'Reading Photographs'

I found this interesting article by by Hans Durrer in the

Soundscapes site (which is interesting, anyway. Check out the

studies of the Beatles). I thought it was interesting his

explanation of 'punctum' and 'studium,' two words I didn't find in

my dictionary. Some other interesting points brought up, but I

guess it also could be a lot of mumbo-jumbo. I thought it was a

good read. Check it out.

<p>

<a

href="http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME07/Reading_photograph

s.html">http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME07/Reading_photogra

phs.html</a>

Tried twice with 2 hours between but unable to access this site. Roland Barthes talks about the punctum in Camera Lucida.

and studium too:))..

Maybe this is a shallow approach to the article, but isn't this just another

attempt to define that which defies definition? i.e., what makes art "art"? And

on the topic of captions, titles, descriptions of circumstances surrounding a

photograph, I recall the saying, "I don't want to hear about the birth pains. . .I

just want to see the baby!" Documentary and photojournalism aside, of

course. "Framing" a photograph, or any type of visual or audible expression,

does not change the fundamental content . Even worse, I usually see

"framing" as an attempt to inject meaning or emotion into an image that is

devoid of any. Used to do it myself: I wrote cruddy poetry with lofty titles,

played in mediocre bands with pretentious names, and took lousy pictures

with meditative descriptions of the "context". As if better titles, names and

descriptions would make the reading, music and photography better. And as

for context, in the age of photoshop context has become obselete. No need

to fabricate a context to make an image more significant; now we can

fabricate an image to match the context.

 

While the context and circumstances surrounding my own images have

meaning for me, I can't expect others to give a hoot. If somebody asks, I

guess I'll tell them.

Rich, I believe context has value; it aids understanding (regardless of whether or not the "art" is any "good").

 

I applaud your bad poetry, mediocre music, lousy pictures AND your attempt to make sense of it. This is all part of your personal journey, it may have failed in your eyes, but the effort deserves respect.

 

By the way thanks for the link Tony.

<a href="http://witcombe.sbc.edu/modernism/roots.html">Modernism: The Roots of Modernism</a><p>

 

<a href="http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartists.html">What is Art? What is an Artist?"</a><p>

 

Oscar Wilde wrote:<p>

 

"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperment. It's beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that the other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want and tries to supply that demand, he ceases to be an artist and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be an artist."<p>

I don't really think the discussion has as much to do with "photography as

art" so much as "photography as representational narrative". More an issue

of 'how to read' a 'representational photo' - that's why the author was

making the example of the context of news stories, etc.. and how it alters

meaning for the person reading the story. It's simply the psychology of

looking at images. What's more - I would suggest that it's more a discussion

of meaning and context - MUCH of that discussion could be applied to

almost anything in terms of meaning and context. i.e. you might make

certain assumptions about someone walking without shoes in a commercial

area.

Heh, my professor mentioned "punctums" to us. I assume this was the article he was referring to. He made it a point to find "punctums" in our works during reviews. He said they were the unintentional little imperfections that made the picture.

 

However, when a student tried to do an entire series using punctums, the effect is lost.