1. What is the studium of this photo?

2. What is the punctum of this photo?

Roland Barthes theories of photography to examine some photos. Barthes explains two sets of meaning in a photograph:

1) Studium: "meanings that are nameable," "given cultural meanings that we understand at once" (44)

The Studium “is some kind of an education that allows discovery of the operator”. In other words, this type of photography is more about liking rather than loving. And as Roland Barthes writes about it “I glance through them, I don’t recall them: no detail ever interrupts my reading. I am interested in them (as I am interested in the world), I do not love them.” In other words they are sort of general, without something that adds an unusual and unique twist or character.

Thus I would define Studium as something that does not capture my mind, something that invokes GENERAL associations and is more like “I looked at it and moved on without any special feelings”. It might be a very simplistic interpretation of Studium, however, in my opinion it explains why a viewer does not come back to see a photograph one more time. It is one out of many.

Having seen an idea of what Studium is, it doesn’t fit in the question it seems. Maybe it’s some noun verb problem, pretty confusing. “Is this photo studium?” Odd.

So what is the Studium of this photo? Looking at this work as a photo, it isn’t something that would catch my eye or make me remember it. (Partly cause I don’t retain anything at all, stm uhhuh) But if I were to have fantastic memory, I would have taken note of the slight tilt of the frame captured and the angle where the photographer took it from. Taken from a slightly lower right angle the end of the photo seems to be at the upper left hand corner of the photo. Okay. So maybe I would have remembered it for its non-regular and different angle of capture.

2) Punctum: "a personal memory based not on the public archive but a private repertoire," "stings the viewer...some detail (some accident in the photograph)" (44); "occurs when there is a match between a signifier in the scene (in the photograph), and a scene in the memory" (45)

On the other hand, Punctum is more interesting to Barthes. Punctum is something that “Pricks and bruises”. Usually, we won’t find it in photographs that appear on newspaper pages, glossy covers of tabloids and advertising banners. Punctum might be found in the pictures that capture and hold our mind and breath. Punctum is more about unexpected. It is when an object becomes a subject in the eyes of a viewer. It is when Punctum strikes him by serving in a role of a magnet because it makes a viewer to come back. It is when one particular photograph is not just another out of many.

So what is the punctum of this photo to me? By right, this shouldn’t have like anything to do with me. (This half pasted wallpaper? I don’t even have wallpapers of that design) But looking at it for approximately more than 5 times in a min for the last more than 5 mins, It kind of dawned on me that this not so random photo taken, that style of the shot(If this “style” is really one and not due to mistakes and height problem) coincides with how I would have taken my photos. But the punctum ends here. It most certainly does not capture my mind or breath. And I’m not overly passive. Oh yeah it is kind of unexpected that one would actually take this shot down. If the person was taking it down for the design it wouldn’t be from this awkward angle. They would have taken it straight on so as to capture as much detail of the paper. Or perhaps this exhibition does not allow cameras so they took from their torso height (body shielding the cam from the security. Ha) So comparing all major factors, I deem this photo having no punctum (unpunctum) towards me.