Camera Lucida

[jameslomax]

Roland Barthes, French philosopher, wrote his book over 10 years ago.

 

I read it about 4 years ago, and am currently reading it again - slowly.

 

I started out being interested, but the more time I spend with it, the

more I get fed up with it. There's some very strange and questionable

stuff in the book, which appears to be clever and learned but if you

just say 'hold on a minute, what do you actually MEAN there, and how

do you justify it?' - there's much to criticise.

 

On the other hand, it does have some interesting ideas.

 

What does everyone think?

[randall ellis]

I tried reading it once or twice, but never really got into it (and I read a quite a bit). His style just never struck home for me and I kept putting it down for a few years at a time between attempts before I finally just stopped trying. Some writer?s styles just don't interest me and this author turned out to be one of those writers.

 

- Randy

[mikep]

Similar to the Susan Sontag book.

 

Boring hot air filled BS.

[beeman458]

Susan's book had much to share but Roland's book, I'm still out on.

 

I started trying to deal with his meanderings but the day job got in the way. In November, after the pest season ends, I'll give it another go as I have ways of dealing with writings of his nature:)

 

Besides, even if he has absolutely nothing of intelligence to write about and it turns out to be just a bunch of nonsensical prattle, I'll still learn a great deal just by looking up the definitions of the words he uses which I don't recognize:)

[ivan_dzo]

I found the Sontag book interesting and thought provoking but Camera Ludica seemed to be a load of post-modernist hot air.

[c4-contemporary-art]

I'm just curious... have you people done any serious studying? (BFA, MFA,

etc...) I'm just wondering because perhaps it's more of an 'academic' sort of

book.

[ivan_dzo]

Jonathon, isn't that the problem. The academic take over of photography produces those terrible exhibitions we've all attended, where the pictures look as though they were taken by a 5 year old on an instant camera who'd had too much to drink. You then have to read some execrable pretentious write up next to each photo to "understand their vision". The words mean more than the pictures (but not much more as most of them can't write either). So much of it is Emperor's New Clothes.

[c4-contemporary-art]

Having been in and out of the academic world - it strikes me that there are

those 'academic' books and those for others... yes perhaps the academic

books and essays seem a lot drier - perhaps more pretentious - I'm guessing

that it's because it tends to draw on a lot of others' work and a lot of theory

that people in the field would be more familiar with (the french

neo-freudian Lacan, etc...). It would be nice if that weren't needed - and

concepts could be gotten across without it. Whatcha gonna do, I guess...

[randall ellis]

"I'm just curious... have you people done any serious studying? (BFA, MFA, etc...) I'm just wondering because perhaps it's more of an 'academic' sort of book."

 

----------

 

I have 4 degrees (including one in Architecture) from 3 different institutions. I have 4000 titles in my personal library, all of which I have read at some point in my life at least once, and many of which reference art, art history, design, and other related topics. This book simply doesn't do anything for me.

 

Some people intentionally use obfuscation in order to appear incredible complex and insightful while other convey complex, specific concepts in a way that is difficult for some people to follow, but that never the less, conveys what the author intended very well. Perhaps the author felt strongly on the subject, but was not able to communicate his feelings in such a way that others would easily be able to understand, or perhaps he wrote with the intent to appear as an intellectual. Either way, this book fails to convey an feeling to me.

 

- Randy

[yeffe]

Worse still is the use of metaphor in poetry and academic discourse. Point in case: The

Camera Obscura of Ideology by Sarah Kofman

 

"Kofman contrasts the mechanical function of the camera obscura as a kind of copy

machine, rendering a mirror-image of the work, with its use in the writings of Marx,

Nietzsche and Freud. In the camera obscura the image is always upside-down.

 

From memory Marx in the German Ideology uses this metaphor to explain the idelogy as

inversions of the truth of capitalism established by social science (ie., historical

materialism).Ideology represents reality in an inverted form; as a false consciousness that

represents things 'upside down.

