“… the new visual era, opened by the photograph, is still
seen through the enchanted screen of the ‘graphosphere’. The exposition,
however positivist, guards the aura that fiction and classical culture gives
unmistakeably to the object to which they apply themselves. The cultural
doubleness is not only characteristic of the 19th century; it
extends its influence well beyond and continues to haunt, like a fantome, the
most recent discourse, in saturating La Chambre clair with latin and greek
terms (the punctum, the studium, the spectrum, the noeme, etc.) Roland Barthes
himself has recourse to this screen, as if the abandonment of the concept ‘of
writing’, up to then central in his work, to the benefit of the imprint and the
Referent, can only be done in maintaining,in extremis,a lexicon issue from the
classical and rhetorical culture with which photography, and more generally,
visual industries, strongly break.” [Philippe Ortel, 1999]
The ruptures are always followed, it seems, with fantoms,
and the more modern the new break is, the more it changes everything, the more
ghosts there seem to be who don’t get it, who haven’t received the word that they
should think themselves into extinction.
I would put Ortel’s critique of Barthes’ terminology in
Camera Lucida on the opposite pole from my own ‘enchantment’ with these terms, which seem, contra Ortel,
to express well the state of the rupture – for far from being in the visual
era, we are in, unmistakeably in, sunk up to our necks in, the era of the
mashup, the era of the caption, the era of blogging, commenting, uploading,
vids and texting.
A week ago I wrote an earlier post about my dissatisfaction
with the phrase, “reading a picture”, “reading an image”, “reading a film”,
etc. Like the rather dirty dog I am, I don’t want to remove that bone from my
mouth quite yet. I want to drool on it some more, make it slick.
In Camera Lucida, Barthes proposes a dynamic of the
photograph – or of the experience of the photograph – that employs two terms,
studium and punctum, which are not exactly opposites and aren’t exactly in
tandem. Barthes disgards, here, the operator’s point of view – he is writing as
the spectator. “What I feel for these photos [which he has been commenting on]
arises from a mid-range [moyen] effect, almost a training. I don’t see, in French, the word that
expresses simply this sort of human interest. But in Latin, I believe, this
word exists; it is studium”, Barthes writes, “which does not mean, at
least right off, ‘the study’, but the application to a thing, the taste for
someone, a sort of general investment, eager, certain, but without any
particular acuity.”
That word, study, does exist in just this sense in English –
but not in any English. In American English, and especially American English in
the South. One of Flannery O’Connor’s greatest and most mysterious stories, The
Life You Save May Be Your Own, is keyed to the verb “study”. In it, a retarded
young woman is married to a traveling man named (unbelievably, and all too
believably) Shiflet. The young woman is the “baby girl” of an old woman who
happens to own an out of order car, which is what Mr. Shiflet really wants. The
first time we see Shiflet, he is spotted by the old woman, who lives in a
desolate spot, coming down her road
with a box, which he sets down just outside her fence. His face is described in
that devastatingly cartoonish way that O’Connor uses to conjure the countryfried
tribes of the South, ending with this sentence: “He seemed to be a young man
but he had a look of composed dissatisfaction as if he understood life
thoroughly.” This young man comes up on the porch and introduces himself to the
old woman and the daughter, who introduces herself in turn ("I'm pleased
to meet you," the old woman said. "Name Lucynell Crater and daughter
Lucynell Crater. What you doing around here, Mr. Shiftlet?"), and then the
young man tells her a thing that introduces the verb study into the story for
the first time:
"Lady," he said, and turned and gave her his full
attention, "lemme tell you something. There's one of these doctors in
Atlanta that's taken a knife and cut the human heart—the human heart," he
repeated, leaning forward, "out of a man's chest and held it in his
hand," and he held his hand out, palm up, as if it were slightly weighted
with the human heart, "and studied it like it was a day-old chicken, and
lady," he said, allowing a long significant pause in which his head slid
forward and his clay-colored eyes brightened, "he don't know no more about
it than you or me."
This version of study, which is connected to “the study of”,
or what Barthes calls “l’etude”, falls short of the power and glory of God and
the devil. But Mr.Shiflet, who ranges between the latter two, is a man who also
studies – in this second sense:
“He reached into his pocket and brought out a sack of
tobacco and a package of cigarette papers and rolled himself a cigarette,
expertly with one hand, and attached it in a hanging position to his upper lip.
Then he took a box of wooden matches from his pocket and struck one on his shoe.
He held the burning match as if he were studying the mystery of flame while it
traveled dangerously toward his skin. The daughter began to make loud noises
and to point to his hand and shake her finger at him, but when the flame was
just before touching him, he leaned down with his hand cupped over it as if he
were going to set fire to his nose and lit the cigarette.”
“Studying’, here, possesses that blunt approach to the
object, that near acuity, that is the twin of
studium as Barthes uses it. Barthes, reaching into the
inexhaustible magician’s hat of
rhetoric – the tricks of which served him right well, better than Ortel gives
them credit for – has found a word that does more than describe a cognitive
attitude towards the photograph: it also describes a cognitive attitude towards
the newspaper, and towards much of the internet as well.
