January 2020
Would Barthes's mother image still 'prick' him if it had been badly printed? Is this a superficial or serious question? Does aesthetics have anything to do with punctum? Maybe that's my question just now. The image on the left was included in the December show, and was one of the few which I would add to my hypothetical memory suitcase. The following is as I wrote it in my sketchbook.... One very definate image with punctum for me is this one bad copy (above left). Ticks all the memory loss cliches - sailing away, fog, hazy, fading away, but that's not it for me. It's not the subject, the image represents the experience of making. Busy day in the darkroom, crowded baths, chatter / banter. Social space. New process - solarization. Developed in lith then mordancage. So the punctum of the image is the sum of the darkroom experience - the process and the banter, a day that stands out above other days, and an image that stands out above others printed that day. Unlike Barthes' image of his mother where he had no direct input to the image, has having a direct contact with the image influenced me? Bear in mind it was taken on a cold, windy day in Lewis, waiting for M to finish fishing, so not a memorable in the moment experience subject wise, memorable darkroom wise. 'Multi-layered punctum'? Counterpoint to this, the image on the right, same negative, printed on the same day, but this one doesn't speak to me in the same way. Would Barthes approve of my placing aesthetics as one element of punctum? Maybe not, but for me it matters in this case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
susan CassieRamblings of a student in self-isolation. Archives
August 2020
Categories |