This book is a note written by Roland Barthes to record the dialectical way in which he thought about the eidos (form, essence, type, species) of photographs. Roland Barthes was a French literary theorist, philosopher and linguist during his lifetime, but surprisingly he was not a photographer. As Barthes believed that works of art were made up of signs and structures, he studied semiotics and structuralism. However, through Camera Lucida, he realizes the limits of structuralism and the impression of analyzing photography only with semiotics and structuralism. Barthes concludes by discussing the unclassifiable aspects of photography. I felt the direction Barthes wanted to take through the first chapter “Speciality of Photography”. He tried to define something through phenomenology. In the book, Barthes creates certain terms. Operator, Spectator and Spectrum are the first. The Operator designates the photographer, the spectator who looks at the Photograph becomes the Spectator and the thing emitted by the subject is called eidolon (image, ghost, phantom), in other words the Spectrum. Barthes speaks of the ability of the Operator to take a natural picture of the situation. He says that a Photograph is closer to the Spectator than to the Operator and that the Ghost is the closest. The flow of his thought naturally moves from the subject of the photo to the viewers, excluding the person taking the photo. It was interesting for artists like me because for artists the subject begins and the work is created later. Particularly, for me, considering that the audience mostly comes at the end or sometimes I even ignore the audience. For a viewer like Barthes, seeing the work is a completely opposite way of creating the work. Camera Lu...... middle of paper ...... doesn't need camera lucida and camera obscura. What we see instantly becomes a photograph. Not only the quantitative aspect, but also the qualitative aspect has changed. The object and its referent are no longer necessarily real. There is no indexicality. The boundary between painting and photography becomes blurred. Above all, in my case, as I am a painter who relies heavily on photography, it becomes difficult to define the genre of my works. I wonder if I am the thought of Barthes, what is the eidos of my works. Are they included in pictorialism? What are they? (Left - Oil on canvas / Right - Oil on digitally printed image on canvas) I want to end this review with the word of Barthes which I liked. Barthes says: “Death is the eidos of this photograph (Barthes 15). Works CitedBarthes, Roland Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography (Foreword printed in April). 2014