Project -Deconstruction

Having read the material in 'Art and Theory' and the entry in the 'Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy' (I found the material at http://plato.standford.edu/entries/derrida/ - the address in the Course material failed ) and followed up a number of referred to articles  (Rousseau, Heidegger, Descartes et al) I am still not sure that I understand what is meant by the term  'Deconstruction'.

It is claimed ( see Section 5 of the entry in the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(SEP) at the web address given above) that Derrida appropriated the term from Heidegger's use of "destruction' in his work entitled 'Being and Time'. The article then continues that we can get a general sense of what Derrida means with deconstruction by referring to Descartes' First Meditation.  In this Descartes states that for a long time he had been making mistakes in his thinking and that in criticising his former beliefs whether valid or mistaken his aim was to uncover a "firm and permanent foundation" on which to build.  The writer of the article goes on to say that "the image of a foundation implies that the collection of his [Descartes] former beliefs resembles a building".  In searching for the "firm foundation" Descartes is "de-constructing" the structure that had been created from a mix of valid and mistaken beliefs.

The underlying assumption is that there is a 'firm and permanent foundation' to be discovered. It is a reasonable question to ask - how would Descartes know when he had reached the foundation?. What would constitute a 'certainty' i.e. an indisputable belief that could be the concrete upon which he could build his mansion of beliefs? Descartes is probably most famous amongst the general public for the phrase "Cogito ergo Sum" usually translated "I think therefore I am".  Here we have someone wondering whether they exist or not or is there a deceiving god who causes them to think they exist. The fact that something is thinking is, in and of itself, proof that something exists to do the thinking - the 'I' in the proposition. However it does not necessarily follow that the 'I' is a human being as we understand that term nor anything that we 'see' in the world around us has the form that we perceive. Nor does it predicate a permanence of a thinking being.

The term is seen as fundamental in Western philosophy because it offers a foundation for all knowledge. Whilst we may be deceived into accepting that other things have an existence separate from our own that we can doubt our existence is proof that we exist. Yet is it sufficient of itself to carry this heavy load? If there is a different 'I' having a different thought can we argue that it is the same 'I' that had another thought but a moment ago even if we feel that there is continuity. Derrida argues that there exists a gap, a miniscule hiatus, that differentiates between the me and myself when I speak to myself - there is a need for me to be both the speaker and the hearer. If I think the thought that I exist because I think, then I will speak that thought to myself to articulate it. Between those two events there will be a miniscule hiatus as I move from speaker to hearer - continuity is broken.

If it is true that 'deconstruction' is adequately defined by Descartes First Meditation and that it is reasonable to believe that Descartes would see as fundamental that 'I' exists because 'I' thinks, then are we not led to the conclusion that 'deconstruction' has no way of knowing when it has reached the foundation i.e it can stop knocking down the building. Does 'deconstruction' require that there is a foundation? All that can be said is that the 'foundation' for Derrida is not a unified self but a divisible limit between myself and myself as an other (auto-affection as hetero-affection: "origin-heterogenous") [SEP ibid]. In the hope that the English translation conveys the meaning of the original French; 'heterogenous' has the meaning 'composed of unrelated or differing parts or elements' [Collins English Dictionary Harper Collins Publishers 1995]. Where to stay the deconstruction would seem to be an arbitrary decision by the deconstructor.

It is said that Derrida was reluctant to give a definition of deconstruction and indeed provided a number throughout his life. In an essay called 'et cetra' published in 2000 Derrida presented that defines deconstruction:

"Each time that I say 'deconstruction and X (regardless of the concept or the theme)' this is the prelude to a very singular division that turns this X into, or rather makes appear this X, an impossibility that becomes its proper and sole possibility, with the result that between the X as possible and the 'same' X as impossible, there is nothing but a relation of homonymy, a relation for which we have to provide an account...' [Deconstructions: a Users Guide, p 300 as given in SEP ibid]. That makes it clear then!!

I had to look up the word 'homonymy' as I had not come across it before. I found it has the meaning " the state or quality of a given word’s having the same spelling and the same sound or pronunciation as another word, but with a different meaning, as race ’tribe’ and race ’running contest.".  So the two X's in Derrida's definition have two meanings.


Hanging on to my understanding of deconstruction by my fingernails  I am now faced with the task of applying my understanding to a piece of Art. Quite honestly I am not sure what I am supposed to do that is different from Structuralism. At some point in my analysis I will have to stop. 

The portrait is of Henry V111th painted in c 1540 possibly by Holbein that can be seen at Trinity College Cambridge. It is chosen because not only there are 'messages' in the elements of the portrait but also a contradiction. It is said that Henry commissioned the portrait (and presumably copies) to demonstrate to his subjects his power and dominance. It has to be remembered that although Henry travelled extensively within his kingdom most of his subjects would have little or any idea of what he looked like.

1 The material of the outer cloak is very rich and is an overt demonstration of the wealth of the King.

2 The bejewelled doublet also emphasises is wealth and position.

3 Hanging round his neck is the Seal of Office the token by which his authority and power is demonstrated. Henry's subjects would have known what the seal meant.

4 The jewelled chain around his neck is indicative of both his position and his wealth.

5 Here his face is serious and possibly threatening in its look. It is that of a powerful man who brooks no argument.

6 Royal Coat of Arms - the dominant positioning of the Arms almost resting on Henry's shoulders is the clear indication of his sovereignty.

7 The dagger clearly expensively made is a symbol of his fighting prowess of which Henry was inordinately proud.

8 Silk clothing. Silk cloth could only be worn legally by a member of the aristocracy and this would be known by all his subjects.

9 His stance - Henry was very proud of his legs and in this painting he shows them to the best advantage. His stance shows a man who 'bestrides' his world.

Through these symbols that most would understand the message is given that here is a man who has the power and wealth that are the rightful trappings of the King. There is no pretence of being 'of the people'. Although most of his subjects lived in poverty he makes no concessions to the fact that much of the poverty was caused by his demands upon the Exchequer.

So Henry portrays himself as the rightful Sovereign. Herein lies the contradiction  because he is also the ruler of a democracy albeit one where democratic rights were limited to a very few. He was not the all powerful ruler that the portrait suggests.

Derrida argues [Rogues, p. 100 as quoted in SEP ibid] that democracy and sovereignty are at the same time, but also by turns, inseparable and in contradiction with one another. A Sovereign must wield power and take responsibility for its use by himself. Yet a democracy calls for the sharing of power, for reasons to be given and discussion to take place before a decision is reached. An absolute ruler can make immediate decisions but one that heads a democracy is required to take considered decisions. To end with a quote from Derrida (Rogues p 101) "As soon as I speak to the other, I submit to the law of giving reason(s). I share a virtually universalizable medium, I divide my authority  ......  Since [sovereignty] never succeeds [in not sharing] except in critical, precarious, and unstable fashion, sovereignty can only tend, for a limited time to reign without sharing. It can only tend toward imperial hegemony."