We don’t exactly read a photograph, and we don’t exactly
look at one. We don’t have, for photographs, some limited range of symbols and
components – something equivalent to letters or signs or ideograms – that we
have for a text, and that we even have, for most of Western history, for
painting – or for tattoos. And we don’t exactly look either – or at least, what
we look at (even if we looked, as operators, to take the photograph) is what
has been looked at. Our look is always a second look. Studium, or study, covers
this ground well, since it doesn’t exclude reading or looking, but points to an
attitude, to a sort of preliminary intentness, that fills our head when in
relation with the photo or texts like a newspaper, which is designed to be like
a book or encyclopedia but, also, unlike – from the headlines to the placement
of the photos to the continuation of columns in the paper.
When we study the paper, we don’t study it with the sense
that we will keep it. Like Shiftlet’s match, the newspaper is ultimately,
classically, in the days of paper, for tossing away. The physical fate of the
newspaper always hung over it, and was often brought up in popular culture –
such as in films about journalists, who were almost always rather seedy and
amoral men. Sometimes,however, things were cut out of the paper to be saved –
or a paper itself was saved for some
reason. When man landed on the moon, my parents saved the Atlanta Journal that
headlined the event. Years later, when my Mom died, I was going through her
things and found a yellowed copy of that paper. It seemed extremely sad, and to
my too literary mind, too much like a detail out of some story Joyce might have
written – a Dubliners detail, an unbearable punctum – to use Barthes term.
Indeed, the punctum leads Barthes to the death of his own mother, which is the
subtending story in Camera Lucida – the story of finding photographs of his
mother in her house, after she died.
The association between the newspaper and the photograph
upon which I am insisting, here, is helpful
in understanding the newspaper effect, in modernity. The great critics
of the newspaper – Kraus, Tucholsky, Bloy, Orwell – all understood its “black
magic”, to use Kraus’ term, as an enfeeblement of language that served to
replace reading by what I am calling, following Barthes, study. Karl Kraus, who
wrote that the real freedom of the press is freedom from the press – our
natural and best freedom – gave this criticism a monstrous obsessiveness over
forty years by ‘cutting’ out quotations from Viennese papers and applying to
them the acid of his Sprach-kritik with such effect that that they always
yielded, in the end, the same result: an untenable bĂȘtise, an underlying
stupidity that was like some chemical ingredient which surreptitiously
cretinized the consumer. The consumers in this case were Austrians who happily
engaged, in those forty years, in one frenzy of mass murder – World War I – and
were preparing themselves for another one – World War II – when Kraus died, in
1937.
Kraus’ underlying premise, his critical vocabulary, his rage
against the cruelty and unintelligence of the dominance of study over reading or looking, was, in its broad outlines,
predicted by Baudelaire’s reaction to photography in the Salon of 1859 – which
I’ll end with. Baudelaire, in spite of being on good terms with one of the
greatest of photographers, Nadar, diagnoses the rage for daguerreotypes as the
introduction of industry into art – and, in consequence, the end of art. He
grasped the fact that the industrial experience was becoming the norm, not the
exception. Nature, as he saw it, was being replaced by precision. Of course,
the natural philosophers, since Boyle, had dismissed nature as a hopelessly
misbegotten patch of a concept that had no causal power in science – and once
it lost that causal power, it could only decay into myth. But Baudelaire
understood that poetry lived in that uneasy marginal space. The photograph,
symptomatically, satisfied both the mythical (the likeness to “nature”) and the
scientific/industrial (“precision”) in a way that no art could compete with. It
was Mickey Mouse from here on out, so to speak.
These are, of course, reactionary positions – that is, they
are positions with nowhere to go – instead of revolutionary ones. But they
contain, in all their disgust and self-undermining industry – their appalled
and compulsive study of study – moments that any revolutionary – any upsetter
of our present order – must understand. I’m tempted to end here, to splurge, with a long quote from the end of
The Life You Save May Be Your Own, however hokey the convergence of my theme
and example may be. Shiflet, as those who know this story, does finally get the
old woman’s car running – his whole intent, apparently – after ‘studying’ the
engine, and he negotiates with the old woman over his marriage to her retarded
girl until he gets to take off in the car for a honeymoon, and some dollars to
spend.
“Occasionally he stopped his thoughts long enough to look at
Lucynell in the seat beside him. She had eaten the lunch as soon as they were
out of the yard and now she was pulling the cherries off the hat one by one and
throwing them out the window. He became depressed in spite of the car. He had
driven about a hundred miles when he decided that she must be hungry again and
at the next small town they came to, he stopped in front of an aluminum-painted
eating place called The Hot Spot and took her in and ordered her a plate of ham
and grits. The ride had made her sleepy and as soon as she got up on the stool,
she rested her head on the counter and shut her eyes. There was no one in The
Hot Spot but Mr. Shiftlet and the boy behind the counter, a pale youth with a
greasy rag hung over his shoulder. Before he could dish up the food, she was
snoring gently.
"Give it to her when she wakes up," Mr. Shiftlet
said. "I'll pay for it now."
The boy bent over her and stared at the long pink-gold hair
and the half-shut sleeping eyes. Then he looked up and stared at Mr. Shiftlet.
"She looks like an angel of Gawd," he murmured.
"Hitch-hiker," Mr. Shiftlet explained. "I
can't wait. I got to make Tuscaloosa."
The boy bent over again and very carefully touched his
finger to a strand of the golden hair and Mr. Shiftlet left.”
No comments:
Post a Comment