The Punctum In Your Photograph

Digitisation has now made photography an everyman tool, with every beloved memory available in the swipe of a finger. From that weird looking piece of cereal in your breakfast to the fabulous night out with the girls, cameras and smart phones are at the ready to capture the moment. 

But if everyone is taking photos what about them is remotely important?
The Punctum.

What is this ‘punctum’? Has this chicks auto correct spontaneously gone into Latin? 

Don’t worry, it hasn’t. A punctum is something that every engaging image must have.

You’re probably wondering if your own gorgeous scrolls of images have this punctum, heck if it’s so important to an image you simply must have it!

Well, I have a spoiler for you.

You probably already do!

But I shan’t rob you of this exciting educational opportunity so early on in the post…

What is this ‘punctum’?
Punctum is a term used by Roland Barthes to refer to a certain section of an image that captures the viewer. It’s what is poignant and meaningful, what makes the image interesting to you. The word, as you probably will have guessed, is Latin and translates to ‘prick’ as well as other translations such as point, puncture, sting, speck, cut, bruise, etc. This is because the punctum is what pricks the image and punctures you emotionally. That said - the theory of the punctum is rather subjective, what punctures you is personal and private.

 An example that Roland Barthes uses is William Klein’s ‘Children of Little Italy in New York’ in 1954.

In his text Barthes uses this to show the punctum, he finds the child’s bad teeth as the thing that pricks him. However, many would say the punctum is the gun pointed at the child’s head as the thing that punctures them. This is a perfect example of how the punctum is so inherently subjective. 

So what?
This suggests that every image needs a punctum, something for the viewer to look at and admire in the image – the thing that punctures them. However now you’re probably thinking about all those trite pictures you’ve seen uploaded that mean absolutely nothing (for instance that cup of coffee that @smilesdaily423 posted this morning).

 Well firstly, the punctum is subjective – what you find interesting and what someone else finds interesting may be completely different and are two issues that revolve around personal factors and preferences that I shan’t delve into (like the fact that @smilesdaily423 is a caffeine addict).

So does that mean all those pictures aren’t really pictures? The fact that they lack a punctum, does this make them obsolete in the photographic world?

No, the images aren’t broken. It just means they’re, well…crappy.

BUT, this is subjective – remember? Anyway, this does nicely bring me round to my next point - an excitingly new Latin word that you can throw all around the shop, the studium. 

Alright, what’s this studium?
As according to Barthes, the studium is what exists in the image, the things that have “an average affect” on the viewer. The studium is everything viewed after the striking nature of the punctum. Personally I’ve come to understand the studium in regards to the punctum; meaning that it is everything else in the image that is not punctum. Barthes also states that the studium is like the education of the image, providing the background knowledge, you could see it like the Facebook stalk before the first date. 

This is ‘Family Portrait’ by James Van Der Zee in 1926. Barthes comments on the studium in this image as general background knowledge, nothing cutting edge so to say. “The studium is clear: I am sympathetically interested … it is a “good” photograph … it utters respectability, family life, conformism, Sunday best …”

The point of the punctum and the studium is to mesh together and connectedly make an image function in harmony; through being the focal point that captures the viewer (the punctum) and the background knowledge that’s necessary for the punctum to exist (the studium). 

Such as in the example (also in Barthes Camera Lucida) that follows, this is Andre Kertesz’s ‘Tristan Tzara, Paris’ from 1921.

Yet again, Barthes punctum is subjectively different from what one would expect. Barthes’ punctum, like a mother ready for battle, is the male’s dirty fingernails on the hand which rests upon the door frame.
Personally, the punctum for me is right in the middle of the image – that guys face. And more particularly, the spectacle with the gleaming reflection that not only lights up the image but creates an entirely new dimension into the picture.

Conclusion/what are you saying?
To conclude my ramblings on fancy Latin words and the vintage pictures; the punctum and the studium are very real and valid things that should be understood. Barthes's book, Camera Lucida, explores the punctum and studium that are realistic and applicable to every image - if taken with the basic definitions and interpretations. This is useful for you everyday photographers (and you professional ones too; thou shalt not be forgotten) wanting to have a gripping image and have a great punctum in any image.  

References

Alpert, A. (2010). Overcome by Photography: in an International Frame. Third text, 24(3), 331-339.

Barthes, R. (1981). Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York City: Hill & Wang.

Rose, Gillian. (2003). Family photographs and domestic spacings: a case study. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28 (1), 5-18. 

Image Sources

'Children of Little Italy in New York' by William Klein, 1954 - 

http://vi.sualize.us/william_little_1954_little_italy_children_william_klein_gun_picture_mHw.html

'Family Portrait' by James Van Der Zee, 1926 - 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kcl_photography_usa_2010/4241010605/

'Tristan Tzara, Paris' by Andre Kertesz, 1921 - 

http://www.bookaholic.ro/dada-sa-l-aniversam-pe-tristan-tzara.html