Author? What author? Part 2

Sherrie Levine is probably notorious for her decision to create 'art' by taking photographs of another persons work and then publishing them under her own name without reference to the original author. Cindy Sherman produces images in which she appropriates the work of others reproducing them with herself as the central figure(s). To ask if this is 'art' and if they can be called 'artists' is to beg the question how we decide whether someone and the work that they produce is is treated in the same way as recognised artists i.e they are artists and their work is art if:

...work of the most radical appropriation artists has been accepted as art, and they have been accepted as artists, receiving every form of recognition for which artists and artworks are eligible: Levine has works in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Glenn Brown has been short-listed for the Turner Prize, the appropriation artists have been discussed in Artforum, Art in America, Flash Art and other major art criticism venues, and so on. Moreover, the kind of recognition the artists have received suggests that the art world takes them seriously as the authors of their work. If Brown were not considered responsible for his works, however derivative from Dali and John Martin, what would be the point of considering him for a prestigious award? If Levine were not taken seriously as an author, what would be the point of interviewing her in major art magazines?”


(http://mrsilverthorne.blogspot.com/2006/07/author-or-forger-sherrie-levine-and.html)


The question at the end of the quote in which the writer asks whether if Levine  was not taken seriously as an author, what would be the point of interviewing her in major art magazines seems to be a circular argument - she is interviewed because she is a serious author and she is a serious author because we are interviewing her. Of course the awful truth is that is exactly how things happen. It is questionable whether Damien Hirst would have been taken seriously as an artist if it had not been for the patronage of Charles Saatchi - a man of considerable influence in the contemporary art world - where Saatchi went others followed. The 'author' is everything. It would seem that the art world has no objective criteria (can there be such a thing?) by which to judge the status of an individual piece of work and ultimately the status of the individual offering the pice of work as his/her own.


Benjamin argues strongly that the provenance of a piece of art is important in giving the work an 'aura' and that, by definition, includes, if not exclusively, the author. Remove the author and we would not be able in our present state of thinking to experience the work in the way that we do now. Would millions of people from across the world visit the Louvre if the Mona Lisa was not credited to Leonardo De Vinci? I would suggest not. Given the present viewing arrangements behind bulletproof glass there is nothing extraordinary about the painting and yet it almost worshipped by the visiting crowds. Stuck on the wall of a provincial gallery and called 'Mary Smith' with no reference to the author it would be seen as the work of a competent artist and rarely viewed. I wonder whether we are being shown the 'original' Mona Lisa or whether the museum authorities to avoid crippling insurance costs lock it up in a vault and offer us only a copy. As long as we believe that the image is original then the magic remains.

The 'aura' is dependent upon the author being known and the removal of this information would lessen if not destroy the reverence in which the piece is held.

I cannot see the relevance of the question about the unregulated nature of the internet. If I was to place a work say by Jeff Koons on to the internet and claim that the works was mine my guess would be that I would be receiving a letter from his lawyers within a week. It is a common misconception that the internet is unregulated. Leaving aside the work of GCHQ in trawling the net for possible intelligence across a range of interests (if by the time you have read this I am facing trial for breach of the Official Secrets Act then you will know that GCHQ are active) there are a mass of monitoring systems both governmental and private that trawl through the masses of material posted everyday to ensure someones rights are not breached. 


Furthermore in a world where  the 'author' is dead and the 'reader' is alive then whoever posts work on the internet cannot attach his/her name to the piece as its author because their part is finished - they die with the publication of their work. All work would be anonymous and how we read and treat it would be a personal response to the content of the work.


Why is it thought that validation of the interest in the intent of an author is required? Even if we do not know or care who the author is we may still consider what was the intent of the 'scriptor' in creating the piece. Interpretation of a piece of work includes, although not necessarily, some consideration of the intent. The death of the author does not mean that we believe the piece simply appeared without the intervention of one or more persons. We would assume that there was an author or scriptor who created the work and that person had similar feelings to our own. (We cannot assume that he had different feelings because we do not have any knowledge to support this view unless we fail in some way to interpret the work within the boundaries of our own understanding and world view.) 


The 'aura' is dependent upon the author being known and the removal of this information would lessen if not destroy the reverence in which the piece is held.

Saatchi Outburst Guardian Newspaper 3rd Dec.2011

During my researches into the life and works of Sherri Levine I came across an article (http://mrsilverthorne.blogspot.com/2006/07/author-or-forger-sherrie-levine-and.html) in which the following statement was made:

...work of the most radical appropriation artists has been accepted as art, and they have been accepted as artists, receiving every form ofrecognition for which artists and artworks are eligible: Levine has works in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Glenn Brown has been short-listed for the Turner Prize, the appropriation artists have been discussed in Artforum, Art in America, Flash Art and other major art criticism venues, and so on. Moreover, the kind of recognition the artists have received suggests that the art world takes them seriously as the authors of their work. If Brown were not considered responsible for his works, however derivative from Dali and John Martin, what would be the point of considering him for a prestigious award? If Levine were not taken seriously as an author, what would be the point of interviewing her in major art magazines?”


Here we have the proposition that an 'artist' is an artist because they appear in prestigious collections, short-listed for an award and discussed in art related magazines. It further proposes that "the art world takes them seriously as the authors of their work. No mention is made of the merits of their work. It is though Levine and others can say "I am an artist because important people in my world say I am an artist". The author is far from dead in this scenario because it is only through the recognition of the author that the art work is acclaimed.


What if the art world is denounced by one of its own? In an article in the Guardian Newspaper (p.3 3rd December 2011) Charles Saatchi who has championed contemporary art through purchases and exhibitions describes the present day buyers (who by their wealth and position have the ability to set the agenda) as "comprehensively and indisputably vulgar". He goes on "My little dark secret is that I don't actually believe many people in the art world have much feeling for art and cannot tell a good artist from a weak one, until the artist has enjoyed the validation of others."


If this description of the art world is true then we have a relationship between the artist and the art world where there is a common need to maintain the myth that all work from a particular author is 'good'. Any hint that this is not the case then the whole world comes crashing down. No one dare question the merits of a piece of work because they have spent fortunes on hanging other works by the artist on their walls and risk not only the ignominy  of being seen as having work by a naff artist but also see there chances of selling it on at a profit disappear overnight. Is not everyone in this world totally committed to maintaining the dominance of the author over the work? I should think that the articles by Barthes and Foucault are not bed time reading for these people.

Project -Author? What author?

