Barthes wanted to show the way a photograph can imply certain things upon its observer. He however also shows that photographs can represent the world without implying a grandeur lifestyle.  There is a personal relationship to a photograph, as well as the obvious symbolic meaning.  Someone may hold great attachment to a picture of his or her lover, but to a stranger that photograph means very little other than a photograph of a person that they do not know. They may acknowledge that it is a photograph, and a person, symbolically but the relationship is not as intense as the person who knows the individual photographed. I really enjoyed this article, although the concepts are a little tricky. I really enjoyed when Barthes discussed objects, stating “Special importance must be accorded to what could be called the posing of objects, where the meaning comes from the objects photographed (either because these objects have, if the photographer had the time, been arti- ficially arranged in front of the camera or because the person responsible for lay-out chooses a photograph of this or that object.” I was able to relate to this aspect of photography as it closely relates to film. The concept of mis-en-scene is almost exactly like this, but for moving film as opposed to photography.

-Maddison McCauley