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_2039.jpg
IMG_7396.jpg
IMG_2084 2.jpg

cushions. 

IMG_7335.JPG

just a lamp.

IMG_3178_edited.jpg
IMG_2158.jpg
IMG_7326.jpg

eggs.

red chairs.

IMG_7471.JPG

a car but also a house.

IMG_2094.jpg
IMG_2083.jpg

lights.

plastic chair.

bottom of page