“Since the Photograph is pure contingency and can be nothing else (it is always something that is represented) -contrary to the text which, by the sudden action of a single word, can shift a sentence from description to reflection- it immediately yields up those “details” which constitute the very raw material of ethnological knowledge. When William Klein, photographs “Mayday, 1959” in Moscow, he teaches me how Russians dress (which after all I don’t know): I note a boy’s big cloth cap, another’s necktie, an old woman’s scarf around her head, a youth’s haircut, etc. I can enter still further into such details, observing that many of the men photographed by Nadar have long fingernails: an ethnographical question: how long were nails worn in a certain period? Photography can tell me this much better than painted portraits. It allows me to accede to an infra-knowledge; it supplies me with a collection of partial objects and can flatter a certain fetishism of mine: for this “me” which likes knowledge, which nourishes a kind of amorous preference for it. In the same way, I like certain biographical features which, in a writer’s life, delight me as much as certain photographs; I have called these features “biographemes”; Photography has the same relation to History that the biographeme has to biography.”
- End of page 28 and beginning of page 30
This section, which is also chapter 11, in my opinion shows Roland Barthes’s overall opinion on photography and the power it has. He starts off the chapter by first comparing a photograph and a text and showing how there is more that can be done with a photograph. Also, he shows that a text can completely change depending on word choice, while a photo is not so easily altered. Additionally, Barthes compares a photograph to a portrait and once again he states how a photo holds more power. Furthermore, Barthes explains the potential and power a photograph has at capturing a moment in time. He highlights in this section how an image through its details can show the style, fashion, human relations, and the overall scene at that particular moment in time. Roland Barthes used an example which was a photograph done by William Klein called “Mayday, 1959.” He explained how the photograph taught him how Russian’s dressed in the 1960s and the stylistic preference of the people in that period like men having long nails.
“(I cannot reproduce the Winter Garden Photograph. It exists only for me. For you, it would be nothing but an indifferent picture, one of the thousand manifestations of the “ordinary”; it cannot in any way constitute the visible object of a science; it cannot establish an objectivity, in the positive sense of the term; at most it would interest your studium: period, clothes, photogeny; but in it, for you, no wound.)”
- End of page 73
This section of chapter 30, although small, resonates very largely with me. Barthes discusses how personal photographs, which to most seem regular and nothing out of the ordinary, can be absolutely special to a certain person and hold an important place in their hearts. Barthes uses the Winter Garden Photograph as an example. This photo is of his mom as a youth standing with her brother. To most of us, this would just be a typical family photo, but to Barthes, it is much more. Since Barthes has a personal connection to it he views it as more than just an average photo and sees it as the best representation he could think of his mom. I believe similarly that certain photographs that I hold dear might not mean anything to an observer, but to me, they might show a story and an important moment of my life.
The question I would ask: There are numerous photographs in Camera Lucida, which Barthes chose to include, are there any that stood out to you and what would you identify as your studium, the original emotion you felt, and the punctum, the detail that pricked you and that you focused on?
A little sneak peak why I chose this photo: Relating back to the point Barthes made in chapter 30, some photos might have personal connotations to them and for me it is this Alaskan landscape.
Dear Dennis,
I think you picked a great chapter in Part 1. I agree with you and Barthes that photos have a great amount of power. The cliché saying is true that a photo is worth a thousand words. Therefore, a photo can imply so many things that a text is simply unable to. Author’s often force ideas upon the audience due to their word choice. Barthes explains that a photo is better than a portrait because it is able to represent images exactly and accurately. However, I believe that this may be a limitation of photos. Artists are able to exaggerate details in their piece in order to provoke thoughts or ideas. In a photo, the image is an exact representation of what is in front of the lens. Photos undoubtedly can be quite powerful but all forms of art have their advantages and disadvantages. Your excerpt from Part 2 was interesting and was something everyone can connect to. Barthes is explaining how the spectator is an important part of a photo. This is the reason that art can be liked by some and not others. I thought your two responses explained the power of photos and the spectator very well.