I sometimes wonder what are the determinants that draw us to Then and Now pictures?
The form is cross-cultural as a review of the many Flickr albums dedicated to it attest. So, the determinant is a human emotion.
I myself look at Then and Nows of places I've never been to. The images are still valuable even if the attachment to place isn't there, or is it?
Many here tell us that a picture removes them to a place or event or both, in the past. It might have been as ephemeral as a dinner at a long gone restaurant as nomoreatorontonian tells us recently. It might have been a grand demolished building that we admired. It might have been the site of conflict or national history. It might have been something in between two of these or a kluge of several.
If the picture is earlier than our memories or birth date, it still has emotional attraction and historical relevance. It suggests a place we wish we had been to, or a place our ancestors worked or played in. Or, it lets us be observers of the present day, look into the past. The two pictures now give us points for comparison.
Putting two images - a Then and a Now - together creates - I think - an opportunity for the reader to write their own history. So, we have history presented to us but we don't have a historian having to research, write, edit and present history to us in so many sentences.
We look at the pictures and create our own narrative.
That's fine for the past but what lessons for the future can be derived from studying Then and Now?
Class discussion.
