Encyclopaedia of medical history

The catalogue is very usable. On the one hand, should a particular image catch the eye, the identifying information can be immediately consulted. On the other hand, researchers may consult the medical condition subject index. These indexes and captions are essential to an understanding of the content of the images, since these are reproduced in so small a format (22 x 34 mm) that the screening obscures detailed and, at times, even a general "reading" of the image. For instance, not even the billboard, let alone its advertisement, is visible in no. 2364. Students of medical procedures would also be frustrated if they had to rely only on the illustration for no. 1806, "Brain surgery in progress, Fitzsimmons Hospital, Denver, Colorado", to give them information. Of course, one receives an impression from the image, substantiated by the catalogue entries. The image could be further probed by subsequently ordering a slide from the archive. Such technical problems could have been alleviated had the publishers decided to use microfiche or microfilm to reproduce the images, as have other picture archives; while these methods pose problems for "at home" researchers, microfiche and microfilm readers are now standard in US libraries, and are gaining in favour in Europe. Despite these limitations, the catalogue is extremely valuable because it gives preliminary access to a host of images held in scattered archives, which were previously inaccessible or unknown, except to the few enthusiasts. A guide to these collections is given in the volume, with reference to the contents, hours of opening, and reproduction policies. The very identification and classification of these diverse photographs represents a significant step in the documentation of visual resources relating to medical subjects. Beyond this "documentary value", the catalogue stimulates inquiry into the purposes for which such images were taken and the nature of the "reality" which was selected for recording. Further, the poor quality of the reproductions serves to dethrone the icon status of some of the photographs, shifting emphasis to their content and social significance. For instance, the work of Ben Shahn, T.H. O'Sullivan, and Lewis Hine, which is frequently featured in exhibitions and texts by photo-historians, takes on a new dimension when seen alongside work taken by anonymous photographers, hitherto hidden in hospital archives. The Illustrated catalogue, while it "completes" the work of the Center for Photographic Images of Medicine and Health Care, represents only a prelude to future studies which its accumulated resources will encourage.