Sat in front of my computer to complete the project having read, and commented on, the two set pieces of reading and looked at the works of Sherrie Levine and Cindy Sherman and followed links to the works of other artists such as Glenn Brown, Richard Prince and Barbra Kruger. I then stopped and asked myself whether I had really gained anything from this effort.

The set readings were interesting and raised some questions but apart from agreeing with the limiting effect that the concept of 'Author' has on a critical appreciation of various forms of art I am not sure it took me any further. At the end of the day I have to live in the world as it is even if it is imperfect and unfair. I cope with this by using my knowledge and intelligence to try and make sense of all that is around me. I acknowledge that I am conditioned to interpret what I see in specific ways but much of this is an unconscious reaction where I assume that things are a 'natural' state because they have always appeared to me to be that way. However it is also true that those who offer some alternative view as they see it are also subject to their conditioning. They too cannot think outside their box and their world is no more or less valid than mine. I can be accused of not wishing to leave my 'comfort zone' and this may be true but I have to be persuaded that someone else's view has some basis. Simply stating concepts as facts does not make them facts that must be true in all 'realities'. Although the Course seems hell bent on disregarding critics of the views expounded in the readings and material we are offered they exist and in my view should be at least referred to so that the student can consider them.

Let us look at the second bullet point in which we are asked to consider - If the birth of the reader is at the expense of the author is there still any of Benjamin's 'aura' left? The existence of Benjamin's 'aura' is taken as a given.  Whilst the first part starts with an 'if' does it allow of the answer that states that the birth of the reader is NOT at the expense of the author? If this was the case then the second part re the 'aura' does not require answering which I assume was not the intention of the writer of the Course. Similarly the answers to the 3rd and 4th bullet points could be a simple 'no' as I assume the 'this' refers to the 'birth of the reader...... statement in the the 2nd bullet point. In other words you have to accept the validity of the statement in order to offer a response.

Do I want to tackle the project - not really. Will I - probably. Lets see.

Author? What author?

If I am reading Barthes correctly his main concern is the dominant part played in literature and other art forms of the 'author'. He writes "The image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centred on the author, his person, his life, his tastes, his passions,.....The explanation of a work is always sought in the  man or woman who produced it, as if it were always in the end, through the more or less transparent allegory of the fiction, the voice of a single person, the author 'confiding' in us".  It is difficult to dispute this statement. I cannot recall ever reading a critique of a book that was not concerned with the author and how the present work compared with his/her other works. Indeed it is the norm for the publishers to fanfare the arrival of a new book by referring to the author's other works either directly or by such stratagems as "Writer of the No 1 in best-seller list for x weeks". The literary merit is subsumed to the reputation and fame of the author.

Barthes argues later: "To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on the text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing."  In his counter-argument, and the statement that I think is the core of his position, he writes: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author".

Here he is arguing that it is the reader that creates meaning for himself as he reads the words. Whilst this may coincide with the meaning intended by the author this is not a 'given' even if the two are from the same cultural background. It seems to me that this must be the case because we all bring with us to our reading the person we are, created by our nature and nurture. Our interpretation of the world around us and how we 'construct' it is unique to us.

Rather surprisingly Barthes adds: "Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology: he is simply that someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted."  He denies the uniqueness of the individual. In part this is explained by his contention: Succeeding the Author, the scriptor no longer bears with him passions, humour, feelings, impressions, but rather this immense dictionary from which he draws a writing that can know no halt.Yet he fails to explain how this "immense dictionary" comes into being without being affected by the passions, humours,.... of the person. It seems that Barthes is unable (?because of his passions and humour) to avoid the over-dramatisation. Perhaps it his journalism background or his need to keep himself in the public eye. Either way he risks failing to persuade his readers of what his intention was when he wrote the piece.

Michel Foucault in asking 'What is an Author'  raises similar issues as Barthes about the status of the 'author' . He writes : ....An author's name is not simply an element in a discourse....it performs a certain role with regard to narrative discourse, assuring a classificatory  function. Such a name permits one to group together a certain number of texts, define them, differentiate them from and contrast them to others......It would seem that the author's name, unlike other proper names, does not pass from the interior of a discourse to the real and exterior individual, who produced it; instead the name always seems to be present, marking off the edges of the text, revealing, or at least characterising , its mode of being. The author's name creates expectations in the reader's mind of what he is likely to find inside. If you like, we are already partially conditioned to approach the discourse in a certain way and would find it discomforting if our expectations are not realised. We cannot approach our reading in a naive way where we can explore the literature with an open and questioning mind.

Later he suggests .....the author is not an indefinite source of significations which fill a work; the author does not precede the works, he is a certain functional principle by which, in our culture, one limits, excludes, and chooses; in short, by which one impedes the free circulation, the free manipulation, the free composition, decomposition, and recomposition of fiction.". Does Foucault see the end of the limiting effect of the author figure? He describes as pure romanticism "to imagine a culture in which the fictive would operate in an absolutely free state". Yet he has the hope that at some time when society is in a state of flux the author-function will disappear. He offers no clues as to when this might happen nor what state of change is a necessary pre-requisite. He has (actually 'had' as he died in 1984) but the wish.

It is reasonable to ask whether  Barthes or Foucault were advocating the ' death of the author'. I do not think either expected nor predicted that texts would suddenly appear. Barthes writes of the 'scriptor' as the producer of texts. Foucault seeks the removal of the limitations that occur by ascribing a work to a particular author. I think both want the 'power' to lie with the reader or the listener. I would suggest that in the end the reader is the deciding factor. It is true that if I enjoy a particular work by a particular author I will seek out his/her other works. However I have free will to decide whether I like a particular text and whether I will read other material. In a world as commercial as the one in which we live the market is the final arbiter. It is difficult to imagine a world where book sellers fill there shelves with books that give no clue to the writer. There are too many being published every day to make a choice realistic.

It has been suggested that the views of Barthes, Foucault and others would lead to a world in which all literature would be open to everyone to change or copy as they sought fit without the risk of breaching a person's copyright. The concept of copyright would be dead.  There is a lot to be said for this argument and would be inevitable if the author was not recognised. The question then arise should the author receive any payment for his labours. I presume neither Barthes or Foucault refused to accept money for their work as this was the way they earned their living. (I do not know if either offered their works copyright free). It would not be inconsistent to expect a reward for their labours the same as any labourer letting the market decide the level of remuneration. In other words the author/producer lives on but he would be anonymous and unrecognised leaving the rest of us to do as we wished with any piece of literature or other art.

Note: The quotations from Barthes were taken from "The Death of the Author" Roland Barthes in the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy.


The quotations from Foucault are taken from "Art in Theory 1900 - 2000" (pp949 - 953) eds Charles Harrison & Paul Wood 2010 Blackwell Publishing 

Death of the Author

I found the relevant text at http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm that saved me waiting for the book from the library. Would you believe it there is a waiting list!

