The section of Didi-Huberman’s book where he talks about the cropping of these 4 Auschwitz photographs was really interesting to me. From previous work in photography, cropping had been presented as a useful technique and I never considered that what is being taken out from a photograph is just as important as what is left. Cropping seems to go against the purity of a photograph. This made me question whether cropping is ever okay. Didi-Huberman argued historical photographs (or photographs used for historical reasons) shouldn’t be doctored, but then that just led me to a circular discussion of thoughts regarding: When is a photograph not historical? Regardless, Didi-Huberman’s analysis reminded me of Barthes’ concept of the studium and punctum. Didi-Huberman’s critical analysis of the effects of cropping these photos seemed similar to Barthes critique of photos that make the punctum too obvious. In these Auschwitz photos, by taking out elements of the photo not deemed important, a clear punctum is being set for the viewer. Thus the viewer misses out on other important information and as a consequence cannot properly form a speculation about the photo. (I guess they can, but I think Didi-Huberman would argue that this argument would then be misinformed.) Didi-Huberman seems to favor the thought that viewers be allowed to make their own conclusions regarding the photo (again similar to Barthes idea that each person’s punctum will be different).
I have to admit that the second set of pages was a bit harder for me to grasp. However I did pick up on a theme of sexualization (seeing the juxtaposition of the photograms from Histoire du Cinema that show a suffering corpse and a sultry Elizabeth Taylor brought me back to the touching up of the woman’s breasts in one of the Auschwitz photos). This theme in the representation of such tragedy is fascinating and something I’d like to discuss as to why it is so present.
No comments:
Post a Comment