man & nature # 19 ~ reading a photograph
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 03:22PM 
Meacham Lake beach • click to embiggenGetting back to things photographic as opposed to social commentary rants and bloggeritis, I thought that this statement from Joel Meyerowitz was interesting and informative:
I find it strangely beautiful that the camera with its inherent clarity of object and detail can produce images that in spite of themselves offer possibilities to be more than they are ... a photograph of nothing very important at all, nothing but an intuition, a response, a twitch from the photographer’s experience.
This picture of Meacham Lake beach, part of Meacham Lake State Park, is a "photograph of nothing very important" - a lifeguard on his perch, a sandy beach, a single boat, a few bathers, the sky, and receding mountains is at first glance not that unusual or unique. You've probably seen something like it before. These elements are essentially Barthes' studium - about which he states:
The studium is a "kind of education (civility, politeness) that allows discovery of the operator." It is the order of liking, not loving. News photographs are often simple banal, unary photos which exemplify studium because "I glance through them, I don't recall them; no detail ever interrupts my reading: I am interested in them (as I am interested in the world), I do not love them."
Yet, "in spite of itself offer possibilities to be more than it is". Therein is the potential for Barthes' punctum - "that accident which pricks, bruises me ... These are the photos which take our breath away for some reason that was completely unintended by the photographer"
Regarding punctum, Barthes also states that:
Sometimes, the punctum reveals itself after the fact, as a function of memory ... It is a testament to the pensiveness of a photograph ... This pensiveness is the strength of a photograph. The pensiveness is, again, a political element of photography. While most photographs offer only the identity of an object, those that project a punctum potentially offer the truth of the subject. They offer "the impossible science of the unique being."
True to Barthes notion of "completely unintended by the photographer", the punctum of the Meacham Lake beach picture, which I "discovered" after the fact was not in my mind as I made this picture - I was merely practicing the art of not thinking without falling asleep. I was picturing, as Meyerowitz suggests, with only "an intuition, a response, a twitch from the photographer’s (my) experience", aka, my state of ku.
The after-the-fact punctum which pricked me was the realization - after viewing the picture for an extended length of time - that I had pictured a "truth of the subject". That truth of the subject is simply this - the Adirondack region, outside of a few villages, is a vast empty place. A place that is tread upon very lightly by the hand of man because, by deliberate decisions and political actions, it is protected by the NY State Constitution as "forever wild".
Take note of the distant forested shoreline - public land - that is devoid of human development. Notice the absence of motorized watercraft, and by association, the quiet that pervades the scene. By connotation, compare that to more "civilized" waterfront vacation locations at the height of the summer season. And, guess, what - no cell phone coverage either. Almost unbelievably, all of this "impossible science" of "unique being" is within a few hours drive of the enormous population of the megalopolis of NE US of A.
Perhaps this punctum pricks only me because I know the "story". Perhaps to most it is just a picture of nothing very important. But that particular punctum causes me to think that this picture just might be the best picture I have ever made that captures a unique sense of place of the place in which I live.
A sense of place that depicts why I love it so deep in my bones.
Reader Comments (2)
Nice photo. And your comments nicely illustrate the "same planet, different worlds" nature of photography. Where you see a "wild"-ish setting, I see the silliness of civilization at work. There's a lifeguard sitting in an elevated chair, with a sign saying "Lifeguard on Duty" affixed to it. Really? Was anyone worried that the person in the chair wasn't a lifeguard? Possible, I suppose, but...
And the folks swimming are swimming within a boundary designated by a string of floats. What's wrong with the rest of the lake? Is "evil" somehow kept at bay by the floats? Do the floats carry the message, "Here be wild things"?
As for there being no motorized craft - it's hard to tell but, isn't that one bobbing at anchor, mid-left of frame?
Anyway, like I said, I do like the photo. And I'm definitely not suggesting that your interpretation is invalid. Just different. Which is where the fun comes in, right?
I'll admit to only reading excerpts of Camera Lucida and I've often come away from them wondering if Barthes' is the easiest way to explain these concepts. I understand that sometimes difficult concepts are difficult to write about, but I still wonder what E.B. White have to say about all this. Nevertheless without really sitting down with it, I guess I can't be critical.
Another thing that I've often wondered, and maybe you'll have some insight, is why is this specific to photography and not all visual art, or even poetry. It seems like a painting should lend itself to the concepts of punctum and studium.
And thirdly, it seems that the viewer is required to bring so much to the process that I'm a little uncomfortable assigning these concepts to the photograph rather than to the act of viewing--perhaps that's a difference without distinction, I'll admit.