Read it twice so far. I must be getting used to Barthes' style because, I think, I managed to understand what he was saying. I am still trying to work out whether I agree with him although he makes a very strong case for the importance of the 'reader' over the 'Author'. Whether this results in the death of the author is something I will have to think about. The stumbling block for me is the existence of the author prior to the point of the writing. Something to think about.

Result on Assignment 2

Just received my assignment back from my tutor. Gratifyingly I seem to be on the right track so I feel that I can carry on with more confidence in what I am doing. Although I was a sceptic about the value of annotation it works well and whilst it requires a little extra effort familiarity speeds up the process.

Beginning to gather material and thoughts for assignment 3.

Art of America Part 2

Watched the second part of this short series last night (Sunday 27.11.11). Much more evidence of the presenters prejudices and bias. Not helped by the strident music background no doubt designed to get us to become emotionally involved.

Largely on the more avant garde American artists. For me was the moment when the presenter walked into Jackson Pollocks studio and stroked the paint splashes on the floor as though paying obeisance to the great master. The thought struck me that some enterprising gallery owner should buy the floor, take it up board by board and display it. To make it more interesting he could change the positions of the board relative to each other challenging the visitor to 'see' the artists intention. To the uninitiated such as myself the floor splashes were as good as the deliberate paintings. Earlier we had seen a short film showing Pollock at work on his 'drip' paintings and claiming to have the brush and paint under control at all times. Does it not follow that the apparent splashes were deliberate and the floor is one of Pollock's great undiscovered works.

Saved the programme for a second, more considered, look.

Project - Myth is a type of speech - Form and Meaning

"Penn's Treaty with the Indians"

1771-1772

Artist: Benjamin West

from website of Philadelphia Academy of Fine Arts

www.pafa.org

Annotation:

1 William Penn;  2 Buildings;  3 Trader;  4 Bolt of Cloth;  5 Native Americans;  6 Nursing Mother;         7 Young Indian child pointing towards central characters; 8 Chest/Trunk; 9 Treaty; 10 Settlers?;             11 Ships.

The image was painted some 50 years after the event in response to a commission given by a relative of Penn's to the artist. There are no contemporary paintings and works by other artists rely upon West's rendition. There are even doubts whether the event actually took place. There is no written record of the Treaty nor any indication of when it took place, if at all. Some historians suggest that the date of the treaty was 23rd June 1683 when Penn purchased two tracts of land from Tamanend (the chief or sachem of the tribe Lenni Lenapes) and his associates. If this was the case then the trees in full leaf in West's painting can be considered a reasonable representation of the time of year. However others claim it occurred in late November, shortly after Penn arrived in the colony. In that case the trees would be bare.

I take the 'form' to be the painting itself without 'meaning' attached. It has physical presence in the real world, it can be touched, moved or acted upon in any other way that is possible because of its physicality. My annotation points towards the elements that I see as being part of the 'form'. These elements remain largely unchanged by any action taken upon the 'form'. The difficulty lies in seeing these elements without 'meaning" but as swathes of colour, light and dark. Even by annotating the picture the suggestion of 'meaning' is strongly indicated because the reader will almost inevitably ascribe meaning to  the individual words.  One analogy that I came across whilst researching the background for this project was that of a dollar note - the 'meaning' lies in what I perceive I can do with it i.e. purchase desired objects. I do nothing with it other than exchange it for goods. Its 'form' is the note itself with the design on both sides including words and pictograms. Again it has a physical presence.

Lets now look at the individual elements of the Treaty picture and suggest possible meanings.

1 William Penn - Here we see the dominant figure in the image. He is standing centre stage so that he is 'above' the Indians present. The overall effect is to underline his superior status among all the others that are gathered, particularly the natives. It implies that this is not a meeting between equals but between someone who can bring unspecified benefits to the 'uncivilised'.

2 Buildings - It is highly unlikely that such buildings existed at this time and certainly not if the occasion of Penn purchasing land. It is a product of the artists familiarity with English paintings (he was living in London at the time) where the property of the landowner is often present somewhere in the landscape because it underlines the wealth and standing of the subject of the image. It also has a second message that one presumes is there to show the importance of the settlers over the native population because the latter did not live in grand houses and are usually shown living in tepees.

3 Trader - Here we have the image of the honest trader bringing his goods to exchange or to purchase land. There is no indication of the trade in arms or the inequality of the exchanges.

4 Bolt of Cloth - Here the chief is being offered a bolt of cloth. One presumes it is a gift as a thank you for the signing of the treaty. It is offered as a product of a more advanced civilisation showing the benefits yet again of what the white man can produce with his greater skills and knowledge.

5 Native Americans - The noble savage. It should be noted that this part of the image is painted as though the group are in sunlight. It draws the eye to that part of the picture and is a common artifice amongst artists.

6 Nursing mother - A powerful inclusion that means all that motherhood and babies evokes emotionally. It is suggestive of peace and security and that the Indians fear nothing from their new found friends.

7 Young child pointing towards central characters. Placed next to the nursing mother, providing a small family group the child seems to have two purposes - one as the future and someone who will be most affected by the treaty that is being signed by the adults and secondly by pointing the child takes the eye back to the main event.

8 Chest/Trunk - Suggestive of travel, possible wealth and essentially of another culture.

9 Treaty - Despite being the subject of the picture it has been relegated to the shadows. Perhaps this is indicative of the uncertainty about the actual event that was around at that time.

10 Settlers - Strong fit men who have benefited from the decision to emigrate to the colonies. It is a message to all those that view the image that the New World is a land of opportunity. An advertisement to encourage others to follow the path of these two hearty individuals.

11 Ships - In the background we can see a number of ships. Again this has a feel of an English painting showing the strength of the Country as a trading nation.

So we have a painting of an event that may not have taken place painted some 50 years after the event. The artist did not have access to American Indians so the accuracy of the portrayal is open to doubt. Nor did he have any contemporary images of the settlers. The main characters were created by using members of his family as models. Yet it has acquired a status such that it is accepted as being a true part of American history. What it is is a piece of propaganda or a myth that adds credence to American's view of their noble history. It 'veracity' has been strengthened by the times that it has been used as a basis for work by other artists.

Latin Grammar and Saluting the Flag

In the Course material we are told that "the examples make the meaning of Barthes' thesis clear".

