CHEEKY MONUMENTS: PHOTO-ENGRAVED HEADSTONES AND IMAGE MODERATION IN CEMETERIES

Abstract

For centuries headstone carving was in the hands of select groups: priestly castes, stonemason guilds, and cemetery operators. Today, stone markets are globalised; religiosity, and accompanying rituals, have waned in many countries; and cheap, on-demand laser engraving allows for the easy transfer of photographic images to polished stone surfaces. With these changes have come new challenges for those tasked with moderating the visual environment of the cemetery. This paper explores controversial headstone imagery by combining insights into the ‘deathcare’ industry taken from anthropological fieldwork with a media analysis of several headstone controversies in the US, UK, and Australia. It looks at the actions taken by cemetery personnel to remove or amend images considered inappropriate and reflects on the changing roles of those tasked with moderating headstone content and their interactions with tradespeople, who execute designs, and the clients, who purchase headstones for loved ones. Lastly, this paper analyses how headstone moderation relates to broader conversations on censorship and offence; including ‘cheeky’ content that walks the line between permissible and impermissible in the cemetery setting.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to acknowledge funding support from the Australian Research Council through ‘The Future Cemetery’ Linkage Project [LP180100757] and the project’s Linkage Partner, the Greater Metropolitan Cemetery Trust.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Cemetery managers refer to the families of the deceased (and those who buy their own headstones ‘pre-need’) alternatively as ‘customers,’ ‘clients,’ and ‘families’; this article does not seek to make a distinction between these names and uses them interchangeably.

2. ACCA, “National Cremation Capacity Survey,” 2.

3. In Australia, North Macedonian communities are one exception, in these communities it is not uncommon for elderly, and even middle aged, people to commission a headstone (with only a birth year but no year of death) that they will keep in their house until their passing.

4. Walter, “Ritualising Death,” 38.

5. Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead, 279–281.

6. Laqueur, Work of the Dead, 141.

7. Holmes, The London Burial Grounds, ch. VII.

8. Saul, “Commemoration in Early Medieval England,” 21.

9. Veit and Nonestied, New Jersey Cemeteries, 156.

10. Shank, A Token of My Affection.

11. The sale of mail-order headstones by companies like Sears and Roebuck highlights a transitional period in the socio-cultural treatment of mortality: their 10-week turnaround times, straightforward pricing, and illustration-heavy catalogue represent a galloping modernity but their frequently-used inscriptions — over half of them relating to the death of a child — are still strikingly Victorian.

12. Quality Monuments, 66.

13. Jalland, Australian Ways of Death, 122.

14. Veblen, The Theory of Business, 399.

15. Merridale, “Revolution among the Dead,” 185.

16. Madrigal, “Lasers for the Dead.”

17. Holleran, “Mafia Baroque,” 27.

18. Merridale, “Revolution among the Dead,” 186.

19. Bachelor, Sorrow and Solace, 17–19.

20. Milano Monuments, “How to Choose.”

21. Gibson Monuments, “The Beautiful and Stunning.”

22. Glacier Monuments, “Laser Etched Artwork.”

23. Durkin, “Cemetery Removes.”

24. Walsh, Handy-Book, 328.

25. Varela-Rodríguez and Vicente-Mariño, “Whose Cancer?”

26. Thompson, “The Australian Larrikin,” 177.

27. Bridge, “Petition against Enfield Memorial.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Samuel Holleran

Samuel Holleran is a PhD Candidate at the University of Melbourne, where he is examining public participation in the reimagination of urban cemeteries with the Death Tech Research Team. He is also an interdisciplinary artist and writer whose work examines the power and politics imbued in urban design. In particular, he is interested in the use of everyday objects in cities, like street furniture, parks, and signage. He has worked as an art director, researcher, and educator in the field of civically engaged design with the Center for Urban Pedagogy (CUP) in New York City and the Chair for Architecture & Urban Design at ETH-Zürich.