Talk:Camera Lucida (book)

Untitled
Would it be possible to add citations, particularly "both works have been much criticised since the 1990."photophosphor 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On criticism
The criticism blurb that was in this article was hardly notable and in fact, quite trivial, considering the significance of Roland Barthes' book. I've moved it below for discussion if people would like to weigh in on the matter.— DMCer ™  09:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

==Criticism==

James Elkins criticizes Roland Barthes's understanding of photography because of Barthes’ belief in photography as domestic, vernacular, poetic, subjective, and nostalgic. He judges Barthes’ pain as insincere and superficial, further writing that Barthes’ memory is exceedingly theoretical and out of touch with reality. Elkins alternatively proposes that photography should force the viewer to contemplate the pain and boredom of life and viewing, resulting in a "visual desperation," i.e. what Elkins labels as "camera dolorosa." He advocates photography that emphasises inhumanity and boredom, forcing the viewer to examine what he or she does not want to see.

REFERENCE: Elkins, James "Camera Dolorosa" in History of Photography, vol. 31, no. 1, (Spring 2007) pp. 22-30.


 * I included this section because I believe it adds another perspective to the text. Certainly, James Elkins is significant in the field of photography, and the History of Photography is a peer reviewed journal, so when Elkins says the Barthes’ ideas are out of touch with reality, I think that is fairly significant statement. What do others think?--Ducio1234 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This page needs to be updated to include a reference to the newly published book Photography Degree Zero Reflections on Roland Barthes's Camera Lucida, Edited by the notable photography scholar Geoffrey Batchen (MIT Press 2009).

Publication or death?
So which is it?

"'Published posthumously in 1980, Camera Lucida is Barthes's first and only book devoted to photography'" "'Barthes died in an automobile accident soon after the publication of Camera Lucida'"

Davidships (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Published untranslated"
What kind of bizarre remark is it that Mythologies was "published untranslated in 1957"? Almost all books are initially published in their original language, so that's the normal case. Furthermore, almost all translations are published after the oringal, so again it's the normal case that the original is "untranslated" at the time of its publication. This wording looks to me like knee-jerk anglocentrism. Now if the article were to point out that an English translation of Mythologies was published in 1972, that would be information. Wegesrand (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)