 

I presume the camera obscura metaphor in Freud's psychoanalytic, consciousness-

centered notion of the 'human' refers to the unconscious as the dark room contrasted with

the light of transparent vision of consciousness. Or, more complexly, Freud used the

metaphor of developing a positive from a negative image in which the chamber of the

becomes a series of chambers with negatives and positives, movements and repressions,

screenings for and from the eye of consciousness.

 

For Nietzsche the camera obscura is a "metaphor for forgetting." Forgetting involves being

attentive to the needs of the present and able to distinguish between what in the past is

advantageous and what is disadvantageous for life. Thus "active" forgetting is a selective

remembering, a recognition that not all past forms of knowledge and not all experiences

are beneficial for present and future life."

 

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at February 5, 2005 04:47 PM on http://sauer-

thompson.com/conversations/

[jameslomax]

It does have *some* interesting ideas. I'm not going to list them, because they are simple, straightforward and quite a useful way of understanding photography. But it seems that maybe 3/4 of the book is over-complicated abstraction in a typically French style, interested more in aesthetic rhetoric than actual content.

 

BTW I found the Camera Obscura book quite simlar: it does contain some interesting ideas, for example the fact that Freud used the comparison/metaphor himself, but I didnt want to buy the book. Instead, I tracked down some excerpts on the internet and that was all I needed.

[john falkenstine]

I can't remember if I have any real degrees or not.....however, I do have a LOT of books...but have never bothered to count them, since their number has never appeared to be an issue with me......

[catherineadams]

This is a rather old post (people don't seem to respond to post for very long on

this forum), but I'll give it a try. I'll admit it--I'm both an academic and a

photographer/writer. These two aspects both inform and pull at each other.

Yet Barthes . . . Barthes is the very reason why I can believe in contemporary

post-modern thought after having memorized so many logic systems over the

years. Don't get me wrong, I love Derrida, Freud, Irigaray, etc--but Barthes

makes me gasp in pleasure. This book was no different. The difficulty with

Barthes is that he plays two games at once. He's both academic and intimate-

-something not typically done, particularly in philosophy. Moreover, he favors

neither, instead exposing the faults and the beauties of each. His aim, often,

is both to demystify a social process (the reading and making of photographs)

as well as to call for an enjoyment of it nonetheless--i.e., to inspire a knowing

enjoyment that is both cruel and soft. Of course, this (my statement) is not a

clear-cut explanation of Camera Lucida. I'm not sure one could offer a

straight-cut explanation or quickly diagram his justifications. But I do think that

the main purpose of Camera Lucida is to create a system of reading

photography that can both identify and reconcile its social value and its value

to a particular individual. There's a tendency in the world today to answer the

question of "art" as "whatever I call it." That's fine--that attitude (rejection of

classical aesthetic codes of judgement) has led to amazing changes in art

and reception from Duchamp to Beuys. Yet Barthes seems interested in

reconciling (in philosophy) aesthetics with personal interpretation, which

remains a fraught topic.

 

If you're still interested in this book (despite all these notes denegrating

Barthes' writing style), check out some essays from a university library. Read

Kristeva's translated books on Revolt and Intimacy, in which she discusses

Barthes beautifully. Also, read Freud--or Didi-Huberman on photography/art.

My point is--while I hope readers (like myself) can enjoy such complicated

works without background research, it's a bit hard to understand it completely

without reading more widely.

[jameslomax]

I'm not sure I'd disagree with what you say there, but don't think it's the full picture. I'm also an academic kind of person (BA, PGCE, MA), familiar with much of contemporary theory. And I maintain that Camera Lucida is often 'aethetic', rather than actually philsophical. That is, he creates an aesthetic rhetoric, designed to impress for its supposed elegance rather than its actual content. There are many examples of that...you can find sentences, even entire paragraphs that appear sensible and acute but when you look at them again - critically - you realise there's a high degree of nonsense in them.

 

Henri Bergson said it should be and is possible to write philosophy clearly, with little or no use of self-referential jargon. I believe that, and Barthes is guilty of not doing this as are people like Gilles Deleuze, who was influenced by Bergson but missed this essential point. It seems to be a typically French tendency.

