A New Philosophy on Photography

Part 1:

 “A specific photograph, in effect, is never distinguished from its referent (from what it represents), or at least it is not immediately or generally distinguished from its referent (as is the case for every other image, encumbered– from the start, and because of its status-by the way in which the object is simulated): it is not impossible to perceive the photographic signifier (certain professionals do so), but it requires a secondary action of knowledge or of reflection. By nature, the Photograph (for convenience’s sake, let us accept this universal, which for the moment refers only to the tireless repetition of contingency) has something tautological about it: a pipe, here, is always and intractably a pipe. It is as if the Photograph always carries its referent with itself, both affected by the same amorous or funereal immobility, at the very heart of the moving world: they are glued together, limb from limb, like the condemned man and the corpse in certain tortures; or even like those pairs of fish (sharks, I think, according to Michelet) which navigate in convoy, as though united by an eternal coitus” (Barthes 5).

This passage caught my attention as it was a contrast or rather explanation to something Barthes has previously mentioned. He started Chapter 2 discussing some of the usual classifications of photography. He explains that we can classify something as empirical, that is, whether it is professional or amateur. Similarly, it could be rhetorical or aesthetic. However, Barthes claimed that these explanations lack something. Therefore, in the passage above he provided insight on his own philosophy and a possible definition of photography. He makes the point that photography could not be distinguished from its referent, referent being what the photograph represents. Barthes offers us to see photography as an inseparable duality, and uses the fish and shark as an example. The photograph and its referent stand together and one can not be taken away, as this will lead to the destruction of the photograph. He seems to be displeased with this as this is what causes the “disorder” of photography. Yet, he does make the claim that photography can not function as a signifier. Later on in Chapter 15, he refers back to this idea and says that a photograph means  something only “by assuming a mask”. The mask is what allows us to create meaning from photography by having certain associations. Overall, this text above, while offered a clue to what Barthes might be saying, was a bit confusing in itself. It made me question why does Barthes have this view point and where does he want to lead us with it.

Part 2:

“Perhaps it is because I am delighted (or depressed) to know that the thing of the past, by its immediate radiations (its luminances), has really touched the surface which in its turn my gaze will touch, that I am not very fond of Color. An anonymous daguerreotype of 1843 shows a man and a woman in a medallion subsequently tinted by the miniaturists on the staff of the photographic studio: I always feel (unimportant what actually occurs) that in the same way, color is a coating applied later on to the original truth of the black-and-white photograph. For me, color is an artifice, a cosmetic (like the kind used to paint corpses). What matters to me is not the photograph’s life(a purely ideological notion) but the certainty that the photographed body touches me with its own rays and not with a superadded light” (Barthes 81).

I found this passage interesting, as Barthes presents his opinion regarding color in photography. He made it clear that in his opinion color is something that a photograph does not need. To him, color is an additional coating that is added after the original photograph. Barthes even compares color to a cosmetic that is used to paint the corpses. What partcularly struck me about this idea, is that a certain philosophy exists that claims that color is not a physical property but our own imagination. Therefore, when Barthes expressed his opinion of color being an unnecessary entity in photography and it being an additional layer, I made a connection to the philosophy mentioned previously.  Color, is something that does not need to affect the interpretation or analysis of a photograph. Barthes highlights that the major aspect of a photograph to him is the radiation coming from the photographed body or how he refers to it, the micro-death. He values other features of the photograph like the punctum over something like color.

Question:

In the final chapter Barthes states that society is concerned with taming the madness of a photograph. I wonder, “ What does Barthes consider to be mad in photography?” Moreover, how do the principles he introduced affect this madness?

Photograph: Mitch Epstein- Property Rights ( Sikkema Jenkins & Co. Gallery)