The first example is of a pupil who is in the second form in a French lycee. He is faced with the sentence "quia ego nominor leo".  He recognises that the phrase has a simple meaning "because my name is lion". He also feels that the sentence is there to signify something else to him. The narrative continues:


In as much it is addressed to me, a pupil in the second form, it tells me clearly: I am a grammatical example meant to illustrate the rule about the agreement of the predicate.......I am faced with a particular, greater, semiological system, since it is co-extensive with the language: there is indeed , a signifier, but this signifier is itself formed by a sum of signs, it is in itself a first semiological system (my name is lion). Thereafter the formal pattern is correctly unfolded: there is a signified (I am a grammatical example) and there is a global signification, which is none other than the correlation of the signifier and the signified; for neither the naming of the lion nor the grammatical example is given separately.  (p 54 visual culture: the reader. eds jessica evans and stuart hall Sage Publishing 2010)


It could be argued that the 'grammatical example' is not given at all. It is construction of the writer who applies his personal knowledge and situation to the Latin phrase. It is a unique construction that may or may not be right (there is no objective way of establishing the truth of the construction). It is a subjective view that is only valid in the circumstances outlined.

Let us move to the second example provided. In this we are shown a front cover of Paris Match.  It shows a young black boy in some form of uniform saluting with his eyes gazing into the far distance. Barthes describes it slightly differently and in more emotive language:  "...a young Negro in a French uniform is saluting, with his eyes uplifted, probably fixed on a fold of the tricolour". There is no evidence whatsoever in the picture that suggests that he saluting the French flag and the tern 'uplifted' is suggestive of an emotive response in the boy. It would appear to be an attempt to pre-condition the reader to Barthes' conclusion that reads: "......I see very well what it signifies to me (my underlining): that France is a great Empire,that all her sons, without any colour discrimination, faithfully serve under her flag, and that there is no better answer to the detractors of an alleged colonialism than the zeal  shown by this Negro in serving his so called oppressors...." (ibid p54).

Barthes goes on in almost exactly the same language as in the Latin grammar example to see this as being faced with a 'greater semiological system'. Given what was happening in the French Empire around this time there is a temptation to simply say that Barthes was talking rubbish. However the important element for me is that once again we have a subjective view that cannot be shown to be true or false by objective reasoning.

Both these examples highlight the difficulties semiology, as followed by Barthes and others, faces. What is the signifier, signified, sign and signification not only depend upon at which level you begin the analysis but that in the end it is wholly a matter of personal interpretation as to what each term means in any particular situation. In the examples given there is no doubt that the writers see their analysis as personal interpretations. If this is the case then it follows that there are likely to be many other other interpretations that are equally 'valid'. There is no right answer.

Do the examples make Barthes' thesis clearer. Yes in that both reveal the weakness of the methodology.

Are we not left therefore with a practice that certainly cannot be described as scientific or indeed something that stands in its own right as an academic discipline? All we discover when reading the products of semiological thinking are the personal interpretations of the individual analyst.  They do not provide any framework that can be applied successfully to the analysis of other texts even those that appear superficially to be similar. Moving from text to images produces even greater problems of interpretation because there is not even the underpinning of a common written language to at least give a starting point.

Myth is Speech

Read the appropriate section of the Reader for the second time. Am I any the wiser? Probably not. One wonders why , in a first level Course it is felt necessary to present the student with articles that are "a combination of apparently simple and impenetrably dense ideas" without any pretence of providing some sort of map/guide/footpath through the impenetrable. I spent this morning in my garden clearing a bramble patch that by any definition was 'dense and impenetrable'. In tackling it I had knowledge, through experience, of what I would find and that the apparent chaos and complexity would be formed from individual interwoven strands. I knew that if I teased out the strands bit by bit I would eventually see the light (or in this case my neighbours fence) and feel that my task was accomplished.

If I had not had the previous experience then I could have turned to someone I believed had the experience and knowledge at least to explain to me what I might find and how best to tackle the impenetrable mess. Getting back to the Barthes' article I have some experience of working my way through the complexities of philosophical argument (Kant and Wittgenstein come to mind) so I do not think I am a novice at the game.

I decided to try for a third reading and on this attempt I decided to follow the path that I followed in clearing the bramble patch. I tried to follow the various threads of Barthes arguments to see if I could find an end/conclusion or, as I could not be sure from which point I was starting, a beginning/hypothesis. I was unsuccessful. The cause could be that I did not have the necessary skills to penetrate the 'impenetrable' or that there were was nothing at the end of the strand for me to find. Could it be that the ideas were not 'slipping away' but they were not there in the first place?  After some thought I came to the conclusion that whilst my abilities may not be fully up to the task I would have found something.

The closest I came was Barthes' diagram of the relationship between language and myth (p.53. Visual Culture:the reader eds.Jessica Evans and Stuart Hall Sage Publishing 2010 edn).  To quote : "...in myth there are two semiological systems, one of which is staggered in relation to the other; a linguistic system.... and myth itself which I shall call meta-language, because it is a second language, in which one speaks about the first. (p53 ibid). The problem here seems to be that what is linguistic and what is myth depends upon where you start the analysis. In language the product of the 'signifier' and the 'signified' is 'sign'. In myth the 'sign' from 'language', the first order system, becomes the 'signifier' in the second order system (given the identifier 'myth' in Barthes' argument)  leading to the 'signified' and then to the 'signification' (the term created by Barthes to distinguish it from 'sign' in the first order system). However where you start the analysis is largely arbitrary and there is nothing that prevents the analysis at the point that Barthes described as 'myth'. We are then left with the choice of describing the next step as 'meta-myth' or reverting to the first order term 'language'. We also have to consider whether it is possible to start the analysis before Barthes' 'language' that presumably has to have another name. I would argue that there is no need for all this complexity because we are, in a sense, always dealing with the first order.

However I was not comfortable with my conclusion (I am not that arrogant) and so turned to the internet to see if there were others of greater standing that had doubts about Barthes and his approach. They were not difficult to find. Barthes clearly engenders very strong feelings amongst academics. Roy Harris, at one time the editor of 'Language and Communication' and Professor of Linguistics at Oxford University, who can be seen as well versed in linguistics was particularly dismissive of Barthes  and his ideas. In reviewing a biography on Barthes Harris writes:

"As for Barthes' "semiology" the verdict on that was pronounced years ago by Georges Mounin. Observing that it is impossible to take Barthes seriously as a theorist of the subject, Mounin suggested that what Barthes though of as doing semiology was actually writing essays was actually writing essays on "psychanalyse sociale""


He goes on:

"Had the author of Mythologies ever got to grips with enough anthropology to understand what a myth is? One suspects not. ..... Barthes thought ....that myths need to be demystified. He failed to distinguish between two quite different enterprises: demystification and demythologisation."


He concludes:

"Barthes began a journalist and a journalist he remained to the end, constantly looking for a new angle to keep him one step ahead of the pack. This led him to ever more paradoxical but attention-grabbing claptrap......his most obvious expertise was knowing how to get himself talked about..."