 

There ARE some good critical points in this text, but an awful lot of indulgent nonsense, in my opinion. For example, look at the way he introduces the term 'punctum'. It "pricks" you...it "wounds" you?? What's that all about? - it's like poetry, but its BAD poetry.

[stoopidgerl]

This book is a big load of boring pretentious crap.<br>

ZZZzzzzzzzzz.....

[jameslomax]

There are actually some good ideas in it - if you are interested in photo theory.

[jonathan_bykowski]

While the style may be a bit more esoterically obscure then necessary, Barthes makes at least one solid point I find germane. In his discussion about the two inherent qualities of images he attacks the too often used crutch of technique. Images can have studium, that is they exemplify the practices of good photography (i.e. well composed, well exposed, well printed, well lighted). This is the objective assessment of a photograph, presumably reached by many critics independently. Barthes fundamental message is what sets the making of art aside from the recording of what one finds in fort of him. The image?s punctum is that quality which resonates with the viewer in a less explicable way. A relationship to the subject, history, political view, memory, emotion, theses are the powerful elements that make a photograph great. Images are not powerful because of their technical quality alone. They must possess some form of punctum which will likely not be applicable to everyone who views the image. This is found in painting, sculpture, film, dance, etc. Barthes is simply reminding us that photography is no less accountable to the values of fine art than any other media.

[john mackay]

<p>I must admit I was looking forward to receiving

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374521344/ref=pd_sim_b_3/103-1167498-3140643?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155">

Roland Barthe's Camera Lucida</a> after reading its copious accolades. When I

unwrapped it I thought <i>"Is that it?"</i> I've written longer emails--well not

quite but this appeared more essay than book. However, what it lacked in heft

was more than made-up for with his use of elaborately complex page long

sentences that had me quickly wishing his brief essay had in fact been a

brochure. Ok, Ok So, I exaggerate. However, when scanning the blurb of literary

critics catching words like <i>" ...book </i>[is]<i> ...his most painful"</i> or

<i>"...will permanently affect the vision of the reader" </i>one could be

excused for concluding that these were tongue-in-cheek literal expressions for

the grammatical torture that lay within.</p>

<p>Chapter One was 171 words or less than a page--I love brevity. By page five I

had endured what I thought to be the longest sentence of my life being some

sixty-five words when he commenced his next assault comprising an eighty-one

word sentence. I too had to sit with a dictionary at my side wondering which of

the three meanings associated with his choice of obscure word he had in mind.</p>

<p>Rather than setting a critical course Roland writing style meanders. For

instance, Roland writes: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"A specific photograph, in effect is never distinguished from its referent

(from what it represents), or at least it is not <i>immediately</i> or <i>

generally</i> distinguished from its referent..." </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I remember thinking at this point "<i>Make your mind up!"</i> In the space of

five pages Roland's meandering sentences and haphazard contradiction was

beginning to resemble an almost unedited style of writing that smacked more of

thinking-out-loud than critical essay. I was beginning to think that this book

should have come with a T-shirt proclaiming <i>"I read the Camera Lucida and

survived!"</i></p>

<p>Anyway, this post is at risk of running longer than the book<i>. </i>The

point I'd like to make is that to abandon this work because of his idiosyncratic

writing style would be to short-change yourself of the unique perspective Roland

provides as a <i>spectator</i> of photography (non-photographer). Whilst his

concepts of <i>studium</i> and <i>punctum </i>are limited to personal and

individual perspective they provide excellent food for thought as to what pricks

us about some photos and not others. I was almost moved to tears as he struggled

to find a photo that for him, said everything about his mother.</p>

<p>I heartily recommend this book. Buy it; you'll be better for it. Remember;

that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger. :))</p>

[jameslomax]

Yes, some of the language is really appalling - no excuse, I get tired of over-complicated rhetoric, its just *bad*.

 

I agree that it contains some interesting ideas. There's a lot of rambling nonsense in it though, in addition to the language problem.