Punctum and Reinterpretation
Punctum and Reinterpretation in Photography / Punctum and Reinterpretation in Photography
The article discusses various theoretical approaches that develop the concepts of punctum and "formless" in relation to the photographic image. Their connection with the concept of "visual turn" in aesthetics and art theory is explored. With examples from modern artistic and photographic practice demonstrates a change in ideas about the boundaries of representation and ways of reinterpreting modern photography.
The content of the photograph easily eludes interpretation. But perhaps this indicates that by means of the photographic image it was possible to catch capture something that could not be reduced to an allegorical or symbolic interpretation. J. Baudrillard considered the imposition of an excessive interpretation of photographs to be the cause of the emergence of simulacra and, in this regard, thereby he distinguished between the actual photographic image and photographic visibility. Photography as a simulacrum is deprived originality, uniqueness, is interpreted in accordance with semantic and visual clichés (need to look at this sentence, not sure what is intended - should it be 2 separate sentences?). Visibility replaces the image (or image) when it tries to impersonate or imitate reality, imitate reality. In contrast to illusory visibility, “a good photograph depicts nothing” [2, p. 224]. But what is the "pure state of the image" in the understanding of Baudrillard? Firstly, this state implies a direct, rather than conventionally mediated connection of the image with a specific place and time.
Shooting, which is also reflected in the concept of punctum by R. Barthes [1], Baudrillard refers to it in his studies, or can be compared with the concept of the index, which R. Krauss uses when analyzing photography [6] (I don’t see what you are saying in this sentence — what is shooting? there does not seem to be an explanation or completion of the sentence, instead there are references without conclusions or making a statement). The “punctuality” of a photograph takes it beyond the limits of representation and makes it a fixation of some unique event. For Barthes, the concept of punctum implies a certain gap in the figurative composition, a violation of the usual logic of the relationship between the part and the whole: “... remaining a detail, it paradoxically fills the entire photograph with itself” [1, p. 62].
Punctum cannot be localized, associated with any specific pictorial device or(?) presented as an “intellectual game”. Bart juxtaposes punctum with the "blind field of the picture", "behind-the-scenes space", implies the presence in the picture of internal dynamics, breaking out beyond the limits of the image. According to Barthes, the punctum is revealed in the photograph post factum, against the will of the author. But Is it not possible to assume that the author manages to achieve the effect of non-coding even when he specifically looks for a way to release the inner paradox and specificity of the photo-image? Is it possible to expand the concept of punctum and compare it with such image characteristics as uncertainty, diffuseness or(?) duality? Characteristics that are unintended consequences of the purposeful work of the photographer. In other words, is it possible to compare the variety of pictorial modes, the interpretation of which the author deliberately does not predetermine, with the concept punctum? Can they be constructed in accordance with both figurative and non-figurative approaches?