Professional Documents
Culture Documents
affect
YURIKO FURUHATA
Abstract
This article uses Roland Barthess text, Camera Lucida: Reflections on
Photography, to critique photographys truth claim to the real by reading
the photographic discourse of indexicality as a symptom, as defined in
izek. The implications of this symptomatic relationship
the work of Slavoj Z
between photography and the real are analyzed in relation to the question of
photographic spectatorship on the one hand, and to the inarticulability of
aect on the other. In conclusion this article turns to Kants notion of subjective universality as it is challenged by Barthess theory of photography.
Keywords:
indexicality;
universality.
photography,
symptom;
punctum;
aect;
00371998/09/01740181
6 Walter de Gruyter
182
Y. Furuhata
1.
Trace
When one considers the dierence between the linguistic trace, as in the
case of a written quotation, and the non-linguistic trace, as in the case of
Indexicality as symptom
183
184
Y. Furuhata
to. On the other hand, the linguistic use of the word index retains an etymological sense through deictic words such as I, here, this, and
now, words whose meanings are completely contingent upon the context, agent, time, and place of the act of enunciation. The link between
the sign and the referent hence remains contextual. Nevertheless, in all
three cases the index leads the reader of the sign to the referent; it has a
directional or pointing function.
There is also, however, a temporal dimension to the indexical sign.
While often overlooked in discourses on the index, there is as a temporal
lapse between the sign and the referent in the case of the footprint, the
fingerprint, or the photograph, all which hinge upon the spatial as well
as the temporal dissociation between the index and its referent. In spite
of this spatio-temporal gap between the index and the referent, theorists
of photography often appear certain of the causal link between the sign
and the referent. Sontag expresses such certitude in her discussion of the
photographic index:
While a painting, even one that meets photographic standards of resemblance, is
never more than the stating of an interpretation, a photograph is never less than
the registering of an emanation (light waves reflected by objects) a material
vestige of its subject in a way that no painting can be. (Sontag 1973: 154)
Indexicality as symptom
185
186
Y. Furuhata
Indexicality as symptom
187
2.
Symptom
188
Y. Furuhata
It is worth noting that in the above passage Barthes emphasizes the absolute singularity of each photograph, which cannot be subsumed under the
universal rubric of Photography. (I will come back to this problem of
the particular and the universal in my discussion of Kantian aesthetic
judgment and its relation to desire in my conclusion.) Moreover, Barthes
Indexicality as symptom
189
190
Y. Furuhata
3.
Punctum
While Barthes turns to photography with this keen awareness of the radical impossibility of the direct symbolization of aect in Camera Lucida,
we should also note that he had already touched upon this same issue in
his earlier texts. However, in these earlier works he was rather optimistic
about the possibility of symbolizing aect. For instance, in the essays
The photographic message and Rhetoric of image Barthes establishes general rules for the semiotic reading of a photographic image. Although he dierentiates the coded iconic message (connotation) from the
un-coded iconic message (denotation) of a photograph, the perceptual
message of denotation is presented as a universally recognizable and
hence communicable message. According to Barthes, in order to read
this last (or first) level of the message, all that is needed is the knowledge
bound up with our perception (1977: 36).
In the subsequent essay, The third meaning, Barthes further classifies
photographic signifiers at the level of denotation (the literal message of
the image) by separating obvious meaning from obtuse meaning.
Obtuse meaning is conceived as a supplement to the semiotic reading
of photographic images that a readers intellection cannot succeed in
absorbing, at once persistent and fleeing, smooth and elusive (Barthes
1977: 54). This supplementary addition of obtuse meaning functions as a
floating signifier without a signified, malleable and flexible in its power
to signify, depending on the context and the object of signification. Again
Barthes asserts the general applicability of his particular reading of obtuse meaning, which he finds in photographic stills taken from Sergei Eisensteins films:
The pictorial rendering of words is here impossible, with the consequence that
if, in front of these images, we remain, you and I, at the level of articulated
language at the level, that is, of my own text the obtuse meaning will not
Indexicality as symptom
191
succeed in existing, in entering the critics metalanguage. Which means that the
obtuse meaning is outside (articulated) language while nevertheless within interlocution. For if you look at the images I am discussing, you can see this meaning, we
can agree on it over the shoulder or on the back of articulated language.
