Before interpreting Camera Lucida, Cognitive Calibration

Anybody who intends to approach Barthes’s photography should calibrate a part of his mind with these points that Barthes emphasized in Camera Lucida.
1-Photography cannot be transformed philosophically (2).
2-Photography is unclassifiable; If it’s required to be classified, this can be ‘laminated objects class’ (2).
3-Photography should be dealt with as a phenomenon of two leaves cannot be separated without destroying them both (2).
4-Photography is adhered to referent (2).
5-Photography cannot be dealt as a wholei in semiotics (15).
6-Looking at it in a phenomenological perspective; the power of photograph to prove truth exceeds the power of representation (36).
7-Even though, distractor codes change our shapes; photograph is an imageii without code (36).
8-Photograph means false on the level of perception and true on the level of time (47).
9-Photography evades us in the representing formats that are based on external of object not on core of it (2).
10-Photography shouldn’t be made a part of conventional imageii discussions (Photograph is indifferent to all intermediaries, 36).
11-Photography is not a copy of reality, it is an emanation of past reality (36).
12-In order to see a photograph well, it is best to look away or close your eyes (22).
i except for admirable works of some portraitists
ii phenomenon, is adhered to referent

or the signifier without the signified.. (Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes, Translated by Richard Howard, University of California Press, LA, US, pg. 187, 1994)

Barthes’s photography approach, just as he stated; is not just physical, chemical, visual, and esthetic. Thereby, if a Camera Lucida reader wants to deal with a photographical image according to ‘Barthes’s approach’; shouldn’t think it with general discipline or science notions (older forms of representation, 2); should think it with Barthes’s approach. This is not a figural; instead it is an existential approach. Reader should be careful about the differences mentioned in Camera Lucida (form, image etc.); image should be dealt not only with notions of classical semioticians (F. Saussure, C.S Peirce etc.), but also with the differences that Flusser mentioned as ‘technical image’. This path’s projection can be come across in a route from Sartre to Kant.
Note: Each number at the end of clauses; refers to that notion which was quoted from Camera Lucida that has 48 parts.

Roland Barthes, Empire of Signs / Roland Barthes, Image Music Text / Roland Barthes, Mythologies / Roland Barthes, Sade Fourier Loyola / Roland Barthes, S-Z / Roland Barthes, Elements of Semiology / Roland Barthes, by Roland Barthes / Roland Barthes, Roland a Lovers Discourse / Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text / Jean-Paul Sartre, Imaginary / Jean-Paul Sartre, The Imagination / Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Paul Guyer / Immanuel Kant, Arı Usun Eleştirisi, Aziz Yardımlı / Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, F Max Muller / Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Sebastian Gardner / Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reasoni J. M. D. Meiklejohn / Martin Heidegger, Varlık ve Zaman / Vilem Flusser, Towards a Philosophy of Photography / Susan Sontag, A Barthes Reader / Susan Sontag, Under the Sign of Saturn / Fabien Arribert-Narce, Roland Barthes’s Photobiographies: Towards an Exemption from Meaning / Chloe Ming Hwa Summers Edmondson, Rebirth of Exteriority, The socıo-vısual cırculatıon of the self In the 19th century and today / Margaret Olin, Touching Photographs: Roland Barthes’s “Mistaken” Identification / David McClain, Camera Lucida Select Terms Defined / Güven Özdoyran, Özgürlük ya da Nedensel Belirlenim / Zehragül Aşkın, Aşkınsal Çıkarsama’nın Ontolojik Temellendirilişi
to reach for all resources Θ
read text in TR Θ