Search

Roland Barthes's "Camera Lucida. Reflections of Photography" is a book that attracted attention not only from researchers of photography, but also those of other visual expressions, philosophers, and cultural critics. The last decade has seen intensive analyses of the relation between his photography and phenomenology. Meanwhile, this paper suggests a different approach - reading "Camera Lucida" in the context of all Barthes works, i.e. in the framework of his theoretic thought. In the analysis of his theoretic thought we explore the meaning of the question: "What does my body know about phenomenology?" asked by the author in this book. This question describes an approach to photography that could be named "corporeal knowledge". Corporeal or body knowledge in the description of emergence, formulation and production of signification is a common topic in Barthes's works. A look at the corpus of his works makes it apparent that Barthes cared about several essential problems that connect his works of different themes and styles into one methodological field. One of such problematic threads continues in a dashed but consistent fashion all the way until his final works is the signification of body (or corporeality) in the production of meaning. This paper studies how the conception of "corporeal knowledge" is spread in a book dedicated to photography. The paper carefully looks at the Barthes's photography researchers' notion that in "Camera Lucida" the author returns to phenomenology, since such concepts of phenomenological philosophy as perception, experience, memory, and imagination have never left Barthes's sight. We raise an assumption that instead of talking about a turn or return to phenomenology, it is better to talk about the isotopy of body and corporeality in the Barthes's works. Therefore the further discussion raises the questions of: how is Barthes treating the concept of body? What does he call the corporeal knowledge? What does the body mean generally in an attempt to answer the question what is photography? This paper shows that in Barthes' "Camera Lucida" for the first time an ontological question is raised, i.e. it aims to understand what is photography itself, what is its essence. The author has never raised the question of essence and not signification before, since structuralists or semioticians do not raise such questions. The analysis of the chronological way the author follows in his descriptions of the phenomenon of photography shows how he starts with photography as a message without a code and gradually reaches the concept of photography as an object, in which expression, content and the referent (the reality) coincides. This identity is photography's essence without signification that, according to Barthes, cannot be described by any traditional analytical methods. A rational, analytical view takes apart and generalizes; therefore, it cannot reach the essence of photography. This view is counterpoised by a personal view. Therefore, it is argued that the only possible way to understand what photography is in itself is to research the primal, true relationship between the viewer and the photographical image that takes shape before any conceptualization. Such relationship is exactly what Barthes calls "corporeal knowledge", where the basis of understanding is the position of the personal "1". Unlike in his other works, in "Camera Lucida" Barthes asserts that there are such fields or phenomena, where only this alternative (personal "corporeal knowledge") understanding is possible. Further on this study analyzes the conditions for such alternative view. The third part analyzes Barthes's description of the essence of photography by using two concepts studium and punctum. This analysis shows how these two elements of photography are connected to corporeal knowledge. 1t shows two conceptions of punctum. Several important aspects of corporeal plane are elucidated: describing punctum with corporeal terms (wound, stab, sting, cut, etc.) he attributes this element to the plain of corporeal senses instead of rational cognition. 1n the further description for the first time he conceptualizes the essence of photography - that which allows understanding the point of photography is indescribable, experienced and unarticulated. 1t also shows how the temporal aspect of punctum (photography shows that the object existed) is linked to the bodies' direct relationship. The conclusions propose that even though Barthes's last book "Camera Lucida" stands out among other books dedicated to photography and other expressive objects due to its conceptualization of the plain of "corporeal knowledge", a lot of issues still remain. That is especially because in his works Barthes has not described the conception of "body". 1t is stated that only by analyzing the fragments that create the isotopy of corporeality in his theoretical works it is possible to reconstruct the Barthesian conception of corporeality. By interpreting Barthes's question "What does my body know about Photography?" in the context of all his works, it becomes evident that on the one hand, the descriptions of the signification of photography and the search for its essence are inscribed in the systemic structure of the development of significations. 1n his analysis of visual objects Barthes uses the structures of linguistic significations, which means that he also faces challenges that arise in the text theory. One of such challenges is the place of corporeal experience and meaning in the description of signification, its emergence and comprehension. Therefore, after considering the development of his theoretic thought, what is in his critique called Barthes's return to phenomenology appears to be a consistent step towards the description of those uncoded, irrational and unsystematic elements of meaning that Barthes assigns to the plain of "corporeal knowledge". