2.Barthes talks about the principal of adventure and how a good photograph animates him, which allows Photography to exist for him. Do you agree with him that if a photo "says nothing" to you it isn't really an image? Can an individual person say confidentially what is an image or not? Or must everyone have their own internal dialogue?
3. Barthes references numerous times that he is not a photographer. Do you think his view of Photography vs. this photo would still be the same if he was a photographer? Does the fact that he is slightly separated from the field help, hinder, or make no difference to his view on photography?
2. I do not agree with Barthes when he says that if a photo "says nothing" to you it isn't really an image. You can't make this statement because people see images differently. For some people an image might mean something very important to them, on a deep, meaningful level, or even on a funny level. For another person it could mean completely nothing but that doesn't mean that it is not an image because it could mean something to someone else.
ReplyDelete1.) I agree with Lindsay. I feel that "photography" is more definitive of his explanation. That the camera itself is the mechanism that repeats what could never be repeated existentially. The "photograph" itself is the unique moment that is captured that doesn't transcend another time. The actual image can be taken in the same way in the same place and reprinted etc. But it doesn't change that the picture that was taken was captivating enough by the person to do so.
ReplyDelete2.) I really don't think that a photo can just say nothing. To go from the article, he states, "of all objects in the world: why chose this object, this moment, than some other?" Whether the photo "speaks" or not, that moment was captured for a particular reason. I think there are varying degrees of context and concept with the intention of the person photographing and what the final piece results in... however I feel that a dialogue exists regardless of whether the viewer can receive one or not.
3.) No. I believe that those who have experience in the field and a working knowledge and first hand accounts of photography knowledge are the strongest source of reference. I feel that as a spectator more so than an actual photographer, his opinion is valuable. I respected his interest in the field and his willingness to put his views so boldly out there in a field in which he does not specialize. Clearly, he was not only intrigued, but passionate as well.
2) For the spectator, a photograph has to have a certain something about it to capture their interest and make it exist for them. This is what Barthes refers to as punctum. It is more than just the liking or disliking of a photograph, but the loving of it. "...this element which rises from the scene, shoots out of it like an arrow, and pierces me." If it doesn't pierce one person, that doesn't mean it pierces no one. If the photograph has an adventurousness to someone, than it is an image. I agree with Lindsey that the "moment was captured for a particular reason." When Barthes speaks of punctum, he says that "this time it is not I who seek it out". Meaning that the punctum is inherent within the photograph before the spectator even enters the conversation. This statement is contradictory with his later assertion that if a photograph says nothing to you it isn't an image. So does he mean that if the spectator isn't around to notice the photograph's inherent punctum it isn't an image? Or do you think Barthes just got mixed up with what he said? If a photographer infuses his photograph with punctum does it even need the spectator's opinion to have meaning?
ReplyDelete2. Even if I can't understand an image and it doesn't engage me it doesn't mean that it isn't really an image. Everyone has interests in different things and what might speak to someone else may have no meaning or worth to me but it doesn't mean that it isn't an image. You get to have your own internal dialogue.
ReplyDelete3. I agree with Lindsey P that he is very bold for writing about something not in his field. His opinion absolutely is important. I don't know if I take his words as seriously as someone who is a photographer writing about photography. But I find it interesting, and at least worthy enough to read and form an opinion off of.
Not sure where to put this comment but, I put some thought into Barthes' question of "how has photography disturbed civilization?" I believe the idea of seeing oneself has particularly changed since Facebook. More than ever are you able to see photos of yourself. There was a study done saying your self-esteem went up by looking at tagged photos of you. There's the idea of untagging unattractive photos and being in control as you present yourself to others who view your page.
ReplyDeleteBrathes' states the four forces that are acting upon during a portrait photograph. 1 (The one I think I am) and 2 (The one I want others to think I am) are more relevant today when your friends take photos of you because you have Facebook in mind.
Facebook is just weird. We spend so much time on the computer and to have this network at our fingertips with thousands of pictures of ourselves has to be affecting us somehow.
1) For me, I believe a photo can be both repeated and be a fleeting moment that cannot be redone. With it being repeated, there are simple things about a photo that can: the person, the place or location, the time of day, and a few others. One example of this is a story that Susan Bloom had talked about in a class. One photographer saw the most beautiful landscape with the perfect shadows and light to take a photo of in San Francisco, but did not have her camera. So, she wrote down the time of day and the date so the lighting would be right again. She waited an entire year and luckily it was sunny and not foggy and was able to replicate the photo.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, many other photos are not able to be replicated. Any sports, motion, dance, the look a person gives, a moment or laugh, and perhaps even the meaning behind a photo cannot be replicated if tried. A family get together might be very different from one to another. It is easy to try to replicate it, but the end result may not be the same.
3) While I agree that it is good for non-photographers to give their opinion, especially since they will be a majority of the spectators of the work, if someone doesn't understand anything about photography then there may be something missing from their critique. If the person does have art background then they will be able to comment on the lines, symmetry, balance, and action of the photo. If they are a photographer, they may be able to give input on whether the focus is correct, if it is cropped appropriately, if the aperture or shutter speed should've been different, and initial input before a project is done to say if the photo project is even reasonable or able to be performed within the photographers own limits. An outside perspective is always necessary since many critics and viewers won't be professional photographers, but it is also good to have a professional who knows the trade to give their own insight from their own previous experiences.
Echoing what Megan said about question 2, I don't think that a person's own engagement of a photography is what determines if the piece is photography or not. It is similar in the sense of different media of art. Who has the right to judge what is art and what is not?
ReplyDelete2) Well, there's plenty of art out there that I can try to understand but still alludes me. I'm not ashamed of that. But the key here is that it's still ART- just because it chooses to be silent for me doesn't mean it's silent for someone else (I recall a fellow student of mine who gets teary-eyed and emotional eveytime she sees a Pollock and as hard as I try I just see paint). If an image is silent, maybe the person viewing doesn't have the background to take something out of it. And hey, maybe they will later in life! You never know.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Barthes' is really concerned with the knowledge it takes to understand photography as much as he is with the individual's experiences that shape how the photo is perceived. Just because a photograph doesn't 'prick' you, doesn't mean it's not an image. Perhaps, it's not a good image in your opinion, but other people will have experiences that somehow make the photo striking.
ReplyDelete2) Even if a photo says nothing, is that something? Sometimes a work of art, such as photography, can say multitudes of ideas and concepts by keeping it overall message ambiguous. While this may elude to the idea of nothingness, it may be that the photo does not say the same thing to a general audience than a single viewer.
ReplyDelete