Dana Stirling’s 2017 series and handmade photobook Property of The New York Public Library Picture Collection is a snapshot of a peculiar trove and vital resource.
In early August, we learned through artist Jason Fulford and this New York Times article that the New York Public Library administration made plans to remove its Picture Collection from circulation. The collection, often organized into folders or binders of images, has been an invaluable resource to artists, educators and the general public for years. It’s a trove of historical imagery - at times anonymous, often peculiar and magnetic to those obsessed with archival image culture, from Joseph Cornell to Larry Sultan and Mike Mandel, and Taryn Simon.
In 2017, after touring the collection with Fulford, artist, curator and co-founder of Float Magazine Dana Stirling began zeroing in on a binder of UFOs. The collection contains 300 images, from stark “portraits” of aliens you might recall from issues of the Weekly World News, to flying saucers and almost psychedelic-looking orbs implied to be “space-related.” What fascinated Stirling more than just the alien phenomena were 121 images within the collection methodically stamped with “Property of The New York Public Library Collection” on the face of the image.
“It became clear to me,” says Stirling, “that this stamp was more than just an odd archivist’s decision, and now an integral part of the image and its composition.” More than just a watermark or security note, the stamp became part of the image, an intervention that, for Stirling, altered the images’ meaning by imposing an “alien element.”
Amidst the uncertainty of the collection’s future (details on how you can help preserve its public-ness here), we caught up with Stirling to learn more about her project and importance of this vital and peculiar resource.
Jon Feinstein in conversation with Dana Stirling
Feinstein: The UFO binder is part of a larger collection of image binders of different subjects. How did you initially stumble upon these binder collections?
Stirling: The first time I visited the NYPL Picture Collection was with Jason Fulford. He introduced me to the collection and told me how he used it in his own work. It was my first visit, and I am grateful that he took me there to see it as it became a beloved place for me that I often visit when I can.
As someone who is a big collector of images [BW snapshots, color slides, tintypes, Polaroids, glass plates and everything in between] this collection was an amazing resource for my curiosity of images and photographs.
Each binder is a very specific notion/word/term, and the images are placed in them over the years. So, these binders are just full of images that have the same subject matter, and they create a mini universe of that term based on how someone, at one point in time, cataloged them.
Feinstein: Why did you decide to focus on UFOs specifically?
Stirling: I looked over many of the binders and was trying to find something that will capture my curiosity with the medium of photography itself. I looked at the obvious binder “Photography”, but it was not enough.
I then went to the UFOs binders, and it clicked [no pun intended]. This binder claims to archive our interest in these extraterrestrial life forms. Before Google, the Internet and the ‘age of data’ someone at the library attempted to collect and archive the entire volume of visual references published in magazines and newspapers that include pictures and drawings depicting aliens and UFOs. So this binder is in a way, a collection of what we determine to be UFOs. a collection of images that fall into this notion and THIS is what we should expect UFOs to be based on it.
I think photography plays a key role in the depiction of UFOs as we know it and without photography, I don’t think UFOs would be what they are. We know that many people manipulated the camera and the film to create these encounters. Photography IS the tool of UFO Findings.
This notion of the relationship between the UFO and the act of photographing reminded me of what I try and do in my own personal work for years now. Taking images that are not mine, and creating a new narrative, story, person with them. If I can make an anonymous family photo my own, why would space and UFOs be any different to me?
Feinstein: Why 121 exact items?
Stirling: The number 121 doesn’t have a specific meaning to me, it doesn’t hold any powerful or mystical meaning, to me it was just amazing that I could create a book that represented this subject matter with JUST 121 pages. This subject matter is so much bigger than this binder, or my book. Some people dedicated their lives to this, and here I am with 121 pages that are archived in a library. I find it ironic and charming at the same time.
Feinstein: The images, as they appear in the collection, are all out of context. As you state in your project description, no research was done to contextualize them. It’s a conceptual exercise not unlike Sultan + Mandel's "Evidence," but unique in its own way. What was your thinking behind this method?
Stirling: This is the charm of the NYPL picture collection. It is unassuming, it is technical and analytic but also very personal and naive in its approach. A random page from a magazine that usually has no significance is now in a binder, cataloged and used as a tool, resource, inspiration, information and as we can see also part of someone’s art. There is no “curation” per se, but someone chose at one point that it needed to be a part of this collection. How amazing is that?
I think the fun part of the project and the collection as well, is that there is no context really. You get to see a page from a book. It might have words it might not, and you must fill in the gaps. It is not about the words or the context it is about the PICTURES. I liked that I could find an image and look at it as it is – no strings attached. I can then find in that page what I was looking for within it and find ways to make it my own.
Feinstein: How did you do about selecting and sequencing the specific images/ what was the criteria beyond "outer space" / "UFOs" etc?
Stirling: A big part of the images I chose came from two main interests I had. The one, images that really spoke about photography itself so it can be someone holding a camera or taking a photo, or text that specifically talks about it.
The other was the images that had a prominent “PROPERTY OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY PICTURE COLLECTION” stamp on them. It became clear to me that this stamp was more than just an odd archivist’s decision, it is now an integral part of the image and its composition.
Even more bizarre is the strategic decision of the different archivists who over the years stamped the images themselves, literally. Not on the back side, above or to its margins, but directly on the artwork, image, drawing or anything of visual importance. In the act and process of “archiving” they ultimately imposed an alien element—altering the context of these cultural gems.
When I made the book, I made each image into a page. So my process was working within the format of a page spread which is why many of the images are built in that way. I tried to manipulate some of the images and the text to enhance the act of photography in them. Some things might not look manipulated, but they are.
Because the selection of images was so specific, I could ONLY use what was in the binder at the time. The work was about finding the gems within these pages, but also to manipulate things to fit my story and my agenda. It actually forced me to be more creative which I am grateful for.
