Barthes believes that a photograph is, in a sense, a "Death." The photograph is taken of a specific moment of a specific person at that moment, which cannot be reproduced. Do you agree with this belief? Why or why not?
Do you think that the author feels differently about other artistic media, such as painting, drawing, and sculpture? Do you feel differently?
The author also discusses how a photograph of a person forces the subject to be aware and self-conscious of thus an imitation of him/herself:
"In front of the lens, I am at the same time: the one I think I am, the one I want others to think I am, the one the photographer thinks I am, and the one he makes use of to exhibit his art... I do not stop imitating myself." Barthes concludes that this results in a kind of inauthenticity in the subject. Does this also apply to journalistic photography (which is more candid), such as the work of later mentioned photographer Koen Wessing? The subjects are aware of the photographer but are simultaneously involved in something much more affecting; does this still result in inauthenticity in the subject, are they on some level acting and therefore resulting in an inauthentic photograph as well?
1. I agree with Barthes belief that a photograph is, in a sense, a "Death" to a certain extent. I agree that the photograph is taken of a specific moment of a specific person at that moment, which cannot be reproduced, but I do not see it really as being a "death." But a photograph does capture something that can not be recreated or reproduced, which is why we like photography, so we can have an image with us forever, that we might not ever be able to see again.
ReplyDelete1.)I think that the word “Death” might not be the right word to use. I agree that ‘the photograph is taken of a specific moment and specific time which cannot be reproduced’ and in a sense, that moment in time is gone. But a photograph can possibly bring back the ‘life’ of that moment in the mind of the person viewing it.
ReplyDelete2.)For this question, I believe that in certain photographs, when the subjects know they are a part of or the focus of the photo, then this forces ‘the subject to be aware and self-conscious of himself/herself.’ Even when the subject is already acting in a self-conscious manner, the photographer can also manipulate how he/she thinks the person should be represented. Even when Barthes talks about a photographer’s desperate actions to make the photo seem more “alive” he says: “…they make me pose in front of my paintbrushes, they take me outdoors (more ‘alive’ than indoors), put me in front of a staircase…”
In an effort to escape from this falsehood of reality, candid photography can emphasize that quality of the "real". In the case of Koen Wessing I believe that inauthenticity is not the case here. I do think, in some cases, when a person knows they’re having their picture taken, they might put on an ‘act’ for the photographer. But in cases like these: “Nicaragua” 1979, I think that the people in the composition might notice the photographer is there, but are so immersed in their own tragedy that they might not be completely ‘aware’ or ‘conscious’ of him.
I agree with JoAnna that "Death" is probably not the best word to use in this sense. It is true that the scene/moment has past and can't be recreated. But the moment is not dead, because it has been forever captured within the photograph. The photo keeps the moment alive, to continually be remembered and relived.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of "Death" reminds me of a movie I saw where they used the term "Completed" to relate to death. All the events that led up to this one moment in time have completed. Looking at the photograph won't allow you to understand and experience those events, all you see is the end results of those events.
ReplyDeleteAll I could think about when the author talked about photographs being "Death" was how in the early days of photography people used to photograph the dead and these would be the only pictures of them taken. I would also agree that death isn't the best word to use, but I think it is a little relevant because the photo isn't a living moment especially the portraits Barthes describes being taken. He even mentions putting on a facade when he knows he is being photographed.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting that the author uses the term "death" when referring to the captured moment. I do agree with the reasoning behind it though... the subject can never be captured in that way or moment ever again. I think that "death" is a harsher term that what most would like to call it: a memory.
ReplyDeleteYou mention "The subjects are aware of the photographer but are simultaneously involved in something much more affecting; does this still result in inauthenticity in the subject, are they on some level acting and therefore resulting in an inauthentic photograph as well?"
ReplyDeleteI think the nature of photography creates a atmosphere that accepts capturing a scene that is at odds with the real presence of a person or thing, just as a painting presents something different from the object in reality and everyone accepts it. The difference is photography can potentially present a natural face on the paper. However this takes the alignment of all the different facets of photography he mentions. The photographer, the object and a whole mess of things in between. If they all don't align then it is inauthentic in relation to reality, but still that does not make it any less that what people anticipate from photographs. In this they do not disappoint.
For question one I agree that a photograph is a "death" and can never be redone exactly. Although a scene may be recreated as closely as possible. The feeling and idea behind the original photograph cannot be recaptured. I bet Barthes believes the same for other media, or at least I do. That even if a painting is recreated the artist idea is not exactly matched. The recreation cannot embody what the original does seeing as the artist has a different perspective having already seen the piece he or she is recreating.
ReplyDelete"Death" is so many different things. Perhaps when the moment dies in that photograph, Barthes is not taking into account its rebirth as a photograph? While the moment can never be brought back, it is a new creation in a photograph. Those who were there when it was taken will see the photograph so much differently than an audience who was never at the incident in question. And even others will pull something else from it. And others will see something else! It IS a death, but Barthes is really forgetting the rebirth.
ReplyDelete1) Seeing a photograph as the death of a moment is an interesting way to put it, but I don't think that it's really set in stone. Where one person would see a photograph as death, another person could view it as the preservation and immortality of a moment. So long as the photo exists, that particular moment is being preserved in time forever and while it has in a way "died" and passed by long ago, it's never completely gone. I guess in a way, though, it does make the photo kind of a ghost of something that once existed. I feel like referring to a photo as the death of a moment has too many negative connotations, though. It kind of implies that things would be better if that moment was still alive, but would things really be better if that moment kept repeating forever? It kind of implies this human need to attach to something and be fearful of change. Instead of considering a photo death I like to consider a photo kind of an homage to life. Even if that moment never happens again, there will still be an infinite number of other moments like it that will happen, and even different moments worth taking note of. Instead of mourning the loss of a moment that is gone, we should be celebrate the fact that we are living and will get to experience many more moments in our future.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the author definitely implied that they have very different feelings about photography than they do for other art forms. The fact alone that they decided to write specifically on the nature of photography kind of confirms this in my opinion. The author speaks of photography as this completely new phenomenon in terms of human history. I personally feel that photography, painting, drawing, or sculpture are the same. They are all tools that an artist can use to bring to life their vision, the world the way they see it through their individual lens, and they can also all be used as tools for something more utilitarian. There are varying degrees of this as well. It all just depends on what the tools are being used for.
2) When a person is photographed who knows that they are being photographed, I guess you do lose some authenticity, but I don't feel like that make the photo any less valid. Even if the photo does wind up being more posed than a candid and honest representation of a person, it is still providing a kind of shade of what that person is about. A persons very need to alter their appearance for a photograph and the way they do this can still reveal a lot about that persons personality.
1) I could see the logic of the photo being a "Death", but I see it as a means of preservation. Death implies an end, that it was unique and another exactly like it will never be seen again. But through an image, be it a photo, painting, or sketch, that moment is preserved for everyone to witness and enjoy. Some might even prefer this over witnessing the actual moment, much like some people prefer pickles over cucumbers.
ReplyDelete