Thanks to the image . . . or much rather thanks to what, in the image, is purely
image (which is in fact very little,) we do without language yet never cease to understand one another. (Barthes 1977: 61, emphasis mine)
192
Y. Furuhata
Indexicality as symptom
193
locatable, it does not find its sign, its name; it is sharp and yet lands in
a vague zone of myself; it is acute yet mued, it cries out in silence
(1981: 53).
In light of these remarks, I would like to return to Barthess aforementioned reference to the Lacanian notion of the Real at the beginning of
Camera Lucida: Photography evades us . . . We might say that Photography is unclassifiable . . . it is the absolute Particular, the sovereign Contingency . . . in short, what Lacan calls the Tuche, the Occasion, the Encounter, the Real (1981: 4). This unclassifiability of photography, as I
suggested earlier, derives from the absolute singularity of each photograph. Thus, one could say Photography only provisionally. This is
why Barthes suggests in a parenthetical note, [F]or conveniences sake,
let us accept this universal, which for the moment refers only to the tireless repetition of contingency (1981: 5). Like the Real, an enigmatic kernel which eludes symbolization through language, the ineability of photography can be rendered only conditionally in a form of as if. In other
words, we only have access to this sublime entity of Photography in a
mediated manner through recourse and reference to particular photographs, and it is only this way that we can talk about the aect generated
by Photography.
Accordingly, the ineable essence of the Photograph is presented
through the conceptual framework of Buddhism, which Barthes suggests
problematizes linguistic signification: In order to designate reality, Buddhism says sunya, the void (1981: 5). His Orientalist fascination with
Buddhism notwithstanding, Barthes points out an important aspect of
photographic indexicality. He suggests that in our gesture or reference to
a photograph, we can only name the pre-photographic referent in deictic
language: The Photograph is never anything but an antiphon of Look,
see, Here it is; it points a finger at certain vis-a`-vis, and cannot escape
this pure deictic language (1981: 5). That is, every reference to a photograph must begin with a linguistic indexical sign designating this or
that, as if our reference to the photograph replicates its own referential
relationship to the pre-photographic referent.
Interestingly, in his essay The deaths of Roland Barthes dedicated to
Barthes Derrida mentions just such indeterminacy in the status of the referent in photography. He writes:
[Barthes] first highlighted the absolute irreducibility of the punctum, what we
might call the unicity of the referential (I appeal to this word so as not to have to
choose between reference and referent: what adheres in the photograph is perhaps
less the referent itself, in the present eectivity of its reality, than the implication
in the reference of its having-been-unique). (2001: 57)
194
Y. Furuhata
Indexicality as symptom
195
first from the looking subject (the spectator) to the spectacle object (the
photograph), which emits the spectrum or radiant energy (eidolon) of the
pre-photographic referent, and finally, this conjures the ghostly specter of
the past (the return of the dead). What Derrida calls the haunting
economy of photography characterizes this peculiar spectatorial relationship between the viewer and the photograph (Derrida 2001: 41).
Moreover, it is precisely this eect of apparition or spectral haunting
that links photography to hallucinatory madness, giving rise to what
Barthes calls a temporal hallucination:
Now, in the Photograph, what I posit is not only the absence of the object; it is
also, by one and the same movement, on equal terms, the fact that this object
has indeed existed and that it has been there where I see it . . . The Photograph
then becomes a bizarre medium, a new form of hallucination. (Barthes 1981: 115)
Yet, despite his disavowal of cinema, Barthess very discussion of photography is haunted by its specter. For instance, Barthes ironically suggests
that it was in a film Federico Fellinis Casanova (1976) that he discovered the link between temporal hallucination and madness that attends the medium of photography: I then realized that there was a sort
of link (or knot) between Photography, madness, and something whose
name I did not know. I began by calling it: the pangs of love (1981:
116). It is this element of love, then, that leads Barthes to discover the
last element of photography: pity. The aect of the punctum as pity
pierces Barthes and promises compassion and resurrection of the dead
vila.
like the luminous arrow of God piercing the heart of St. Theresa of A
On the other hand, this intense pity leads to madness, as in the case of
Nietzche who, on the eve of his descent to madness threw himself in
tears on the neck of a beaten horse: gone mad for Pitys sake (1981: 117).