Feinstein: This collection has a unique place in image, data, and cataloguing history. Created before online cataloguing, - how do you think Google, and today's technological evolution of the archive changes how this collection is interpreted?
Stirling: I think based on today’s technology; this archive is a dinosaur. It uses analog process and an analog mind set. It is a person tearing a page out, stamping it, finding the binder, placing it and cataloging it on the computer. Google can tell me everything I need and want in a matter of seconds, but in the collection, you have to actively think about what binder you might need or ask the desk what you are looking for in general and they will let you know which binder to look for.
But you must look, you must make a physical choice and effort to find it. So yes, if we need to compare it to today’s out of this world capabilities, this collection seems out of place.
Feinstein: There’s a human-ness to that process and the process of engaging with them...
Stirling: Sometimes the simplicity of things is important. Yes, I can search for UFOs online, but will they have these photos? Maybe, maybe not. There is something important in the physicality of things that can spark your imagination, your thoughts and can help you think about things in a new way.
We are so saturated with screens and images, that going back to these binders allows you to actually LOOK AND SEE. You are not glazing over; you are not scrolling; you are actively looking at each image giving it its time. This is priceless and we can never replace that with modern technologies.
You know, many think that analog photography is the same – takes too long, costs too much, too much effort and for what? Digital cameras can, supposedly, do everything better. But can they really? Everything has its good and bad, but we don’t always have to eliminate the “old” just because we have the new. They can coexist and support one another.
One thing does not mean better or worse, they are just different, why can’t we enjoy both?
Feinstein: Why did you decide to only produce a single "edition" of the book?
Stirling: I printed this book myself, including the cover cloth. I had an amazing binder bind it for me in Brooklyn and this was going to be my prototype.
As this book has about 200 or so pages, it took days to print, with several ink changes and paper boxes. It was impractical to try and make a small handmade print edition as it would cost too much, and I would have to sell it for too much. I thought it should be accessible, not something that would cost an arm and a leg and be precious. I was able to use this collection for free, so why should it now be something that is not for everyone?
Book publishers, even if interested, saw how big this project is and did not have the funds for it, or wanted me to bear the financial burden myself which I was not able to. So this is why really. I know it’s not a romantic answer but that’s just the truth of it.
Feinstein: In a 2017 piece for Prism magazine, you describe wanting to "give UFOs a second chance…."
Stirling: When I saw that, relatively, the number of images was pretty small compared to the vast collection of images we know are of UFOs out there, it made me think about the move to digital photography and how we are now more aware of how things “work” and in a way it is harder to fool us. In the beginning, when you saw a photo you believed it completely, it was a medium that captured life, and reality does not lie. What the photo showed had to be true. So this opened the door for UFO photography and to play into this belief that a photo is real.
I wanted to say that we still believe. Yes, it might be blurry fruit flies, color effects, light leaks, movie props, dark spots, exposure etc. This binder WAS everything, IS everything that we can believe in. This binder might be small, and it might be ironic and laughable as well, but it was everything I had so I had to make it be everything there is.
Cropping, inverting, retouching out, blowing-up, censor-marking, repositioning and any other form of digital manipulation was put into good use, further damaging the little integrity that this historical document once had, yet reinstating their magic.
Feinstein: I’ve been thinking a lot about this project in the context of the recent news of the possible privatization of the online NYPL image collection archives, which are currently public. There's a lot to think about re: how this impacts the democracy of information, gatekeeping, etc, but I'm interested in how the ideas you're working thru with this project relate.... specifically around the idea of an archive as "property of..."
Stirling: I think it is ironic to make this collection private and unaccessible to people. These are pages from books, magazines, and other trivial publications, they are not “fine art” and were never meant to be handled in that way. These images and pages have been touched by thousands of people every day for YEARS. If someone has that book at home, or that random magazine, are they now in possession of an historical artifact. I doubt it.
We tend to give things meaning and make them precious, but why?
The last time I visited the collection was July 9, 2021. I came in and saw about 20 people on those tables with binders, writing papers, looking at images. It was honestly, exciting to see people using the collection. Why should they not have access to these images? Why should they be locked away? We already pay money to see art or pass gate keepers to even get a glimpse at some of the monumental objects we have left in the world.
These images are so mundane it is almost ridiculous to think of them being locked in a basement somewhere to be untouched. If Google is free and accessible, why shouldn’t this collection be?
Feinstein: And the library itself is supposed to be a public resource!
Stirling: These images are the property of the library, but they are there to serve a purpose, an educational, cultural purpose. The property of them is symbolic in my opinion.
There is a choice to be made, do we lock this collection down and hide it, or keep allowing people to use this “property” for good use. If you had to ask me, this is a simple answer.
Feinstein: Does this project solely exist to be in book form, or would you consider making prints/ have you shown the work in exhibition capacity?
Stirling: Currently It is mainly as a book form. This project hasn’t been out in the world much for different reasons and people. I know, cryptic, but I can’t say too much.
Another notion that I always face in this work is the issue of copyright. I’ve had many conversations with various people and opinions are so polarizing and different that it makes me doubt myself.
Feinstein: What’s been the consensus?
Stirling: Some see the work as free use as it is a commentary and many of the images are also manipulated by me or by the library stamp. Some say that it’s copyrighted images so why should I use them for my own gain.
I see both sides, but I always believe that it is in the realm and free use but this fear and doubt makes me anxious.
Again, I know it’s not what artists usually say about their work, but I think it’s important to say.
I think the book form fits best for this project, I made it from the beginning with the intention for it to be a book. I curated the images and designed the pages to be a narrative. The book is an archival tool and process by itself, so I found it to be most fitting.