Roland Barthes’ Camera Lucida sparked some immediate reaction out of me especially surrounding the perception of photographs versus appreciating the act of photography. One of the most memorable quotes for me was “A photograph is always invisible: it is not it that we see.” The fact that the photograph is rarely distinguished from what it represents, seems strange to me. How can a form of art be reffered to as invisible? Do we really perceive a picture of an object as the same as the object itself? Barthes discusses that it takes an addition level of awareness, reflection, and skill to be able to overcome this instinct and see past the photograph to appreciate the act of the photography. The operator, target, and spectator, all play a different role in the artistic appreciation process “to do, to undergo, to look” respectively. The photograph means something different to all of them; for the operator, it is more closely linked to the vision through the camera lense, whereas for the spectator, it is more about the result from the revelation of the picture.