In Camera Lucida (1981), Roland Barthes offers an unconscious account of visual analysis in practice. “Unconscious” is appropriate to this discussion as he does not define visual analysis. Regarding this, Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright (1998) comment that visual images are ‘central to how we represent, make meaning, and communicate with the world around us’ (p.1). Hence, visual analysis becomes a method for extracting meanings and representations to make sense of society.
However, firstly, there needs to be a consideration into how Fran Tonkiss (2018) and Roland Barthes present their research methods before comparing them. Whilst Tonkiss takes an objective or methodological “how-to” stance towards discourse analysis, Barthes’ work is writing on the visual. Hence, in comparing the advantages and disadvantages of utilising the two methods, Barthes is lacking as his work does not act as a traditional guide. Nevertheless, though the writing styles possess different intentions, there are still some advantages and disadvantages which can be established.
The main advantage of Barthes is that he establishes a greater sense of agency within his application of visual analysis. Regarding agency, Tonkiss only briefly mentions the problems of “expert language” which create ‘a field of knowledge or expertise [that] confers membership and bestows authority’ (p.481). Though considering how examining “expert language” discourse can reveal social issues and problems, Tonkiss fails in asking where knowledge comes from.
Contrastingly, Barthes establishes that a key aspect within visual analysis is understanding how visual media is ‘the object of three practices…to do, to undergo, to look’ (p.9). From this he establishes three positions in the creation and appreciation of an image: the Operator, the Spectator, and the Spectrum. From offering these positions, Barthes articulates how the photographer – the Operator – always controls the meaning of an image. Hence, understanding agency within an image allows for a greater understanding and analysis of a piece of visual media.
Nevertheless, a major disadvantage to visual analysis is that it is highly subjective. Aside from demonstrating this within his first-person account of photography, Barthes further relents that ‘the reading of public photographs is always, at bottom, a private reading’ (p.97). Here, Barthes identifies how visual analysis is primarily personal. This is clearly established when discussing the punctum – ‘the element which rises from the scene…and pierces me’ (p.26). The punctum can only exist within the individual – ‘what I add to the photograph’ (p.55) – and henceforth cannot be deliberately placed by the Operator. The punctum organically generates affect. Hence, discussions of agency when considering subjectivity become obsolete as a large portion of an image’s meaning – and sometimes its power – come from the viewer over the creator.
Yet, a key concern here is whether these respective advantages and disadvantages are relevant to their methods or authors. For example, if Barthes wrote about discourse analysis in the same first-person and experiential manner, the method becomes subjective. Contrastingly, if Tonkiss approached visual analysis from a methodological “how-to” stance, one could argue that the method falls prey to the problem of ‘objective knowledge’ outlined by Pascale (2010, p.19) due to its failure of reflexivity.
Overall, discussing the comparative advantages and disadvantages of research methods is an arduous task as the individual researcher is often part-and-parcel of the failings or successes of a method. Therefore, these methods cannot be detached from their authors.
References:
Barthes, R. (1981). Camera Lucida. New York: Hill and Wang.
Pascale, C. (2010). The Changing Discourses of Social Science, In Cartographies of Knowledge: Exploring Qualitative Epistemologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.13-38.
Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. (2001). Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tonkiss, F. (2018). Discourse Analysis (pp.477-492). In C. Seale (ed.) Researching Society and Culture. London: Sage.
MCS Group One 