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Referring to the surviving photographs, artworks, reminiscences by contemporaries, and other written sources, the paper discusses the representation of the naked body in visual arts and its public reception in Lithuania in the 1920s and 1930s. Nude photographs of the Russian-born ballet dancer and painter Olga Dubeneckienė-Kalpokienė (1891-1967) become an impetus to discuss what might have been the reasons for a woman to undress in front of the camera and what meaning this kind of act had. The paper analyses the general attitude towards the naked body made public, referring to the origins of the movement of nude aesthetics and naturism, and the spread of its ideas in interwar Lithuania. The analysis of the history of creation of the artist and ballet dancer's nude photographs and portraits allowed to highlight the fact, which has not been previously emphasized in Lithuanian art history, that painter Petras Kalpokas (1880-1945) used photography as an aid in his works. The author of the paper presents new facts attesting to the close relationship between Dubeneckienė- Kalpokienė and Kalpokas, which began earlier than is asserted in traditional Lithuanian art history. This proof is important not only for the biographies of the above-mentioned artists, but also for that of Vladimiras Dubeneckis (1888-1932), as it may explain several dramatic moments in the famous architect's life. Moreover, Dubeneckienė-Kalpokienė and Kalpokas's wedding date is specified (1935). A sketchbook, which was thought to belong to Dubeneckienė-Kalpokienė, is newly attributed to Kalpokas. Research of the public attitude towards the naked body in the interwar period has revealed that even the priest Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas did not hide his fascination with partially naked portraits. Dubeneckienė- Kalpokienė's allegorical nude photographs received exclusive attention from exhibition visitors and reviewers. Even the nude photographs by foreign artists, displayed in an international photographic exhibition in Kaunas (1938), were acclaimed by some professionals. However, despite the fact that interwar society was becoming more modern, it was not ready to accept fellow-countrymen's nude photographs about which we learned only in the 21st century and which are still 'without a place' in the history of Lithuanian photography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of écriture feminine proposed by French feminists Hélène Cixous, Julia Kristeva and Luce Irigaray in 1970s has been criticised for being apolitical. But the criticism has been contested with the argument that it has a potential in changing the discourse that structures gender relationships in society. Écriture feminine as 'writing the body' is constructed in feminist theory as an opposition to the dominating patriarchal discourse that prevents women from occupying the subject position and uses them to guarantee the subject position for men. By criticising Sigmund Freud's interpretation of female sexuality according to which a woman cannot sublimate, Irigaray claims that a woman who is prevented from realising her libido participates in discourse in two ways: mysticism and mimicry, which are both sadomasochistic. By using mimicry as a method in her philosophical questioning, however, i.e. by imitating the dominating discourse 'unfaithfully', Irigaray demonstrates its artificiality and fallacy. She suggests that women should leave the dominating patriarchal discourse by rejecting its rules and deconstructing its language. The dominating discourse, according to Irigaray, denies gender differences and is a discourse of 'oneness' pretending to be universal. In order to escape sameness, Irigaray suggests 'speaking the body' based on the relationship of gender differences where femininity and masculinity do not enslave each other, but preserve wonder with regard to each other thus creating a limit, a gap, a middle that does not allow absolute fusion and preserves difference. Writing the body is writing with the other, which creates a dialogical relationship. Thus, for Cixous, Kristeva and Iragaray, écriture feminine is an expression of specificity in female body and at the same time a realisation of Jacques Derrida's différance. The paper suggests that this conception of écriture feminine can be used to understand the significance of work by two Lithuanian female photographers, Veronika Šleivytė and Violeta Bubelytė, who 'spoke the body' without acknowledging their feminist strategies. This was caused by historical circumstances in which they created. Veronika Šleivytė photographed self-portraits during the inter-war period when the concept of écriture feminine did not exist and she worked in a male dominated field and society that held very traditional views regarding women. Violeta Bubelytė started photographing herself naked in the early 1980s, i.e. in the time when the concept of écriture feminine was very popular in the West, but it could not reach Lithuania that was under the Soviet regime. Yet when their work is interpreted through the concept of écriture feminine, it becomes clear how they both were opposing the dominating discourse of patriarchal photography. Be photographing themselves, they used mimicry (in Irigaray's sense) as a positive method by repeating the clichés of portrait and nude unfaithfully and thus showing the artificiality of the representation of women and establishing themselves as subjects. Both photographers rejected woman's identification with nature