Written response to sections 13-18

Barthes gave me more to think about, and more to disagree with, in sections 13 through 18. He continues to search for a system and for the essential nature of photography.

He starts in section 13 by considering the origin of photography and its relation to painting and theater. I found it interesting that, after he links photography to theater, he then credits the camera obscura with creating “perspective painting, photography, and the diorama”. The connection flows in writing, but becomes more complex when you try to trace it out in time. It is doubly interesting to see Barthes be more fluid, less blunt and less personal than he usually is. Here he is considering not a system or philosophy of photography, nor his personal taste but the history of photography.

I had the most problems with section 14. Barthes states that “the essential gesture is surprise” which he believes is perfect when the subject is unaware. He also says that surprise obeys the principle of defiance, which I take to mean that the surprise is intentional and a bit malicious. That is not how I act, or how any of my photographer friends act. I wouldn't want someone sneaking an image of me using a 300 mm lens, and I afford people the same courtesy. If I take a photograph that someone doesn't like, I will delete it or keep it private That being said, I sometimes play with friends who are squeamish about being photographed, but there is an understanding that they can ask for it to be deleted.

Barthes goes on to say a photograph is surprising when we don't know why it was taken. Well, yes, but that is not the only time a photograph is surprising. The subject matter can be surprising, the angle can provide a surprising look at a subject, or the shutter speed can radically alter the image. I'm reminded of Edgerton's famous “exploding milk-drop” images.

Barthes seems to be committing the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity. He wonders what motive and interest there is in photographing a backlight nude, or a freighter at dock. Perhaps he can't imagine doing this himself because he is not a photographer. He doesn't mention whether these images interest him as an observer. He finishes the section a bit dismissively by saying that Photography “decrees notable whatever it photographs” .

Section 15 was pretty densely packed with interesting ideas. The first is that Photographs are outside meaning because they are dependent on outside reality.

August Sander's images provide Barthes with a chance to bring up issues of class and social role. He writes “ Sander's Notary if suffused with self-importance and stiffness, his Usher with assertiveness and brutality, but no notary no usher could ever have read such signs” He seems to be saying that these people are acting parts, putting on masks, to such an extent that they can't recognize that they are acting. At first blush this is terribly condescending, but some people do remove the distinction between who they are and what they do. But for Barthes to make this a general principle seems to say more about the rigid social roles he was accustomed to than anything else.

Section 16: To Barthes Photographs of places must be habitable, not just visitable. A landscape evokes feelings in Barthes, without much intellect involved. It is notable that Barthes doesn't try to craft any science for understanding landscapes

In section 17 Barthes implies that news photographs are tranquil, using the term unary. He says that the news provokes interest, not love. This seems really odd to my mind. Photojournalism often shows things that are shocking, one of kind, I.e newsworthy. I can only imagine that he is thinking of pre-planned, “staged: news photographs, perhaps from the signing of legislation or the announcement of a person running for office.

Later in section 17, Barthes states that pornographic images are always naïve, without intention or calculation. I sensed that he is playing a bit of a game of definitions. If you tried to show him a counter-example of pornography that did have some calculation or intention beyond sex, he could just state that it was erotic photography. The delineation is up to him.

Maplethorpe is deemed erotic not pornographic because you can see the texture of the underwear. The texture is a punctum which add some interest beyond the purely sexual for Barthes. But this still seems like a silly and arbitrary distinction to make, one which is completely at odds with his repeated desire for a system or science of photography

The standout idea in section 18 is that details are happenstance, not part of a creative logic. It is true that the photographer often does not build the image up from scratch, but some do. My favorite example would be Cindy Sherman, who dresses as characters with every detailed considered. Even though they are constructed, the images seem genuine and spontaneous.