In the midst of this ecstatic moment of being profoundly aected by his
memory of all the photographs in which he discovered the eect of the
punctum, Barthes enters into the imaginary space of photographic spectacle. He writes: I passed beyond the unreality of the thing represented, I
entered crazily into the spectacle, into the image, taking into my arms
what is dead, what is going to die, as Nietzche did . . . (1981: 117). As if
entering the realm of the dead, Barthes textually and utopically
goes back in time, enlisting the photograph of his mother as his guide,
his Ariadnes thread in his labyrinthine quest to discover the essence of
photography. Here one may argue that the representational absence of
the Winter Garden photograph from the book further enthrones its status
as a sublime object, that which Zizek calls the impossible-real object of
desire (1989: 194).
196
Y. Furuhata
This sublime object, as we saw, is a banal object endowed with a certain sublimity, and in which we can experience this very impossibility
of the representation of the Real (Zizek 1989: 194). It is thus only by
the very failure of representation, [that] we can have a presentiment of
the true dimension of the Real. The presence of this sublime object thus
gestures towards the unrepresentable: [I]n the very field of representation, [it] provides a view, in a negative way, of the dimension of what is
unrepresentable (Zizek 1989: 203).
But precisely because the sublime object as a fetish could function as a
necessary cipher that masks the emptiness, the void of the Real, it protects the subject from reaching the traumatic kernel of the Real as pure
emptiness. It is in this sense of protection that I suggest that Barthes also
presents his notion of the punctum. The punctum, here, protects Barthes
from reaching the emptiness at the center of his theory of photography,
that is, the emptiness or unfoundedness of the essence of photography
that he purports to have discovered. In sum, the essence of Barthess essence of photography is desire, the contingency fueled by the sublime
object that is the Winter Garden photograph.
In his exposition of Lacans notion of the symptom as sinthome, Zizek
suggests that the sinthome points to the subjects need for the symptom,
because rather than being a pathological imbalance to be eradicated, the
symptom as sinthome is the only positive support of the subject that allows the subject to function in the symbolic realm:
In other words, symptom is the way we the subjects avoid madness, the
way we choose something (the symptom-formation) instead of nothing (radical
psychotic autism, the destruction of the symbolic universe) through the binding
of our enjoyment to a certain signifying, symbolic formation which assures a minimum of consistency to our being-in-the-world. (Zizek 1989: 75)
Indexicality as symptom
197
By incorporating the notion of a blind field (un champ aveugle) into his
discussion of the photograph, Barthes thus creates a kind of o-screen
space. As Peter Brunette and David Wills suggest, the punctum endows
the photograph with the structure of the moving images (Brunette and
Wills 1989: 111).
Now, the o-screen space in cinema, especially in a conventional narrative film, establishes the impression of the spatial continuity of the represented scene in the areas that are blocked from the view of the spectator:
namely, the space above, below and beyond each side of the frame, as
well as the space behind the set and the camera. Through the techniques
of continuity editing, shot/reverse shot, reframing, and camera movements such as panning, the spectator is allowed to imagine the continuing
existence of the characters and objects in the diegesis of a film, even when
they are not depicted on the screen. In particular, the moving camera, in
using pans and tracking shots, creates a mobile frame that enhances our
sense of three-dimensional space inside the screen. Additionally, the eect
of this mobile frame is inseparable from the duration of time in which
such camera movements take place. O-screen space can also be suggested by the characters whose looks and gestures connote the existence
of something outside the frame. Similarly, the intrusion of something or
someone moving into the frame can also create the sense of an expanded
space outside the frame (Bordwell and Thompson 2001: 216217). Most
of all, the spectators willingness to imagine the invisible space outside the
frame plays a significant role in establishing the o-screen space.
198
Y. Furuhata
A new question thus arises: how does the blind field created by the
punctum correspond to the cinematic o-screen space? The connection between the blind field and the o-screen space is oered by the notion of
what Barthes calls a kind of subtle beyond [une sorte de hors-champ
subtil ]. Although the English translation erases the direct reference to the
notion of the field indicative of the field of vision, the original phrase de
hors-champ plays with the cinematic concept of o-screen space/out-offield (le hors-champ) as well as with a connotation of a field beyond or
out of reach (hors). In aligning the pornographic photograph with an
anesthetizing quality of the studium and the erotic photograph with an
animating quality of the punctum, Barthes suggests that [the erotic photograph] takes the spectator outside its frame [hors de son cadre], and it
is there that I animate this photograph and that it animates me. The
punctum, then, is a kind of subtle beyond [une sorte de hors-champ subtil ]
as if the image launched desire beyond what it permits us to see
(1981: 59).
