top of page

Photogenic nothings.

What makes something worth photographing? A composition isn’t necessarily grand in itself, but can have that effect for some, perhaps not at all for others. 


In a time when a photo of a Ukrainian soldier, Iranian woman, or any sociopolitically charged symbol can speak volumes, I wonder what photography’s role(s) can be. 


Philosopher and theorist Roland Barthes studied the impact of photography’s invention in the 20th century. At the time, just the existence of a photograph was a grand concept. That is, the recreating of information, a moment in time, or just an object; showing reality, or a distortion of it. Put simply, Barthes is known for his theory of the 'punctum' which evokes the personal ‘piercing’ of a photo, and the 'studium' which evokes the culturally symbolic meanings of a photo. In his groundbreaking book Camera Lucida, he says that


“Photography is unclassifiable because there is no reason to mark this or that of its occurrences; it aspires, perhaps, to become as crude, as certain, as noble as a sign.”


Maybe these photos are pointless —  universally mundane and culturally irrelevant in their 'studium.’ So I ask, can it still evoke a sort of personal effect, or 'punctum'?

This is an ongoing series. 

IMG_7482 2.jpg

jak's jeans.


window cushions. 


just a lamp.


red chairs.


a car but also a house.


a shadow or a plant.

bottom of page