Sontag and Barthes

I was particularly interested in how Sontag described photographs as parcels of time and space, and how the photographer is seemingly slicing up reality into rather permanent objects that can be kept and collected. She says that "to collect photographs is to collect the world,” as if the image is taking something from the world which can then be possessed by an individual. She describes the tourist who experiences his/her environment through the camera and treats pictures as souvenirs. This can be related to all people who use pictures as proof of their experiences, and tokens of satisfaction that could have been obtained in other, arguably more fulfilling ways. Sontag poses that taking pictures is not just an act of violence upon the world and our experience of it, but is also a violation upon living subjects within the frame. The camera is paralleled to things such as a gun and a penis, “shooting” and almost “raping” its victims. After all, anyone’s picture can be taken without them knowing or approving it.

However, she also illustrates photography as an art form, the photographer manipulating his/her subject and working to obtain the perfect picture. She seems to feel that photography can have multiple purposes, depending on the intent of the photographer. She also seems to believe that photography itself is ambiguous in that it is both an art form and a potentially invasive, addictive, distorting process in which someone can take part. There is an overarching question of ethics in her writing as to the growing acceptability of replicating the world so many times over on pieces of paper, and experiencing the world through a square lens. However, she definitely seems to value the artistic capacity of the photograph, and does not discount what can be achieved with the camera despite the seeming simplicity of reflecting light, and visual reality. Sontag looks at photography from a psychological and metaphysical perspective to present its complexity as an art form, something that hadn’t been done for over a hundred years after photography's birth, which is quite incredible.

Barthes takes a more personal view on photography, discussing the impact one photograph of his mother had on him. He seems more interested in what the individual viewer brings to the photograph, in terms of experiences and personal relationship to the subject matter in the photograph. Another viewer would have had a very different experience of this photograph than did Barthes, because he knew his mother’s past and her overall disposition – through the photograph, he “rediscovered [his] mother.” For Barthes, the influence of the photograph is more subjective. There is an outer circle of “studium” where viewers locate the overall subject of the photograph that is appealing to them, and an inner circle of “punctum” which involves what about the photograph particularly calls to them as individuals. They may or may not understand why this item draws their attention, but Barthes argues that it has to do with their personal psychology, history, knowledge, etc.

To connect the two articles, both serve to discuss the complex effects that photography can have on the viewer, on the photographer, and on the world. These effects are disputable because they are so multifaceted, because they can be looked at from the perspective of various disciplines, and because the debate regarding them is relatively new. Photography is a large and growing part of society, interwoven with our experience of it. As such, the “philosophy” of photography, so to speak, is something that will continue to be discussed and debated among intellectuals, photographers, and the general public.