Barthes’ concepts of the studium and the punctum are understandable, but throughout he seemed to come to the punctum as an emotional conclusion as opposed to a logical conclusion. Its very definition (a “sting, peck, cut, little hole”) implies that it is outside the completely rational. I understand this idea and even relate to it when I view certain photographs, but this answer just isn’t very satisfying. I feel there should be a more objective understanding of how photos affect us. The idea of the punctum seems to be so free that anything in the photo can strike its viewer and elevate the photo from one that is “liked” to one that is “loved.” The cause and the effect are too vaguely defined.
Barthes does become more specific when he defines his second punctum, which is Time. Because the photo becomes a “that-has-been,” the spectator becomes aware of Death. This forces us to contemplate our own death, and therefore the reading of the photograph becomes much more personal. This version of punctum that is related to time seems more productive through its specificity.
No comments:
Post a Comment