Perhaps I am right in thinking that the ideas were not slipping away but simply did not exist.

Structuralist Analysis

Painting by Peter Paul Rubens c1636

'Landscape with Rainbow'

Grove Art online No F014951

The requirement to annotate the image provided a challenge as I could not see within the restrictions of the blog how to place comments adjacent to the image. I have compromised by transferring the image to Photoshop, increasing the Canvas Size and using numbers to relate to the following list.

1 Horse and Cart;  2 Haymaking;  3 Trees;  4 Ponds;  5 Geese;  6 Cattle; 7 Farm Workers

Grove Art Collection No F21872

The same action has been applied to this image.

1 Cattle;  2 Trees;  3 Cottages;  4 Tower;  5 Mountains; 6 Pond;  7 Dog;  8 Farm Worker; 9 Horse and Cart;  10 Sheep.

In almost any landscape of the countryside one expects to see trees and before the Industrial Revolution farm activity. The question is whether these are deliberately included by the artist as symbols that the viewer can relate to and set the image in context. By use of common symbols such as farm animals, farm workers and agricultural activity the artist can be reasonably sure that the viewer will know particularly when large cities and urban dwellers who have little if any contact with the countryside was the exception rather than the rule. However if one examines the paintings more carefully it is evident that both artists are presenting an idyllic setting that gives a probably false impression of the reality of a farm labourers life.

As the paintings were created for the landed gentry (the only people that could afford them) they necessarily were designed to confirm the land owners in their beliefs about the society in which they lived and created. They did not wish to be reminded, even if they knew, of the conditions in which the average agricultural labourer  worked and lived.

Group Portrait of Colmore Family 

Artist Johanne Zofanny

Bridgeman Education Library No 50093

Using the same convention as above:

1 Father;  2 Eldest Daughter;  3 Mother;  4 Children;  5 Nanny;  6 Rural building; 7 Hen with chicks.

Although the family group is painted against a rural backdrop the composition is very formal and follows the convention of showing the father figure as the guardian of the family with the wife looking towards him. The eldest daughter stands between the mother and father but separated from both by a small gap suggesting the beginning of independence. The mother has the youngest child sat on her knee (the nurturer) with one daughter close to her mother paying attention to the youngest child suggesting a close knit family. The nanny (this is an assumption on my part and may well be the grandmother of the children) has one of the children standing on her lap but the child looks towards the rest of the family group. The overall impression produced by the artist is of a close loving family. The family theme is underlined by the inclusion of the hen with her chicks.

The background including the building on the right edge of the image (6) suggests the landed gentry and that the building is part of a larger construction that can just be glimpsed.

A family group by a river 1668

Artist Cornelis Picolet

Bridgeman Education Library No 121480

1 Cattle;  2 Fowling piece;  3 Father;  4 Mother;  5 Baby;  6 Dog;  7 Young daughter; 8 Ducks;  9 Farm labourer

The group is informally posed with only the father, who is standing, looking in towards the group. Each of the others seem to be in their own little world and the cohesion of composition seen in the Colmore family portrait is not so evident. However it is evident that it is a family group although this is an impression (obviously re-inforced by the title of the picture) as there is no direct evidence.

Although one is a formal grouping and the other informal both are in a rural setting with clear indication of wealth and position in Society. In both images the Father is the dominant figure and therefore implies the 'protector' role usually assigned to the Father. The mother is seated and close to the youngest member of the family suggesting the 'caring' role although perhaps this is a little less evident in the second image.

Using common symbols whether in a formal or informal portrait is necessary to ensure that the viewer can make sense and identify with the image. An idealised view of family life is the desired aim and by the use of easily understood elements the chances of misunderstanding on the part of those who look at the pictures is lessened. In a sense both pictures are saying  "gaze upon my family and see how happy we are and how prosperous".

General comment: It was difficult to find an informal portrait because in paintings in particular there was the sense of everything having been posed. It is difficult to imagine that the family group posed in that setting whilst the artist painted. Later photographs in the Bridgeman Library captured the more informal moment made possible by the improvement in the technology. Early family photographs did there best to emulate the painters work not least because of the need for the family to be still in the time the plate was exposed.

Rhetoric of the Image - Analysis of Adverts

(scanned from Radio Times 19 - 25 November issue)

Targeted audience: General  (there is no indication in the advert as to whether the product is gender orientated.)

Use of 'Beauty Sleep' concept is designed to indicate that when applied the product requires no further effort on the part of the user and adds to the natural benefits of a good nights sleep.

Use of christmas baubles provides both a seasonal note and happy times. Two of the terms 'pro-calcium' and 'essential oils' are suggestive of some magical ingredient. It is of interest to consider what these two terms are intended to signify - is it an actual thing or a concept relying upon the recipient to conjure up positive images.

Term 'Balm' offers re-inforcement of the effect the product will produce again relying upon the reader to respond positively to the term.

Signifiers 'smoother' (i.e. wrinkle free); 'plumper' (no saggy bits) and 'radiant' (not dull and lifeless) avoid negative connotations suggested by the interpretation in brackets. 

"Because you are worth it" is a term used in all L'Oreal adverts thus providing a link to all the other products provided by the Company.

(scanned from Radio Times 19 - 25 November issue)

Targeted audience: General

Use of the heart symbol is a powerful signifier having many connotations in our society. It suggests 'love' and all that goes with that term but also a 'fear' message about what can happen if you fail to 'love your heart'.

The inclusion of the two people suggesting father and son gives a positive image of the benefits of the product and this is underlined by the addition of the words 'Live younger'. Again there is the positive and negative elements with the positive message of enjoying life with your children and the negative of failure to care for your heart meaning that you will be unable to enjoy them growing up.

There is an assumption on the part of the advertiser that people will understand the benefits of Omega 3 and this is re-inforced by the script to the left of the product.  

The eye-catching element of the advert is placed at the top of the advert designed to grab the attention of the reader as they flick through the pages.

(scanned from Photoshop User November 2011 issue)

Targeted audience: readers of the magazine that is issued by the National Association of Photoshop Professionals so there is a reasonable expectation of a common knowledge base amongst the audience. The magazine is published in America and although it is available elsewhere in the world the advertisements make no concessions to the world-wdie audience. Presumably they rely upon the commonality of interest amongst the purchasers of the magazine.

The use of the female model and the child together with the warm toning of the image provide a positive image suggesting wholesome and family values part of the American dream.

It is a common desire of the serious photographer to create 'works of art'. It is interesting to consider what springs to mind in the individual when meeting this term; is it a Pollock or a Rembrandt?? Here it is suggested that simply by having the company add painterly effects that ambition is achieved.

