What types of photos usually catch your attention? Which ones inspire you to want to learn more about them? Are there specific reasons why?
Well, I find pictures that I can see myself drawing more intriguing than others. The kind of photos that have a stories behind them and reasons for the actions we are exposed to within them as well. I love when the photographer allows me to wonder about the picture and not simply see it for what it is. These are the ways I used to look at pictures or at least what I thought of them until recently. I've been introduced to Roland Barthes' ways at viewing photos along with the two terms he uses to do so- studium and punctum. Upon learning the meanings to these words along with how they are related to pictures, I've gained so much more knowledge and inspiration on how to look at pictures as well as analyze them because of Barthes.
Barthes defines studium as the "thing" in the picture that attracts you to the picture. He mentions that depending on what is that you have experienced, your culture, and your taste reflects on what you feel the studium is in the picture (26). As a result the studium of a photo is the object or person the photographer wanted us, viewers, to see.
The other term used by Barthes is punctum. Barthes describes punctum as the thing that "pricks" you about a picture (27). He focuses on the idea of the power of expansion. Some people are able to do this if they remove all their interests and culture when looking at the picture and allow themselves to see the picture for what it is. He states that when you are able to think back of the picture and still see that odd object; that would be considered the punctum (53).
Well, I find pictures that I can see myself drawing more intriguing than others. The kind of photos that have a stories behind them and reasons for the actions we are exposed to within them as well. I love when the photographer allows me to wonder about the picture and not simply see it for what it is. These are the ways I used to look at pictures or at least what I thought of them until recently. I've been introduced to Roland Barthes' ways at viewing photos along with the two terms he uses to do so- studium and punctum. Upon learning the meanings to these words along with how they are related to pictures, I've gained so much more knowledge and inspiration on how to look at pictures as well as analyze them because of Barthes.
Barthes defines studium as the "thing" in the picture that attracts you to the picture. He mentions that depending on what is that you have experienced, your culture, and your taste reflects on what you feel the studium is in the picture (26). As a result the studium of a photo is the object or person the photographer wanted us, viewers, to see.
The other term used by Barthes is punctum. Barthes describes punctum as the thing that "pricks" you about a picture (27). He focuses on the idea of the power of expansion. Some people are able to do this if they remove all their interests and culture when looking at the picture and allow themselves to see the picture for what it is. He states that when you are able to think back of the picture and still see that odd object; that would be considered the punctum (53).
As I looked through Juliet Hacking's book titled "Photography: The Whole Story" I came across an interesting picture. Before I took notice at the title of the picture, which eventually helped me figure out a little more about it, I noticed a strong studium and punctum to it. The studium of this picture is the relationship or intimacy between the couple. The fact that they are looking at something interesting. Maybe they are being entertained by something that is being preformed. Maybe they are bored at what is going on. Maybe they are alone and in the middle of an argument. This picture alone just makes you wonder. Therefore, as a result my studium in the photo is the relationship of the couple and the couple themselves.
On the other hand we have the punctum, which in my eyes is the hand of the man in the photo. If you notice it looks like he has some pressure on it as if he is holding the woman back from something. It made me think that he was in control of her or control over what she does. The fact that he is much bigger than her played a role as well for me. He comes off very masculine and dominating while she comes off as soft and a little closed off.
After I came up with these concepts and ideas I figured it would be a good idea to get a little more background on the picture itself as well as what is was called to see if my view on this picture would change. My view did change! This photo is called " Fat Claude and her Girlfriend at Le Monocle" taken by Brassai. To my surprise the man who I thought was the controlling one is a woman. The couple are at Le Monocle which is a Lesbian bar. Knowing all of this my studium and punctum still remain the same, but i question the roles of both women because one seems to be more masculine than the other.
Next time you look at a picture, will you see it different in thoughts of what the studium and punctum is in the picture? What is interesting about the picture? What makes you want to expand your knowledge in the picture?
Works Cited
Barthes, Roland. (1980). Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang.
Hacking, Juliet. (2012). Photography: The Whole Story. New York: Prestel Publishing.
On the other hand we have the punctum, which in my eyes is the hand of the man in the photo. If you notice it looks like he has some pressure on it as if he is holding the woman back from something. It made me think that he was in control of her or control over what she does. The fact that he is much bigger than her played a role as well for me. He comes off very masculine and dominating while she comes off as soft and a little closed off.
After I came up with these concepts and ideas I figured it would be a good idea to get a little more background on the picture itself as well as what is was called to see if my view on this picture would change. My view did change! This photo is called " Fat Claude and her Girlfriend at Le Monocle" taken by Brassai. To my surprise the man who I thought was the controlling one is a woman. The couple are at Le Monocle which is a Lesbian bar. Knowing all of this my studium and punctum still remain the same, but i question the roles of both women because one seems to be more masculine than the other.
Next time you look at a picture, will you see it different in thoughts of what the studium and punctum is in the picture? What is interesting about the picture? What makes you want to expand your knowledge in the picture?
Works Cited
Barthes, Roland. (1980). Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang.
Hacking, Juliet. (2012). Photography: The Whole Story. New York: Prestel Publishing.