PHOTOGRAPHER ROBIN SCHWARTZ is an only child. She takes pictures of her only child, Amelia. Together, she claims they “play out our eccentricities in worlds where she and animals not only co-exist, but also interact.” Her photos, which often feature Amelia with an array of exotic animals, are strange and compelling.
On her nonhuman subjects, Robin says: “Animals and interspecies relationships have always been an important part of my work…My first monograph, a series of primates at home with humans, guided me to the places of my own childhood fantasies.” I, too, have always been fascinated with interspecies friendships.
Robin Schwartz’s images made me contemplate the connection between siblings and imagination. Do you think only children are more prone to having an imaginative sensibility because of their lack of early playmates?
I found Robin’s work through booooooom. Her complete collection of her photographs are featured here. She also has a lovely writeup on the Women in Photography website.
No related posts.
First time here? Here's the idea: 
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
The last one with the deer is my favorite!
As an only child, I just want to step in here and say that I think it’s a little reductionist to use the phrase “lack of early playmates” to describe only children. Growing up, I was not running around by myself creating imaginary friends. I spent a lot of time playing with both my parents, something that most my peers with siblings did not get to do as much of. Of course, having adult playmates is different than having child playmates, but I would never say that it affected my imagination, social skills, or my developing sense of self in any way. If you look at the great artists, thinkers, scientists, etc., of human history, you find both only children and those who grew up with siblings. In the end, creativity and genius will shine through in anyone who is blessed with it, regardless of birth order — just as it will regardless of race, gender, social class, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or any other restricting category. “The only child” seems to be one of the few pervasive stereotypes of modern times which is for the most part commonly accepted and unchalleneged. It is always dangerous to form categories, and I think separating people into “only children” versus “children with siblings” is no different than making assumptions based on any other immutable trait (like those I listed above).
Arielle – good point. Perhaps my wording of “lack of early playmates” was clumsy.
It was the artist herself that drew a connection between imaginative journeys and being an only child. I didn’t mean to imply that those without children wander in a world of their own making due to loneliness–I was just interested in the relationship to imagination and identity (more specifically, family identity) since Robin Schwartz seems to think there is a connection, as both an only child and a mother to an only child.
Obviously, this isn’t an essential trait of only children, as you’ve pointed out, but rather one woman’s perspective on being an only child. Being that this is a blog about siblinghood, I wanted to investigate her ideas on siblings (in this case, lack-there-of) further.
ooh. Me likey.. I definitely agree that there’s something obsure about the style of these photos. Although, I’d gladly take part in posing for the camera among these animals (even the hairless rat… i mean cat).