and transferred their bodies to the sphere of culture. By 'writing the body' they both created a dialogical relationship where a woman addresses herself with Irigaray's question 'who are you?' as if her self were already slightly other. Yet Šleivytė also inscribed the other in two more ways: by trying on other identities and speaking about herself through love to other women. Both photographers also disturbed the familiar discourse of portrait and nude photography by using a different lighting, creating superimpositions and using the gaze to establish subjectivity. On the other hand, in their own discourse, they undermined its 'oneness' by using alternative verbal discourses and introducing the dimension of time. Both photographers used the photographic medium by positively creating the space for dialogue, but also showed that woman's self is inaccessible to photography as a medium establishing the dualist subject-object position. Additionally, this paper is written as a meta-text, exploring the possibility to use the concept of écriture feminine in academic writing on photography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the beginning of the 1980s, two factions misunderstanding each other emerged in the field of Lithuanian art photography. The generation of photo artists, who had become famous in the Soviet Union and abroad, conceived photography as an artistic interpretation of reality and did not accept the young generation's idea of photography as a process that may be turned into a performance, become reflexive, disrupted or reconstructed. The paper investigates the reception of works by Alfonsas Budvytis, Gintaras Zinkevičius, Alvydas Lukys, Gintautas Trimakas, Remigijus Treigys, Saulius Paukštys, Vidmantas Ilčiukas and Snieguolė Michelkevičiūtė trying to answer the following question: how has the attention of Lithuanian and foreign artists and art historians helped the young photographers to strengthen their position and to become integrated into the field of contemporary art and the international context?. The analysis of documentation of group exhibitions that showcased the aforementioned photographers in 1987-1994 reveals that the discourse of recognition differed remarkably in Lithuania and abroad. In Lithuania, photographers still had to overcome the ideologically imposed Soviet view that photography was a document of reality. Thus, photographers attempted to emphasise the specific characteristics of the photographic medium, the ways it distanced the image from reality and the artificiality of art photography. The young generation of art historians to whom photography's attachment to reality was no longer a problem read this formal language learning from their experience of modernist art. Meanwhile, foreign curators were interested in the manifestations of creative freedom under the conditions of political repressions and recognised them in the works of some young Lithuanian photographers. Critics who wrote about their exhibitions saw formal experimentation as a phenomenon of the past, thus they were more impressed with impersonal evidence of historical reality without apparent means of artistic expression. The work of Vytautas V. Stanionis who appropriated his father's photos for Soviet passports seemed to conform to the method invented by Bernd and Hilla Becher, which was widespread by then as the dominating principle in photography. Thus, even though the work by Stanionis was older in terms of the time the passport photographs were taken and he did not understand the implications of his own action, it looked more up-to-date than the experiments of young photographers in the West. Yet the success of young photographers remained unnoticed in the field of art photography in Lithuania, which was still upholding the reportage method. Thus, Lithuanian photography "caught up" with the processes in the West, although it did not affect the institutionalised tradition of art photography at home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reminiscences (1975-1985), a series by the famous Lithuanian photographer Algimantas Kunčius (b. 1939), stands out in the context of the humanist photography that dominated in Lithuania during the Soviet period. Rather than photographing people, Kunčius focused on things and the everyday urban as well as rural environment. The series marked the beginning of a new aesthetic tendency, which was later developed in the 1980s by younger photographers. It also reflected processes that had been taking place in Lithuanian painting, which was then moving towards the observation of everyday life. After the restoration of independence in 1990, Reminiscences gained significance and came to represent Lithuanian photography in the international context; separate images were used to illustrate poetry and texts on the ethnic roots of Lithuania, displaying the images' capacity to touch upon universal sensibilities. Therefore, this paper explores how the photographic rendering of "things" in Reminiscences was used to express identity and reflect on ideas that were current during the late Soviet period as well as investigating how personal memories are associated with wider cultural phenomena. The discourse of memory is read by linking visual analysis with the photographer's memories and interpretations of this series that were made at the time of its creation. The discourse of memory in Reminiscences by Kunčius follows two main directions. The first leads towards a phenomenological reduction of the opposition between the observing subject and the object that is being observed. This effect is achieved through the use of various codes of photographic language, which supports the interpretation that the things being photographed