In the script we are told it will look as though it was completely 'handmade'. Although a serious photographer when I read this an image of a Shaker chair came to mind (a mismatch presumably between the signifier and the signified assuming the advertiser means that it looks as though it was hand painted).

(scanned from Photoshop User November 2011 issue)

Targeted audience: the comments included in the commentary above are applicable to this advertisement.

The cluttered image with four children engaged in a variety of activities with a mother sitting serenely and calmly amongst the chaos gives a strong message that having access to MPIX is a positive help in coping with the stresses of being a photographer and the mother of four young children. I have no idea what MPIX is as that information is not provided in the advert. I presume it is not Prozac.

The inclusion of the family photographs on the table presumably are evidence of the mother's talents as a photographer and add a homely touch to the whole image.

In this advert virtually all the signifiers are pictorial and, I would suggest, only really work with someone raised in the same culture. Such signifiers are probably more open to misinterpretation than words because they are more ambiguous. For example it could be argued that this is an image of a mother who lets her children run wild and risk injury (see child hanging on to the stair rails who appears to be about to step onto the table). She seems blissfully unaware of the chaos around her and has the fixed grin of someone who is very close to nervous collapse.

Art as Propaganda

Just finished watching the first part (of 3) of a BBC4 TV programme entitled the Art of America presented by Andrew Graham-Dixon. Not quite what I expected. His presentation laid stress on the purpose of the art from advertisements of the promised land to encourage settlement to the hidden messages that the artist included in the work to express the artists feelings about what the march of progress truly meant. There was little doubt where the sympathies of the presenter lay.

It would have been easy to take the paintings at face value such as the early portraits of a Puritan couple dressed in the finery and in the case of the wife holding their child. The three were dressed in finery that demonstrated their wealth and there was no false modesty in the way that they demonstrated to the world how well they had done in the New World. The landscape paintings suggest an idyllic world that offered untold opportunities and offered no clues to the suffering and untimely deaths of the early settlers.

When the War of Independence had been won the leaders of the new Nation decided to demonstrate through architecture the aims and status of the people. They chose to build in the Roman style so that we now have the iconic buildings of Washington DC perhaps the best known of which is the Capitol building, the seat of government. Inside the building there are four paintings described by the presenter as being amongst the most boring pictures depicting key times in the battle for independence. The pictures glorify the incidents and in some way seem to have sterilised the reality of war by largely ignoring its reality.

The same symbols were used by an artist in his work. For example one included a tree stump that bore the marks of the axe and showed the splintering caused as the tree fell to the ground. It was claimed that this demonstrated the view of the artist that the land was being raped by the onward march of progress. Another image of Yellowstone National Park shortly after it became America's first such park includes, just above the artists signature, a dead deer again suggesting the effect upon the natural world of man's drive for progress.

It was the first time that I had seen any of the works portrayed and I sense I would have missed the message had it not been pointed out to me. I have often heard it said that many paintings are 'propaganda'  Portraits of the rich an landed gentry, so common in our stately homes, show the gentry in the best possible light and emphasise their wealth and power. The farm labourers cottage with the wife and the children paints a picture that is far from the truth of their hard existence. Perhaps there are no 'innocent' paintings and that all present some message.

Semiotics - Rhetoric of the Image

Just finished the required reading. I am left with the question - What happened to the recipient of the signifier in the equation? Is not the interpretation of the signifier solely the province of the recipient because it happens within his closed world which can only be glimpsed or guessed at by the outside observer. As individuals we are the product of both nature and nurture and the interaction of these two elements creates a unique being that sees the world in his/her particular way. Structuralists may argue that there is an underlying form of language/signs that restricts our ability to think too far outside the box so that ultimately there are limits to superficial differences, but I would argue that if this was the case then there could be no change through time in the use of language and the interpretation of signs which is manifestly not the case. Indeed it is the way that we think and act differently to the information that we receive that has created the diverse world of which we are part.

Barthes uses advertising to offer his interpretation of the signs inherent in a particular advertisement. Whilst I have no strong disagreement with his interpretation it is euro-centred so that his awareness of italianicity (is there really such a word?) leads him to the conclusions that he outlines.  Anyone who does not have this information or any ideas about the products and the purpose of the shopping bag would have no idea. It is part of human nature to try to make sense of our environment and we can only do that by reference to what we know. We will try to make sense of unfamiliar words by seeking approximations in our own language that may be well wide of the mark. As far as the packages are concerned there is no direct evidence that they contain edible items. I presume that the advertisement was aimed at an audience that was presumed to have the required previous knowledge but of course there is no guarantee that the message arrived and was interpreted as intended.

To continue with the advertising theme it is known that much of the message of an advert is missed by a significant portion of those seeing it. The 'signs' are misunderstood, not noticed or interpreted in a way that was not seen by the advertiser. As a project for another Course that I am doing with the OCA I was analysing an advert for Bacardi that was 'copied' and offered as a work of art by Jeff Koons. In this advert Koons saw the suggestion of promiscuity, gambling and alcoholism and stated that this was a deliberate act by the advertiser to create a world that was beneficial to the market in which he sold his goods. I totally failed to see these 'signs' and even when I knew of Koons' comments I still could not see how he had reached this conclusion. I do not say that Koons is wrong in his interpretation indeed assuming he was honest in his interpretation it was proper in his inner world. It follows that in my world the interpretation is also right. Yet how can this be the case as they cannot both be true.

We can only decide on the truth of the two interpretations by reference to the 'reality' that underlies the advert i.e. the signified pointed to by the signifier. Yet there exists two 'realities' (and probably many many more) the one in the Koons world and the one in mine. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that there is no objective reality and that we all live in a world that is peculiar to us.

What does this mean for such concepts as 'signifier' and 'signified'. Only that they are unique to each individuals world. If this is the case how is it that for the most part I manage to survive and interact with the other 'worlds' that surround me. Largely because I have learnt over many years what is the most likely interpretation held by one of the other worlds. Even now I can get it badly wrong not least with younger generations that see the world in unique way. Yet observation suggests that even amongst generations where one would assume some solidarity of thought there is a whole mess of misunderstanding and wrong interpretation.

I also would wish to take issue with Barthes over the 'mechanical nature' of photography. He sees the camera as a mechanical thing that does not interpret what it 'sees' and records what is there. In reality the camera, even in Barthes time, was created by human beings that compromised between the desired aim of capturing the reality and the technical limitations of the parts. Lens distort the image and the recording medium (film or digital sensor) further alters the image either deliberately (I can change my camera settings for whatever shot I am taking) and different films were prized by photographers for the way colours were interpreted or the tonal range obtainable. Processing the image also has its limitations even with the software that is available today. However a photograph is simply a piece of paper with dots on it that can be interpreted as an image by human beings. What it cannot do is communicate its meaning. It requires an interpreter and as stated above we are all different in the way that we interpret incoming information. We all see the same image in subtle and sometimes significantly different ways.

