Often when I think of art, I think of portraits, sculptures or impressionist paintings. I am always over taken with a feeling of slight awe, for I find an artistic skill rather impressive. Perhaps this is because I am incapable of such artistic creations myself. I then think of the modern art that seems to lack detail and wonder, “Could I also create that plain black box and have it framed?” however, despite this thought, there is something about both the classical art and the modern art that seems to catch the viewer’s attention.
Photography is a means of art as well. The photographer is just like the artist in the sense that he captures and materializes that which he wishes to convey or grasp. He too has an artistic license to classify whatever he views as art. The photograph transforms into art once that which is captured veers from ordinary. One can look at the photograph and wonder, “Perhaps I can take this exact photo myself with the pressing of a button…” Yet the viewer still knows that there is something indescribably unique behind the captured simplicity.
Ronald Barthes in his Camera Lucida, explains how the photograph encompasses two novel ideas/elements. These elements are studium and punctum. First, the photo catches the viewer’s attention. The viewer is drawn in because there is something different, attractive or compelling about the photograph. Then, there is something particular about the specific photograph that causes the viewer to feel a deep emotional connection with the image. A personal connection is established between the viewer and the photograph.
Upon entering the Mishkin Gallery, there were many photos to observe. Because all the photos were black and white, I was not directing my attention towards bright colors or large shapes. Rather, I was left to observe the subjects in the photos and try to decipher their artistic brilliance.
I understood Barthes terms studium and punctum more precisely as I browsed through the galleries. There were those photos that I stopped to slowly gaze and then continue onwards. And, there were those photos that once I stopped, for some reason I was drawn further in in order to understand it’s uniqueness.
I found the photos of the children the most interesting. Not because they were the most unusual, rather, because they felt the most candid and raw to me. I found it amazing how Sternberger was able to capture the children he photographed in such a natural way. The simplicity and naivety was something I appreciated. It seemed to me that Sternberger did not only know how to work manipulate the lighting in order to capture the best results, he also knew how to work with his subjects as well resulting in portrayal of their best selves.
As I stopped to observe the photos more closely, I felt as if I knew what the child could’ve been thinking or dreaming about. A major component of Sternberger’s genius was that he often transformed the observer into a quasi active participant in his photo shoot as well.
-Yael Magder
I also really enjoyed the portraits of the children. Out of all of the portraits, the children seemed the most real to me, as if they weren’t modeling and were simply lost in thought. I also agree that punctum and studium is directly related to a personal connection one has with a photograph. Great blog!