Victor Hugo 1885

Editor: Here we have Felix Nadar’s photograph, "Victor Hugo," taken in 1885. It's a remarkably intimate still life. What's most striking to me is the almost tactile quality of the linen. What aspects do you find most compelling? Curator: The materiality here is everything. Look at the process itself. Photography, by 1885, had shifted from an almost alchemical ritual to something more reproducible. Yet, Nadar chooses to photograph Hugo post-mortem. The image becomes not just a representation but an object of veneration, an artifact. Consider the labor involved in creating such an image, both the photographer’s and, indirectly, the artisan who crafted the photographic materials. Editor: That's fascinating. The fact that it's a post-mortem photograph changes the whole context, especially thinking about labor. The image production also involved people preparing Hugo for the photo. It is about much more than the artist, Nadar. Curator: Precisely. The "authenticity" we often associate with photography gets complicated when we examine the layers of production. The textiles, for instance, play a crucial role. The very bedclothes signify a class status, the soft focus rendering them almost ethereal, elevating Hugo in death. It shifts photography away from just capturing reality. Editor: So it's less about Hugo as a man and more about the symbolic value conferred by the materials surrounding him. How those materials become symbols. Curator: Exactly. Consider too how this image was circulated, reproduced, consumed. Was it for a select elite or did it find a wider audience through printed media? The photograph transformed from a simple representation of a man into a tangible object invested with cultural and social meaning, dependent upon production and consumption of material culture. Editor: That provides a richer understanding. Thanks! I won’t be looking at photography the same way again. Curator: Indeed. It forces us to rethink what it means to both "capture" and *materialize* a moment.