Reflecting on Barthes' reflections

While reading Barthes reflections, I found that I frequently agreed with him. In doing these posts, I’ve come to many of the same conclusions about photography and thought I was smart and perceptive, but of course I was naïve to think these musings hadn’t been written down before.

Barthes stresses that each observer of a photograph will be struck by different punctums. Thus, only Barthes will know which picture achieves his mother’s essence for him. Still, I find it interesting that for Barthes it was a picture of his mother as a child. In trying to rationalize this, it makes sense, for Barthes sees emotion in photography and the transformative power photography possesses. The object being photographed (namely a person) is aware of being photographed. They change and react accordingly (i.e. perhaps they smile a certain way or tilt their head just so). The person aids the camera in trying to show a particular “essence” of the person. Perhaps this is why Barthes believes a photograph of a person from their early years works best for capturing the essence of a person. Is it that at such a young age, a person is not able to understand the instrument in front of their face and is not able to try to influence the way they are represented? With this thinking then, is a candid shot possible? And if so, (as I do believe a photograph can be taken without the subject knowing), then is this capable of being closer to capturing the “air” of a person? Is the determination of this capture of the essence to be decided upon by outside observers or can a person decide for themselves that a photograph has captured their air? (This last question asked because Barthes focuses a lot on the subjectivity involved in the reading of a photograph. Would Barthes’ mother have chosen that same photograph as the one that captured her best? Can a person make this decision or can they not, based on the fact that Barthes says we are always posing for the camera? Thus, is it up to somebody else to determine when our identity, our “air” has been captured?)

Ultimately, in Camera Lucida, Barthes is evoking the simplicity and the subtlety of photography. He seems to be saying that photography is most powerful when it is not trying too hard; when it is not explicit in its message or in the conclusions it wants the spectator to make. Barthes book was a welcome read after the readings from the last couple of weeks have focused on the avantgarde. Authors such as Adorno reflect on methods that have tried to push the boundaries of the medium of photography, and as such, receive recognition for their creativity. In contrast to this authors who bemoaned the ever-growing reproduction of photography, Barthes does not see the masses as contributing to the death of photography. He seems to appreciate what anybody can capture. It is this simplicity in photography that is truly beautiful.