were signs whose purpose was to carry the memories of a past that was able to both influence and form the present of the self. The second direction of the interpretation takes a turn towards reading cultural values in the structure of the series. Thus, every photograph becomes a step in the process of discovering national identity. The latter meaning is related to the significance of Reminiscences in Lithuanian culture, as the reading of common meanings in everyday things allows the audience to appropriate identity constructed by the photographs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the creative processes that took place during the years after the totalitarian regime in the field of photography. Those creative processes were responsible for the development of two artistic tendencies that were in opposition to each other. The Lithuanian school of photography that emerged in late 1960s formulated a conception of photography that was based on the documentary approach. In the meantime, the works of the new generation that debuted in early 1980s manifested an alternative expression that abandoned the values of the established tradition. This historical analysis focuses on how the principles of a stylistic vocabulary were constructed during the period and establishes the relationship that existed between the institution and the creative individual when culture underwent Sovietization. One of the most important objectives of the Sovietization of photography was related to the creation of a new ideological reality. With the aim of presenting the precise characteristics of this reality, the paper introduces a new term alt-reality. This term not only points to the nature of the phenomenon (as, for example, hyper-) or to its scale (as, for example, total-), but also provides grounds for its ideological goal to represent an idealized Soviet reality, i.e. to visualize it in qualitative categories. Documentary photographers who developed the traditions of the school usurped the concept in terms of the basic principles of the photographic art. Therefore, this new wave can be called "a movement for devisualization" (with some reservations) due to its main creative strategy isolation from the significance of the visual content. It remained peripheral for a whole decade, not only during the Soviet period, but also during the first years of independence. The first chapter discusses the construction of a Soviet alt-reality in photography during the Thaw period, when the emerging diachronic function of photography raised the modern aesthetics of photography to a position equivalent to social realism. The new documentary photographers announced their break from photojournalism publicly in 1969 by founding the Society of Art Photographers of Lithuanian SSR and creating a new aesthetic programme based on the synthesis of the documentary and psychologism; consolidating documentary photography as an art. The recognition that the status of the photo artist subsequently gained and the strengthened position of the Society itself prompted the development of a more diverse artistic expression in the Soviet Union. However, those Lithuanian photographers acquired such favourable conditions only because of the strategic implementation of political projects and the maintenance of good relationships with the nomenclature of the party and the government. They gained a strong ideological and theoretical rearguard in Moscow and most importantly created a trustworthy alt-reality that was widely spread not only within the Soviet Union, but also abroad, thus expressing not an individual point of view, but a common Soviet world outlook. During the last decades of the Soviet occupation documentary photographers interpreted reality much more critically. They searched for connections with the past and observed the unfriendly social environment. Their creative variations of the documentary medium, however, impeded experimentation and limited the use of formal aesthetics as a means to reveal the artistic potential of photography. The second chapter analyses the contradictions that were manifest from early 1980s between the traditional and alternative expression. The new generation of artists broke away from the canon of documentary reflection, maintaining that photography itself was a new artistic reality. Thus, the cornerstone of contention became not only the different perceptions of reality that were available in photography, or through photography, but also the definition of the limits of photography as an artistic object. Still, the pragmatic policy of public relations that was observed by the Society of Lithuanian Art Photographers was orientated towards the integrity of the medium in Soviet culture. This was pursued in a complex fashion by consistently reacting to party directives, implementing ideological engagements, suppressing inner controversies and by limiting the spread of alternative expression. Such a situation demonstrates that the alt-reality that was created during the Soviet period according to the conception of the traditional school of photography remained quite united in the public space; while the split took place on the level of the professional community's discourse and ideas. In the case of the school, photography was consolidated as a modern, yet "demonstrative" art, whereas the creators of alternative expression, who had a critical approach towards the traditional representation of reality, implanted the practices of devisualization. They were the first to inspire the use of postmodern tendencies in Lithuanian art photography under the circumstances of a weakened, although still ideological, restricted culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]