After reading one of Shi Ming's thoughts: Why is being seen an infringement?

What I saw was a little boy's bad teeth.

Roland? Barthes is the most active, eclectic and innovative scholar in the French literary world in the second half of the 20th century, and he is also a key figure in the transitional period from structuralism to post-structuralism (pointing to deconstruction). This may be confusing, so for example, one of his short stories, Whispering of Lovers: A Structuralist Text, from the subtitle, this book is a deconstruction of any classic love story, that is, a complete love story with a beginning, an end and an climax is "deconstructed" into pieces, which is considered as "zero distance" writing with a "scattered perspective". Aside from these terms, this little book actually demonstrates that the meaning of love only exists in an instant, which is what the Buddha called "breathing room"; This fragmented feeling and viewing mode also conforms to the basic characteristics of photography. It's interesting that such people talk nonsense about photography.

Ming Room has a subtitle called Photography, Roland? Barthes divides photography into two experiences, namely seeing and being seen, and the latter is the presentation of me seen in the photo. Here are some book excerpts:

I am often photographed and know this. So, from the moment I felt I was seen through the lens, everything changed: I "posed", I instantly turned myself into another person, and I turned myself into an image in advance. This change is positive: I feel that photography is creating me, or letting me die, because of it. There is a story to illustrate this deadly force: some members of the Paris Commune paid their lives for posing proudly on the barricade: after their failure, these people were recognized by the police in thiers and almost all of them were shot. ).

Posing in front of the camera is not dangerous for me. Perhaps, this is a metaphorical way to show that my existence is in the hands of photographers. However, although this attachment is imaginary, it still makes me feel uneasy and uncertain about what I want to "give birth": an image-my image-is about to be born: a nuisance or a good person "gave birth" to me?

In short, I hope that my smart photos will always be consistent with "myself" when they are dragged around among thousands of photos of different identities and ages; However, the opposite must be said: "self" never matches my photo. ...

I thought I was a good photographer, but I was destined to wear an expression all my life: my body will never find its own starting point, and no one can give it this starting point (maybe only my mother can give it? Because indifference can't get rid of the heaviness in photos-an "objective" photo has nothing but this kind of thing, turning you into a criminal under police surveillance-and can get rid of this heaviness.

I really want to have a "visual history", because photography is the beginning of turning myself into another person: the sense of identity is distorted and divided. Stranger still, before photography appeared, people were talking about phantom overlap. People confuse the strange dreams and hallucinations of mental patients. Strange dreams of mental patients have been a mythical topic for centuries. But today, we seem to be suppressing the madness of photography: photography is just a little uncomfortable when I see "I" on paper, which reminds us of its mythical inheritance.

This influence, in the final analysis, is the influence of ownership. The law says this in its own way: Who does the photo belong to? Belong to the subject? Or does it belong to the photographer?

Portrait photography is an arena. Four imaginary things meet there, collide there and deform there. Facing the camera, I agree with this truth: I think I am that person, I hope people think I am that person, photographers think I am that person, and photographers should show their artistic talents.

Book picking is over.

This is a common experience: when facing a photo, we always try to dress ourselves up, whitewash or use a special posture to show that I am the best image expression in the photo, or that I am a standard symbol in the photo. In the deliberate dressing, I pursue the best way to express myself so that it can appear in the upcoming image. On the other hand, why do we deliberately pose a posture that we can't even use in our daily life, or must smile to cover up our true psychological state? Therefore, what we expect to appear in the photo is not the truest me. "Truth" is not the most important factor in photography for us. At the moment of photography, our physical body is occupied by a "non-self", and this occupation is even directly inspired by our inner consciousness. In short, at that moment, we all naturally played the role of "self", which was just a distance from me in daily life, or a surreal state of me. In this process, I have doubts about my identity. In other words, the relationship with others and the outside world through photos is unreal and unstable. Even if it becomes a small photo hidden in my lover's chest, that photo may be closer to my lover's heart than I am, and I can only "materialize" it (that photo) at most.