly involved, tactile and cognitive processes, asymptotic and contradicting. All the millions of photo dump objects currently online project public interiority. Proliferating at an incomprehensible speed, the photo dump has truly become a way of seeing – seeing ourselves and others.
Part Three: Way of Seeing
I position the photo dump as a way of seeing, not a way of looking, because the photo dump is complex beyond just the act of looking at the detail, however novel that act is. It is the affective response – succeeding and arising out of the act of looking – that defines the photo dump’s status in a lineage of other photographic objects. What then, if at all locatable, is the source of affective response in the photo dump? What does it mean for the photo dump to have become a way of seeing?
To explore this, I look towards another form of vernacular photography – the snapshot. The snapshot captures everyday occasions, generally taken by amateur photographers with portable cameras (Zuromskis 8). Emphasis on the mundane – “everyday” – aside, the subject and temporality of the snapshot is poles apart from the photo dump. Snapshots generally have a defined, significant temporal dimension – a special occasion, a vacation, a first day of school; the photo dump is fluid, arbitrary, and insignificant in temporalities. The subjects of the snapshot are human (and mostly faces, too) – loved ones; the photo dump is concerned with the non-human, even face-averse. Yet the practice of curating snapshots and its global, endless ubiquity are comparable to those of the photo dump. The snapshot is often collected into a photo album or otherwise similar series form that becomes tactile and even cinematic when interacted with. Like the photo dump, the snapshot is “an intensely private and personal form of photographic representation”, but as a practice, extremely common and “one of the most public”. As a result, the snapshot’s affective response, too, lies between the potentials for intense personal meaning and banality for public viewers. For these reasons, I draw on the yearning at the crux of the snapshot’s affective response to make sense of that of the photo dump.
Defining the snapshot, Catherine Zuromskis locates this yearning to arise from “one's personal attachment to a snapshot”, overriding the expected banality with “some form of deeply subjective meaning” culminating in an “intense pleasure and satisfaction in the viewing of that image” (Zuromskis 39). This personal attachment, in turn, is derived from the tension between presences and absences within a single image:
“It is only through the vacillation between the presence of what is and was there, and the absence of what is vanished or unattainable, that the snapshot truly engages its viewer’s subjective, emotional response.” (Snapshots 44)
“What is and was there” for the snapshot is the subject(s) of the photograph. A garden gate, a younger sister, a past self – all significant, either monumental or profoundly loved. “What is vanished or unattainable” for the snapshot is not tangible in the photograph and clearly signaled by its absence – an afternoon long gone, a version of loved ones you never knew and have no way of meeting. The affective response – the yearning – arising from the snapshot relies heavily on how suggestive the photograph is of its presences and corresponding absences. This suggestive quality ensures that even without personal connection to the subjects of the photograph, any viewer can locate a tangible yearning for that which is absent from the snapshot.
Before attempting to locate the yearning evoked by the photo dump, I want to point out that the yearning of the snapshot has a lot to do with its human subjects: the presence is almost always that of humans. The photo dump, on the other hand, most often features things – objects, not people. In On Longing, Susan Stewart eloquently situates the role of the object in relation to the human: “[t]he function of belongings within the economy of the bourgeois subject is one of supplementarity, a supplementarity that in consumer culture, replaces its generating subject as the interior milieu substitutes for, and takes the place of, an interior self.” (Stewart, x) This is indeed operative in the photo dump. The creator, by projecting their interiority via an array of decontextualized details, allows these objects to mediate their interiority. The viewer can only access the creator’s personhood via that fractured array of objects.
The crux of the yearning within the photo dump is flipped from the forces operating in the snapshot. What is present in the photo dump is decontextualized details of objects, indexically suggesting larger images and fuller experiences. What is absent in the photo dump is the experience. Yet for all efforts in recollection and especially over time, the photo dump’s indexical power always submits to the tangible presence in the photographs: the leftover belongings of the experience. The real, substantial experience is indeed stored elsewhere. The photographic object only indicates the material remnants of the organic experience, void of actual interiority. That which is absent from the photograph, that substantial experience the photo dump acts as a sign of, is always unattainable, even for the photo dump’s creator. The photo dump, ridden with connotations of material, tangible waste (discarded belongings), is a self-fulling prophecy. It promises indexicality and digital permanence, posing as a safe haven for the creator to shed a part of themselves and their most private, subjective, tender gaze at their experiences. Yet over time, its unstructured, arbitrary and amalgamated quality will asymptotically conflate the photo dump with the mere material belongings it depict.
The person viewing the photo dump is also engaged in a similar asymptotic yearning, only this yearning is even more futile and insidious. The interiority of the creator – the promising interiority they are in extreme proximity with – is an illusion. Presented only with the suggestive details, the viewer yearns for meaning and the whole experience, but this yearning is never satisfied. This denial of satisfaction is due to both the inherent inaccessibility of the detail, and because the experience is never there by design, unattainable even for the creator. The denial of the experience is inevitable no matter how involved the viewer is in the tactile meaning-making process. As if to further aggravate the desire asymptote, this predestined inaccessibility is set against the most domestic setting of all, for the photo dump is always viewed in the palm of our hands. The affective response of the photo dump, thus, is given rise to by a bitter temporal gap, unbridgeable, inescapable and always emphasized by the very practice of viewing. The viewer is left to covet the material belongings and consumption present in the photographs.
