Further Reading
Barr, Alfred H. Jr. and the Museum of Modern Art.Cubism
and Abstract Art. New York: Museum of Modern Art,
1936.
Barr, Alfred H. Jr., ed.Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism.
New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1936.
Barr, Alfred H. Jr., ed.Machine Art, March 6 to April 30,
1934. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1934.
Barr, Alfred H. Jr.Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of
Modern Art, 1929–1977. New York: Museum of Modern
Art, 1977.
Kantor, Sybil Gordon.Alfred H. Barr, Jr. and the Intellec-
tual Origins of the Museum of Modern Art. Cambridge,
MA, and London: The MIT Press, 2002.
Lynes, Russell.Good Old Modern: An Intimate Portrait of
the Museum of Modern Art. New York: Atheneum, 1973.
Marquis, Alice Goldfarb.Alfred H. Barr Jr.: Missionary for
the Modern. Chicago: Contemporary Books, Inc., 1989.
Sandler, Irving, and Amy Newman, eds.Defining Modern
Art: Selected Writings of Alfred H. Barr, Jr. New York:
Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1986.ROLAND BARTHES
French
Until his death in 1980, Roland Barthes’ professional
writing career spanned more than three decades,
during which he sporadically offered commentary
about the medium of photography. Most prominent
among Barthes’ writings on photography are three
essays—The Photographic Message(1961),Rhetoric
of the Image(1964), andThe Third Meaning(1970)—
and one book,Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photo-
graphy(1980). Associated at first with the structur-
alism of Claude Le ́vi-Strauss) and the semiology of
Ferdinand de Saussure, Barthes is also considered
a poststructuralist, that is, one of many, such as
Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, who offer a
radical critique of structuralism’s faith in the stabi-
lity of linguistic structures and its capacity to provide
the analytical grid by which a new synthesis of all the
human sciences could be established. Barthes’ writ-
ings on photography, therefore, emphasize different
issues at different times; all, however, depend on the
nomenclature of structuralism and semiology.
In the 1950s Barthes assumed a position that
perceived the photographic work as a sign capable
of being decoded. A ‘‘sign’’ comprises a ‘‘signifier’’
and a ‘‘signified.’’ The signifier is the physical en-
tity, such as a word, used to communicate the
signified, the conceptual meaning or message. The
relationship between the signifier and signified is
arbitrary according to Saussure: there is nothing
about a dog that demands that it be called a ‘‘dog,’’
and it is, in fact, called ‘‘un chien’’ in French. By
the 1960s Barthes deepens his analysis of the struc-
ture of communication. InThe Photographic Mes-
sagehe first posits that the photograph holds a
privileged relation to literal reality: it is its perfect
analogon. He argues that although the photograph
is a reduction in proportion, perspective, and color
of the object captured on film, it isnota transfor-
mation (in the mathematical sense of the term).
Barthes’ structural methodology, therefore, does
not fully apply. Although a photographic image
may function as a sign (a message that can be
decoded), it remains a medium of communication
that is not truly arbitrary, the way that language
is. He draws two conclusions: the photographic
image is a message without code and the photo-
graphic message is a continuous message. The
working hypothesis, however, ofThe Photographic
Messageis that the photographic message in press
photography is also connoted, and the remainder
of the essay articulates the main levels of analysis of
photographic connotation, including trick effects,
pose, selection of objects or content, photogenia,
aestheticism, and accompanying text. All indicate
something about how content, composition, or use
can be manipulated in the photograph.
InRhetoric of the Image, an essay that focuses
on images used in advertising, Barthes repeats his
statement that the photograph is a ‘‘message with-
out code’’ or ‘‘a continuous message’’; he also
states that the photograph does not simply convey
a consciousness of the object or subject ‘‘being-
there’’ (which any copy might provoke), but a con-
sciousness of the thing’s ‘‘having-been-there.’’ The
principal argument of this essay is that the rhetoricBARTHES, ROLAND