When I first read Camera Lucida, I read through it quickly, taking in each point as "elements of photography". However, after discussing it in class and re-reading some of it, I have a completely different perspective of this book.

I went last night to the Langston Hughes seminar at Macaulay, and I was expecting a seminar on Langston Hughes. However, the performer, Dave M, an actor who has acted in productions of Othello and The Taming of the Shrew, recited various Langston Hughes poems from memory, doing voices of everything from a hep cat to a melancholy old man, and even using props such as a newspaper, a sheet of paper, and a table and chair. He also pantomimed some objects such as cigarettes and shining shoes.

 When Dr. Bergman first told us about Camera Lucida, I was terrified. She told us she had read the book in graduate school and distinctly remembered having thrown it across the room in anger and frustration. I thought to myself, if this brilliant woman could not get through this book in graduate school, then how in the world am I? I was apprehensive, but once I actually started to read this book, I was a little relieved. After a few pages, not so much, but it wasn't as bad as I expected.

I can't front, Camera Lucida is one of the most frustrating books I've ever read. I understand most of Barthes' points, such as how he notices minute details in photos that are meant to emphasize something on a much large scale. For example, in a photo by Lewis Hine of two retarded children in an institution (1924), rather than focus on the children's disfigurements, he focuses on the boy's huge Danton collar and the girl's finger bondage. This much I can understand, but why must he explain everything in such an excruciating manner?! Maybe I'm just an impatient reader.