Now, considering that the photodump represents the perils of asymptotic, unattainable yearning and reducing personhood to the clutter of objects, it is quite troubling that its proliferation builds on these bitter impulses. The photo dump is a phenomenon of a social media platform that strives to engage all users as both creators and viewers. Due to its ultra-popularity and engaging practices, the photo dump takes on a prescriptive role. Celebrities create photo dumps – to hundred thousands of likes – idealizing the imperfect slice-of-life, feeding into fans’ illusion of proximity. Conglomerates run mass advertising campaigns hinging on the photo dump, even tech giants/pseudo-monopolies like Adobe. Brands, too, lean into the photo dump as a marketing tool, rejoicing in its object-ness that tastefully disguises the commercial catalog. Fashion giants like Vogue, in defining what the photo dump is and does (Sinha), cements the photo dump’s status as the reproducible, prescriptive photographic object and cultural convention.
.png)
Celebrity photo dump
.png)
Advertising hinging on the photo dump
.png)
Brands advertising via photo dump
The layers upon layers of consumer culture and insidious yearning surrounding and defining the photo dump feel claustrophobic. But is that all there is to the photo dump? A harbinger of mass culture’s pitfalls? That would be extremely depressing, considering how pervasive the photo dump is. If you, reader, are crestfallen about the outlook of humanity’s collective way of seeing, I completely understand. But there lies potential in the photo dump’s existence, first and foremost as an attempt to communicate with the creator’s own lineage of selves. I argue that there is redemption in viewing the photo dump as a keepsake – a trace of personhood and earnest affect.
Earlier, I characterized the photo selection criteria with arbitrariness – “an interesting composition, an intriguing detail, or other vague subjective determinations”. Yet for all subjectivity, each creator, while selecting photos for their photo dump, is engaged in a deeply personal assessment of what stands out to them about each photo. Only in the curatorial process (and not at any other point, not when looking back on the photo dump), each photograph in the photo dump engages the creator’s earnest sense of presences and absences. In curation, the details are not yet decontextualized, experiences not yet objectified and decayed into indexes. The creator is confronting that which “pricks” about a photograph (Barthes 27). In an era of mass reproduction, confronting this arbitrary fascination – even for the brief duration of curating the photo dump – is a brave, private, vulnerable, and irreproducible act. In selecting a photo, the creator is declaring to their past, present, and future selves an organic truth about themselves – “This is what I choose. This is what’s beautiful to me, now! This is how I will let myself remember me”. This truth is by definition inaccessible, accidental and “unlocatable” (to quote Barthes), even to the creator themselves though they are no doubt driven by it. It represents a vulnerability that cannot be harnessed into quantitative data or heuristic intelligence. It fundamentally cannot be replicated no matter the endless proliferation of the photo dump. Each of the four million photo dumps may well hold an inaccessible truth, native to its moment of conception and legible only to the creator’s lineage of selves.
Despite its fraught relationship with mass culture, the photo dump may be the digital era’s unintentional, subconscious attempt to reinvent the vernacular keepsake. At a scale saturated with potentiality, it certainly is positioned to “restore a certain monumentality to both modern memory and the photograph” (Batchen 76). Tempting and hopeful as this conclusion is, it would be premature. The photo dump and social media are evolving at a scale unprecedented in human history, at a speed un-theorizable. I, writer, am just one person looking at a handful of photographic objects; there are nearly two billion other people (with more or less the same access to photo dumps and its many forms) also looking at these same photographic objects. This essay is an attempt to articulate the photo dump’s form and practices, to relate it to a lineage of other ways of seeing, to present its potential for both public conformity and private personhood, but above all, to “articulate its intelligibility for our own time” (Batchen 79). What the photo dump is and does and what all of it means would lie beyond this essay, as you – reader – ponder your practice of creating and viewing photo dumps, and what it means for you. The monumental secret meaning of the photo dump, then, shall stay inaccessible.
References
Ashenfelder, Mike. “Your Personal Archiving Project: Where Do You Start?” Library of Congress Blogs.
Bazin, Andre. What is Cinema?. University of California Press, 1987.
Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. Hill and Wang, 2010.
Batchen, Geoffrey. “Vernacular Photographies” from Each Wild Idea: Writing, Photography, History. The MIT Press, 2021.
Bruegger, Madeline. “Navigating the Kaleidoscope of Object(ive)s: A User-Experience Approach to Cultural-Historical Activity Theory”. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2023.
Doane, Mary Ann. “The Close-Up: Scale and Detail in the Cinema.” differences: A journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, 2003. pp 89-111.
Eisenstein, Sergei. “The History of the Close-up,” from William Powell, trans., Beyond the Stars Part II: The True Paths of Discovery.
Elmasri, Ramez and Navathe, Shamkant B. Fundamentals of Database Systems. Pearson, 2016.
Google Trends. Google.
Hirsch, Marianne. Family Frames: photography, narrative and postmemory. Harvard University Press, 2002.
Insider Intelligence. "Number of Instagram Users Worldwide from 2020 to 2025 (in Billions)." Statista, Statista Inc., 3 May 2022.
Parker, Steven Jerome. “How Well Can Newborn Babies See?” WebMD.
“Personal Archive”. SAA Dictionary.
Sinha, Arushi. “What’s in an Instagram Photo Dump?” Vogue, 2022.
https://www.vogue.com/article/instagram-photo-dump-generation-z. Accessed May 4 2024.
Stewart, Susan. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection. Duke University Press, 1993.
Thorbecke, Catherine. “Why deleting something from the internet is ‘almost impossible’.” CNN Business, September 18 2022, CNN.
Yoshimura, Michitaka et al. “Smartphone viewing distance and sleep: an experimental study utilizing motion capture technology.” Nature and science of sleep vol. 9 59-65. 8 Mar. 2017, doi:10.2147/NSS.S123319.
Zuromskis, Catherine. Snapshot Photography: The Lives of Images. The MIT Press, 2013.
Photo dump samples credit to Angie Pham, Thanothii Ganesh, Mahnoor Raza, Hien Minh Bui, @bookmarksandhighlights, @iamhalsey, @lightroom, and @bestdressed on Instagram.