I had one small problem with Barthes's concept of the “punctum” vs. the “studium.” Barthes description of it states that while one is able to engage with the photograph and the myth of the photograph—the statement that the photographer is trying to make with it. The punctum, on the other hand, is described as something that is unintentionally eye-catching.

In the example we looked at in lecture, the studium had to do with the social context of the image of the two Italian girls, and the punctum was the crooked front teeth of one of the girls. My problem is that Barthes seems to imply that the punctum is something that the author never chose to present in his photograph, something that is not part of the message he is trying to convey within his myth.

But, having some experience with photography, I find that things like that punctum are exactly what catches the photographer’s eye. Little visual quirks of composition are what make photographs unique and interesting, and it’s safe to assume that the photographer is aware of them, is probably even intending that your eye be drawn to them.

I know that Barthes says that the punctum is the result of the viewer’s engagement with the photograph, and that perhaps different people see different punctums. But if obvious visual quirks are incorporated into the composition of the image, it is likely that the photographer intended to capture them and intended for them to be noticed. How then can they really be separated from the studium, and the myth of the photograph, if you’re finding yourself visually attracted to something that the photographer intended you to be visually attracted to?