Contextsthe pre- eminent, transparent medium. photography could parade to be better, more
realistic, and more complete, but how was it possible that the medium of photography
could be experienced as more transparent than painting? The answer to that question
has been given recently by Bolter and grusin (1999) in Remediation. Remediation
implies imaging one medium in another medium. in fact, because of imaging, around
the year 1850 people could understand daguerreotypes, since the daguerreotypes
mechanically reproduced reality in a painterly mode, i.e. with a central perspective and
a flat plane. indeed, that moment of painting being remediated through photography
also produced the possibility of understanding the medium- specific conditions of
painting.^4
Yet, what are the specific characteristics of the medium of photography? until now,
Roland Barthes’ impressive essay Camera Lucida is still the utmost authoritative study
on the medium- specific qualities of photography.^5 in a compelling way, Barthes tells us
about the ‘ontological desire’ he has experienced through the medium of photography,
i.e. the overwhelming need to know what photography really is and what its essential
difference is compared to other types of images. Barthes argues that there are thousands
of photographs for which we could feel a certain interest, some might even touch us,
but such sensation is always mediated through the rational in between stage of a moral
and cultural development. The type of photograph characterized by a tolerant effect
and a cultural interest could best be described with the notion of studium. studium
refers to embedding a specific cultural order in the sense of a combination of knowledge
and civilization enabling the spectator to enter into the perspectives and infra-
knowledge that constitute and impassion a particular work. The photographic studium
signifies that what Barthes calls unary photography. ‘The photograph is unary when
it emphatically transforms “reality” without doubling it, without making it vacillate
(emphasis is a power of cohesion): no duality, no indirection, no disturbance’ (Barthes
1984: 41).
some photographs, however, do vacillate our perception since they undermine the
uniformity of the studium. These photographs dominate perception entirely since they
give rise to a mutation of interest. Barthes calls that second photographic effect the
punctum. The punctum is a deconstructive detail since it creates a sense of immense
consideration in the spectator. no matter how instantaneous the punctum acts, it
will always be accompanied by a vast and expansive power that often appears to be
metonymic. in Barthes’ view, that salient detail cannot be deliberate since it functions
as a supplement in the field of the photographed object, both inevitable and informal.
Classic examples of the punctum seem to specifically occur in a topographic
approach of photography characterized by a detached, panoramic perception entirely
directed towards buildings and how they are situated in their urban or natural
environment. hardly any people can be noticed in the images of this photographic
tradition. That effect of dehumanization of the image could already be noticed in early
forms of photography where artistic and aesthetic motives had started to generate a
vast production of empty or deserted urban images. some of those images emulate the
clarity of architectural drawings. others draw attention to the abstract play of light and
volumes or simply surpass the characteristics of the studium while evoking a sense of
sublime terror, disruption, fear or alienation through a subtle intermingling of spatial
details.