Barthes calls this movement of going beyond the frame of the photograph and entering the imagined o-frame space the right moment, the
kairos of desire (1981: 59). What does he mean by the kairos of desire?
The term kairos suggests that the space Barthes claims to enter through
photographic spectacle is outside the realm of chronological time. If
kairos is understood to be a moment of the fulfillment of truth that intervenes and suspends our chronological sense of the time (Lindroons
1998: 44), Barthess reference to the right moment in the photographic
works of Mapplethorpe points to the intense moment of jouissance: the
impossible fulfillment of desire. The punctum understood in this manner,
then, becomes an aective index that directs Barthes towards the timeless
realm of plenitude, away from the dual threats of death and lack.
Through an intense aective movement (fueled by erotic desire, madness,
love, or pity) that carries him beyond the frame of the photograph
Barthes narrativizes a momentary return to the realm outside language
and symbolization. The punctum animates otherwise still photographs,
and allows Barthes to enter the o-screen, psychic space of his own desire, a space that is unknown even to himself before he embarks on his
long, labyrinthine quest for the essential features of Photography.
Barthess reference to the metaphor of Ariadnes thread is, therefore,
over-determined; the unseeable blind spot is not only an eect of the
punctum but it is also a crucial element of his narrativization of his quest
to find the essence of Photography. The labyrinthine structure of
Camera Lucida as a text and the blind, non-knowledge of the desire that
guides Barthes inquiry are, in fact, complementary in nature. Here it
may be worthwhile to turn to Pascal Bonitzers essay titled, Partial
Indexicality as symptom
199
vision: Film and the labyrinth, which he originally presented in Barthess seminar on the Labyrinth at the Colle`ge de France on January 27,
1979, one year before the publication of Camera Lucida. In this essay Bonitzer oers an intriguing discussion of an anity between the structure
of the labyrinth and the constitutive blind spot in the self-knowledge of
the subject (Bonitzer 1981: 63). While Bonitzers emphasis is on the significance of the partial vision created by the blind spot and the careful
manipulation of the subjective camera in the filmic genre of suspense, his
reading of a short story written by Luis Jorge Borges, points to a particular narrative economy that characterizes the style of Camera Lucida.
Bonitzer argues that the eects of suspense and surprise folded into the
labyrinthine structure of Borges narrative hinge upon the blind spot,
or non-knowledge of the first-person narrators own identity (i.e., that he
is the Minotaur):
What is important is that our blindness is reflected in that of the narrator. Apparently he does know himself any better than we do . . . it is as if the story confronted us with our own blind spot. At the heart of every labyrinth, in fact,
there is the blind spot. And if the subject of the narrative wanders in the labyrinth
of his own blindness, the narrative in turn becomes for us readers a labyrinth in
which we wander until someone like Theseus, just a name, attempts to deliver us
from it. (Bonitzer 1981: 57)
Just like the reader of Borges short story, the reader of Camera Lucida
shares the blindness of the narrator about his self. Instead of providing
an objective, theoretical inquiry on photography, Barthes oers a narrative of an inwardly, subjective quest to discover the kernel of his desire.
Camera Lucida is in this sense a keenly reflexive text that problematizes
the very premise of its own epistemological inquiry: the desire for an objective, scientific knowledge of photography in general. Barthes expresses his predicament, facing the disparity between science and subjectivity, or, to put it dierently, between semiotic theory and the
personal memoir: I found myself at an impasse and, so to speak, scientifically alone and disarmed (1981: 7). Barthes begins his reflexive journey with the awareness of this impasse, and it is precisely this awareness
that marks the singularity of Camera Lucida as a text.
Barthes is aware of the diculty of articulating and translating the affect generated by photography into theoretical language, but he is equally
aware that without going through this inarticulable realm of aect he is
not able to broach the issue of photographic spectatorship. Barthes therefore must position himself as both an inhabitant of the labyrinth, the
Minotaur who is blind to his own origin (i.e., his own desire), and as
200
Y. Furuhata
4.
