Barthes, the author of Camera Lucida, provides a unique perspective on photography, contributing a philosophical lens on what exactly photography is through its essence. From the first part of the book, the passage that touches on the history of the photograph seemed important in the process of understanding Barthes’ argument at first. On page twelve, Barthes defines the history through how one sees themself; “To see oneself (differently from in a mirror): on the scale of History, this action is recent, the painted, drawn, or miniaturized portrait having been, until the spread of Photography, a limited possession, intended moreover to advertise a social and financial status-and in any case, a painted portrait, however close the resemblance (this is what I am trying to prove) is not a photograph” (Barthes, 12). Barthes then describes the photograph as “…the advent of myself as other: a cunning dissociation of consciousness from identity”(Barthes, 12). I interpreted this specific passage as Barthes’ way of saying that photographs do not necessarily capture the true identity, or essence of what was occurring in a photograph. This passage seemed to help me better understand his overall argument that we cannot identify ourself or others through photographs, as that does not genuinely reflect the person, especially with the passage of time.
In the second part of Camera Lucida, Barthes’ delves further into his analysis. Stating that “The Photograph does not necessarily say what is no longer, but only and for certain what has been,” emphasizes the idea that the photograph does not reflect its object accurately with the passage of time (Barthes, 85). This particular statement allowed me to grasp the idea Barthes was trying to argue: that the essence of photography itself is its past events and the ways in which the photograph is presented, “its testimony bears not on the object but on the time” and “The choice is mine: to subject its spectacle to the civilized code of perfect illusions, or to confront in it the wakening of intractable reality”(Barthes, 89-119). I chose these statements as they are integral in understanding his final argument.
A strong discussion question in relation to Barthes’ argument would be “How do you relate to photographs as the Spectator as defined by Barthes?”
I think the concept of time in terms of photography is interesting. Barthes argues time can serve as the punctum of an image, as I said in my blog post. And I would agree with Barthes, the element of the time period relative to when I view an image would be a punctum for me. I wonder if there are any other major puncta that are striking to most people when viewing a photograph.