Written response to sections 19-25

In Sections 19 through 24, Barthes continues his quest for clarity. I found myself growing increasingly annoyed with Barthes, feeling like he wasn't adding any new ideas.
In his discussion of the blind violinist, Barthes says: “Here the photograph really transcends itself: is this not the whole proof of its art ? To annihilate itself as medium, to be no longer a sign but the thing itself ?” This observation is triggered by Barthes noticing the dirt road, which marks it as having been taken in Central Europe. Barthes provides no explanation for why this particular detail allows this particular photograph to transcend it's referent. The fact that it triggers memories in Barthes is interesting but insufficient to make his point.
Section 20 sees Barthes clarifying a point he has been trying to make over the course of the previous sections. He says “The detail … does not necessarily attest to the the photographers art; it says only that the photographer was there” This strikes me as another true but obvious claim.
I found more of interest in Section 21. Barthes states “the reading of the punctum is at once brief and active.” I take this to mean that the punctum is not obvious, that it takes a moment to place it in it's proper context. The studium may be obvious and shared with others, but the punctum is more personal.
Towards the end of Section 21, Barthes says “I am a primitive, a child - or a maniac; I dismiss all knowledge, all culture. I refuse to inherit anything from another eye than my own” This, to me, is his strongest declaration that his reasons for liking a photograph are deeply personal. I can actually respect him when he is this emphatic and direct. There is some value in watching his mind work through these issues, but other times I just want him to stop repeating himself and get to the point.
Section 22 The incapacity to name is a good symptom of disturbance. The effect is certain but unlocatable … the punctum should be revealed only after the fact … this photograph has worked within me ...I had just realized that however immediate and incisive it was, the punctum could accommodate a certain latency (but never any scrutiny) … absolute subjectivity is achieved only in a state, an effort of silence (shutting your eyes is to make the image speak in silence)
Barthes starts Section 23 writing about the origin of the the punctum: “whether or not it is triggered, it is an addition: it is what I add to the photograph and what is nonetheless already there” I was tempted to think that Barthes is just playing semantic games with us at first, until I read on. He mentions that the detail, the punctum that he noticed in Hines' photograph of the Idiot Children, was already there. So is the idea that we add it an illusion ? Are we flattering our selves when we think we've brought some unique reading the the photograph ?
Section 24 was mercifully short but interesting. Barthes admits that “I had to grant that my pleasure was an imperfect mediator ...” The brings up again the tension Barthes feels between wanting a science of The Photograph and wanted to have his own private reaction to a particular photograph.