Aesthetic judgment
In conclusion, I would like to briefly comment on the implications Barthess foregrounding of his subjective desire as the basis of his theoretical inquiry has on the Kantian notion of aesthetic judgment. Rosalind
Krauss, following the work of Pierre Bourdieu, calls photography an art
moyen (middle-brow art). Photography occupies the middle-ground between high art and popular culture because its appreciation often hinges
upon the indexical quality of the photograph (to gesture towards the past
existence of the referent) and the identification of its subject matter,
rather than the formal aesthetic judgment of the photographic image
(Krauss 1999: 169182). Photography as the art moyen is the art of ordinary people who make an interested judgment of personal taste instead of a disinterested judgment of cultivated taste. According to
Bourdieu, most people bring to bear their cultural values and socioeconomic interests on their judgments of photographs. Bourdieu thus
problematizes Kants categorical exclusion of interests, including
charm, emotion, ethics, and desire from the realm of proper
aesthetic judgment (Bourdieu 1990: 8586).
Bourdieus theorization of photography in terms of interest rather than
disinterest is useful, and comes close to Barthes emphasis on the aective investment of desire in his discussion of photography. Yet he diers
from Barthes on one crucial point: Bourdieu bases his argument on the
generalizable, objective validity of popular taste, while Barthes insists
on the impossibility of such a generalization. In so doing Bourdieu ends
up rearming the universality of a purportedly subjective judgment that
underpins Kants definition of the aesthetic judgment. According to Kant:
We must begin by fully convincing ourselves that in making a judgment of taste
(about the beautiful) we require [ansinnen] everyone to like the object, yet without
Indexicality as symptom
201
this likings being based on a concept . . . and that this claim to universal validity
belongs so essentially to a judgment by which we declare something to be beautiful that it would not occur to anyone to use this term without thinking of universal validity. (Kant 1987: 57)
202
Y. Furuhata
References
Austin, J. L. 2001. Performative utterances. In Vincent B. Leitch, William Cain, Laurie
Anne Finke & Barbara Johnson (eds), Norton anthology of theory and criticism, 1430
1441. New York: W.W. Norton.
Barthes, Roland. 1977. Image-music-text, Stephen Heath (trans.). New York: Hill and
Wang.
Barthes, Roland. 1980. La chambre claire: Note sur la photographie. Paris: Gallimard.
Barthes, Roland. 1981. Camera lucida: Reflections on photography, Richard Howard
(trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.
Batchen, Georey. 1997. Burning with desire. Boston: MIT Press.
Bellour, Raymond. 1996. The double helix. In Timothy Druckrey (ed.), Electronic culture:
Technology and visual representation, 173199. New York: Aperture.
Benjamin, Walter. 1968. Illuminations: Essays and reflections, Harry Zohn (trans.). New
York: Schoken.
Bonitzer, Pascal. 1981. Partial vision: Film and the labyrinth. Wide Angle 4(4). 5663.
Bordwell, David & Kristin Thompson. 2001. Film art: An introduction, 6 th edn. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. Photography: A middle-brow art, Shaun Whiteside (trans.). Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Brunette, Peter & David Wills. 1989. Screen/play: Derrida and film theory. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1988. Signature event context. In Samuel Weber & Jerey Mehlman
(trans.), Limited inc., 123. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 2001. The work of mourning, Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas
(eds). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1987. Critique of judgment, Werner S. Pluhar (trans.). Indianapolis:
Hackett.
Krauss, Rosalind. 1999. A note on photography and the simulacra. In Carol Squiers (ed.),
Over exposed: Essays on contemporary photography, 169182. New York: New Press.
Lindroons, Kia. 1998. Now-time/image space: Temporalization of politics in Walter Benjamins philosophy of history and art. Jyvaskyla: SoPhi.
Metz, Christian. 1982. The imaginary signifier: Psychoanalysis and the cinema, Celia Britton,
Annwyl Williams, Ben Brewster & Alfred Guzzetti (trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sontag, Susan. 1973. On photography. New York: Picador.
Tagg, John. 1988. The burden of representation: Essays on photographies and histories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Zizek, Slavoj. 1989. The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.
Yuriko Furuhata (b. 1973) is an assistant professor at McGill University 3yurikofu1@yahoo.
com4. Her research interests include film theory, Japanese film, literature, and visual culture.
Her publications include Desiring resistance in the age of globalization (2004); and Returning to actuality: Fukeiron and the landscape film (2007).