The class discussion in todays class absolutely blew me away with all the information and detail that Barthes was getting across in the first few pages of the book. When I initially read it, I did not find it too difficult to read aside from all the parenthetical statements he was making. However, after reviewing what we read in class, it felt like I read a different book. I did understand Barthes point about the studium being the aesthetics and the punctum being what it really is that intrigues us, but before reading this I was oblivious to those ideas. Now, however, I agree entirely. I feel that a lot of the time we tend to attempt to discover the hidden message rather than see the photo for what it is. Along the walls of the John Wood gallery at the International Center of Photography was a quote that had the idea of photography merely trying to illustrate the images of friends and the world not to tell a story. This idea helped me understand what Barthes meant in describing the punctum and studium. It is always important to first grasp the concept of what is this photograph of and what is in the photograph. Once that is understood, one can then grasp the meaning the photographer is trying to get across if there is even one to begin with. The line that I liked best from Camera Lucida is "in front of the lens, I am at the same time: the one the photographer thinks i am, the one i want others to think I am, the one the photographer thinks I am, and the one he makes use of to exhibit his art". I like this line because I don't think it necessarily only applies to the idea of photography but of life. No one really has the answer to "who they are" or "what defines me", instead perception of people varies due to the "inauthenticity" of our actions.