Poignant and Uninterested Barthes

This photograph, like all others, is ‘pure contingency and can be nothing else.’ This means that something is always represented—a representation which connects the photographer, viewer, and people being photographed. If cameras are clocks for seeing, then what is being represented here?

In this color negative, we see a family: a woman, her two children, cat and dog posed outside in a green, rural, hilly landscape. The picture was taken quickly, while the dog was still in motion while looking up to and pawing at the boy. What is special about this picture? Clearly, it is full of studium for me, leaving me with feelings of unconcerned desire, various interest and inconsequential taste. I like this picture I guess, but I certainly do not love it. It is not poignant to me, it does not evoke any special emotion except, “oh, another family portrait.” This leaves me questioning what the photographer’s interests were.

This photograph for the assignment was taken out of context, but it doesn’t seem to be capturing anything special/abnormal/monumental about this family or this day. Why was this picture taken and why am I looking at it and analyzing it now? I do not know these people and this photograph does not aesthetically appeal to me. On the other hand, if I knew these people and why this was taken, it would consist of punctum for me (punctum being what interests/captures and captivates me; what I love). If this were a picture of my family, for example, then I would love it and the photograph would automatically transform from a studium to a punctum photograph.

What differentiates our feeling of punctum and studium for each image? Shouldn’t I love or hate every image I see, or respond to it in a strong way? If I am an artist does that mean that every image I see must evoke a strong feeling within me? And if I don’t feel strongly for or against it, does that mean I am a worthless artist who is not trying hard enough or that I am ignorant and naieve to the world of art?

Photography is anything but simple. There are so many truths and distortions, emotions, memories and meanings captured by a photograph. We should be open to the punctum in every photograph, but as humans I do not know if we are capable of feeling so much with every photo or anything in general that we interact with. Would feeling that much put us over the edge? Cause a mental breakdown from the stimuli overload? Or is it the opposite—with so many photographs out here, should only a select few really speak to us since there are so many dangerous functions of photography? This photo doesn’t really speak to me and I don’t consider it dangerous, but if I overanalyze it it may speak to me and become dangerous.

I am looking at this picture while being excluded from it. It is just an image. The more I analyze it the more it continues to be just an image.