Passage From Part One:
“Ultimately, what I am seeking in the photograph taken of me (“the intention” according to which I look at it) is Death: Death is the eidos of that Photograph. Hence, strangely, the only thing that I tolerate, that I like, that is familiar to me, when I am photographed, is the sound of the camera. For me, the Photographer’s organ is not his eye (which terrifies me) but his finger: what is linked to the trigger of the lens, to the metallic shifting of the plates (when the camera still has such things). I love these mechanical sounds in an almost voluptuous way, as if, in the Photograph, they were the very thing-and the only thing- to which my desire clings, their abrupt click breaking through the mortiferous layer of the Pose.” (Barthes 15)
The reason I chose this passage was because it offers an interesting insight to the process of objectification during a photograph. A photograph essentially objectifies the subject. For example a photograph of a person is pretty much a fragment of the true complexity of a human being. A photograph may fail to capture everything about the subject. Going back to the example of a human being, a picture of a person may fail to capture the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of that person. What Barthes does is relate the process of objectification to death. He calls death the eidos or distinctive expression of a photograph. He alludes to the fact that death and photographs are similar since they are both an immobile representation of the subject. Furthermore, the fact that the finger that is linked to the trigger of the lens, that causes these mechanical sounds, is the only source of “life”, is a very interesting idea presented by Barthes. What’s even more interesting is how he portrays the click to be so powerful that it breaks through the deathly/immobile pose of the subject. To me this passage seems crucial to Barthes overall argument which is that the essential element of photography is Death, because photographs always take place in the past, a time gone by. Hence, one can never truly identify with/recognize a photograph of one’s self/a person, because that self/person no longer exists as they were in the photograph.
Passage From Part Two:
“The Photograph does not call up the past (nothing Proustian in a photograph). The effect it produces upon me is not to restore what has been abolished (by time, by distance) but to attest that what I see has indeed existed. Now, this is a strictly scandalous effect. Always the Photograph astonishes me, with an astonishment which endures and renews itself, inexhaustibly…” (Barthes 82)
The reason I chose this passage was because it denotes what Barthes truly feels about photographs. He states that a photograph for him isn’t just something nostalgic. He expresses the idea that a photograph isn’t meant to restore the same feelings that one may have had during that photograph. He points out that photographs merely create certainty of the past. The event in the photo had to have occurred in real life in order for the photograph to exist at all. In photographs, there are no fictional stories. People can make up stories about the photograph through interpretation, but the image seen had to have physically happened in the past. As he goes on to state in the following passage, the essence of photography is the “that-has-been” (Barthes 85). To me this passage encapsulates Barthes opinion of photography. I feel like discussing this in class and analyzing his opinion and claims may be a great way to formulate our own ideas about photography.
One Question About Camera Lucida:
Roland Barthes argues that one of the essential elements of photography is death. Keeping this in mind, if we were to analyze/look at a picture of nature or “life” thriving, would elements of death still be present?
Picture (Benrubi Gallery – Hugh Holland):
No caption needed 😉
Fascinating question Ahmad! I think the aspect of death would be the death of time. By definition the picture was taken in the past and the time elapsed will never come back. So I think that even in the absence of life, there can still be death in a different sense of the word regardless of the subject.
– Ari
Ahmad,
I enjoyed reading your analysis and reaction to Barthes’ ideas. I believe that the passages you chose provide an explanation on the major arguments that Barthes was making. Your first passage highlights one of the recurring points made by Barthes, that is death of a photograph. A photograph captures a certain moment or scene in life that could no longer be repeated. Moreover, I think that your question is really interesting as it challenges this idea. Maybe, while the photograph would be portraying thriving and life, because nature does not last for eternity it also, in a sense, captures death. You did a great job, and I enjoyed reading your post.
This is a great representation of Barthes’ work and opinions. I really liked how you incorporated death in your work because that aspect of Camera Lucida was intriguing to me as well. Additionally, you relayed Barthes opinion that pictures are more than just nostalgia very well. Overall, this was a strong piece and I really enjoyed reading it!