“The screen… is not a frame but a hideout; the man or woman who emerges from it continues living: a “blind field” constantly doubles our partial vision…. When we define the Photograph as a motionless image, this does not mean only that the figures it represents do not move; it means that they do not emerge, do not leave… Yet once there is a punctum, a blind field is created” (57).

In this passage, Barthes compares photographs and films. The distinction, according to him, is the development of the “blind field”. Films are able to institute a greater story beyond what is simply shown on the screen, whereas photographs require the spectator to create their own secondary meaning. The “partial vision” is what is shown during the viewing of a film and the “blind field” is what parallels the “partial vision”, allowing the viewer to believe the story expands beyond solely what is represented on the screen. Since photographs are more static than films, Barthes argues there is no reason to believe the story extends beyond what is captured. Instead, the spectator must utilize the punctum to create their own “blind field,” and thus, assign the photograph a greater meaning.

I chose this passage because I thought the comparison was interesting and I wanted to focus on it in-depth in order to fully unpack what Barthes is claiming. The idea of a “blind field” is also interesting to me. I always thought of the intention of the artist (or the photographer, in this case) while viewing a piece of art and Barthes sort of argues against this way of thinking. The idea that the viewer/spectator contributes something to art by creating the “blind field” feels much more interactive. In other words, this notion makes me feel less detached as a viewer.

“The date belongs to the photograph: not because it denotes a style (this does not concern me), but because it makes me lift my head, allows me to compute life, death, the inexorable extinction of the generations…. Photography offers an immediate presence to the world—a co-presence…” (84).

I feel as though this passage reflects Barthes’s enduring goal in this novel, which is unraveling the intricacies of life and death. I also felt that this passage works well with the passage I focused on in Part One. By focusing on the punctum of time, Barthes describes what he finds to be a “co-presence”, which is not entirely dissimilar to the “blind field” idea. It is this secondary viewpoint the spectator creates that allows a photograph to have a greater meaning than what is simply captured.

Discuss question: When you take a picture, do you ever think about what the punctum of your piece could be for the general audience? Or instead of thinking about a greater meaning, do you focus solely on what’s in front of you?