“Camera Lucida” by Roland Barthes describes the difference between studium and punctum as apart of photographic “knowledge.” Stadium is the one thing that grasps your attention in a photograph while punctum refers to the actual detail of a photo that grasps the viewers underlying attention. After visiting the Photographs of marcel Sternberger: Portraits of the 20th Century exhibit at the Miskin Gallery right next to Baruch, I was able to put these two terms to use. The exhibit was a lot more than I expected it to be. There were various photos that I could just walk around and really take the time to observe the difference between studium and punctum.
Regarding punctum, one particular photograph caught my attention. The photograph of Sigmund Freud perfectly depicted the underlying meaning of punctum- the detail. At first when you look at the photograph, it just looks like Sigmund is sitting in a chair, posing for the camera. Nothing more. Now it is time to pay attention to the detail. He is holding a cigar, even though he has mouth cancer which brings a sort of alertness to the viewers eyes and skepticism about any of Sigmund’s theories if he continues to harm his personal health knowing the consequences. One of his most popular theories was that the unconscious mind governs behavior in a much stronger way then people think. So why is he holding that cigar if he has mind cancer? Shouldn’t the mind be able to snap him out of the bad habits. Paying attention to the detail of this photograph thoroughly deepens the thought provoking process of interpreting the overall photo.
Studium is the idea that you don’t have to pay attention to the detail of the photograph, something catches your eye right away about it, the initial element.
The photograph that caught my eye through the studium lens is the one of George Bernard Shaw. In the photograph, he is examining stamps. Those stamps are a portrait of the children of the Royal Family of Belgium. The detail was not what brought my attention to the picture. Instead of the detail, I was more focused on the appearance of the man. His beard and glasses define his face and that is simply what caught my attention. The photograph did not evoke much intimate emotion from me which is why it could not have been from a punctum lens. Overall, so many of these photographs included studium and punctum elements but these two in particular just happen to catch my eye.
I really liked the way you described punctum and studium, as well as the connection to Sigmund Freud. Your thought process while viewing the Freud portrait is so interesting and I really enjoyed hearing another person’s perspective on a photograph I had also admired. I also really like the photo you attached to your blog, beautifully done.
Your definitions of studium and punctum are very interesting, and are definitely relatable ideas. I happened to have come up with different definitions, but I also found the Freud photograph as particularly thought provoking. It’s funny how we can be using different lenses when looking at photographs but still have a common interest.
I love the fact that the portrait of Sigmund Freud prompted so many questions and ponderings for you- you really hit on the point of punctum in a photograph. I also like the way you related the portrait of George Bernard Shaw to the idea of studium. You perfectly captured what the studium in the photograph lay for you and I distinctly also remember finding the photograph really attractive as well.