If as suggested there is no direct connection between the signifier and the signified and that the interpretation is uniquely individual then is it possible to draw any concrete conclusions from the study of semiotics. Probably not but it is a fascinating subject to pursue!

Assignment 2

Finally managed to put something together for Assignment 2. Even now I am not clear what I was supposed to be doing and just as importantly why I was doing it. Scribbling notes on a postcard image that is the example provided by the OCA relating to annotation may be fine but it does raise problems in a world where submissions are made by e-mail. In the end my tutor suggested a method that worked (using text boxes and shapes) but how successful I was in implementing it will have to await the tutor's response.

Good Taste

To the question does Hebdidge make a distinction between 'high' and 'popular' culture the answer seems to be 'No'. Having read the article three times I could find no direct evidence of what Hebdidge sees as the difference, assuming that there is one. He does suggest that in World Two the danger is that the "lines that hold these terms apart" will waver and collapse and that the structure is nothing but a house made of cards. Having said this, apart from his desire to keep reminding himself that "this earth is round not flat, that there will never be an end to judgement" I remain unsure what he believes about anything.

For example in seeking to address the second point in the Course material I remain unsure that he is really against the philosophy of "the People of the Post." I assume that he is because he wants to constantly remind himself that the world is round and thus rejects the people of the post standpoint. However I am left wondering why he feels the need to remind himself if he is so sure that the people of the post are wrong. Does this not suggest that at a minimum there is a possibility that the people of the post have got it right and that his rejection is more a gut feeling that he would not want to live in such a  flat world than a rational assessment of the arguments offered? His tone of despair in the short paragraph "To stare into the blank, flat Face is to look into a world where your actual presence is unnecessary, where nothing adds up to much anything any more, where you live to be alive..." suggests only that he has looked and rejected it as being too scary.

However he does argue that the people of the post have set out  to undermine the differences that are said to exist between good/bad, legitimate/illegitimate and style/substance. He sees this attack as a project of the Post: to replace representation by an anti-system. For Hebdidge the consequences of this assault on representation are first that the world outside the text ( he assumes that such a world exists) disappears followed by the signified leaving us in a world of empty signifiers. His doom laden prophecy is,to use his own words, "No meaning. No classes. No history. Just a ceaseless procession of simulacra."

Popular culture is everything that is left after we have decided what is high culture. At the extremes say such things as TV reality shows, soaps and other activities that are designed to attract the largest audiences by finding the lowest common denominator and at the other end the appearance of Placido Domingo at Covent Garden it is easy to distinguish between the two. However as we move further up or down the scale it is much more difficult until there seems to be a boundary across which some activities move from 'low' to 'high (e.g Shakespeare plays were originally seen as low culture but are now seen as being high) and vice versa. It is probably fair to say that if an activity is adopted by the mass media appearing on Sky or BBC1 then it will be seen as being part of the popular culture whilst if it is only shown and talked about on the minority art channels then it will acquire high status.

High culture has its high priest(ess) in Opera particularly the government subsidised opera as performed at Covent Garden. It could be accused of elitism that is ensured by the high ticket prices that are charged excluding many who might wish to attend. I am reminded of the BBC programme 'Yes Minister' where the possibility of reducing the government subsidy shocks the permanent secretary Sir Humphrey who rallies the Civil Service to ensure that the subsidy remains. Needless to say he was a regular attender. The reality is equally bizarre when £50m of Lottery Money was used to re-furbish the Opera House despite it offering 'culture' to a very small percentage of the population. High culture is defined by those who have the financial means and the leisure time to attend and use their contacts to ensure that they are part of the favoured view. Ballet has a similar relationship again with the masses.

Subsidised art galleries and museums are provided for the education of the masses who it is felt should be exposed to high culture so that in some strange way they will come to appreciate its superiority over the popular culture by which they are surrounded. Of course what happens is the general population react adversely to being treated as lesser beings by those who claim to be their superiors and reject the effort seeing it as patronising and boring. In many ways it is counter productive even if there is any validity in the argument that some artistic activities are superior to others.

It seems that the best way to decide what is 'high culture' is to look to those artistic activities that receive government subsidies (sourced from general taxation) in order to survive and where such subsidies are justified by people who could well afford the price of attending.

I am not sure that the developments in the media, the arts and culture really have a major influence on whether the First or Second world is in the ascendant. Not least you have to accept that the concept of 'round' and 'flat' has any validity. We are asked by Hebidge to imagine two worlds that are at war. He describes the main constituent element of each of these worlds as he sees them. They are constructed by him presumably for the sake of the argument he wishes to offer. Whether deliberately or otherwise he chooses the terms 'round' and 'flat' that  already suggests to the reader that the second world is in some way the province of those people that fear that if they walk far enough they will fall of the edge of the world and are generally seen at the best as slightly bonkers and at worst stark staring mad. It is not a world occupied by 'normal' people. We are led to believe World Two is inferior before he has presented any real argument to show that it is.

He makes clear that his desire is to keep the faith that the world in which he lives is 'round' and presumably better. How he knows that this is the case is not made clear and it could be said that the world he thinks he lives in is an illusion created by him so that he feels comfortable in his skin.

There is no inherent element in his argument that means that World Two is inevitably 'flat'. Indeed I would argue that it is as round as World One or as flat as World One. Rejection of a something called 'reality'  that is supposedly out there does not necessarily imply the type of world described by Hebidge. To argue that there is no 'reality' other than that created by the individual mind is merely pointing out that we all see the world in a different way. For example if I use the word 'tree' (signifier) in conversation without selecting a specific tree then those around me will have a different image of 'tree' (signified) based on their experience. Some may coincide but we cannot know that and indeed it is possible that the image held by one person resembles no tree known to the others (for a slightly ridiculous example think 'shoe tree!). If I point to an object and say 'tree' (assume that it is something that can be included in the classification 'tree' there remains the fact that all of the audience will see something different albeit only slightly. Some will see the whole of the tree whilst others will concentrate on the specific. The effects of nature and nurture will impact on their interpretation of what they are seeing. In short everyone (or almost everyone) will have created a different 'tree'. What is seen as 'reality' is different for us all so it can be argued that there is no reality only illusion. For me the world still remains round and full of exciting possibilities even if I accept that I construct my own world .

Popular culture is largely associated with the commercial market whether it be in fashion items such as the latest jeans from Levi's (that probably shows my age as they may no longer be the fashion item that the youth of today aspires too) and the latest handbags, television in all its forms but particularly the output that is targeted at the largest audience possible, activities such as the various music festivals held in the open air and apparently made special by the amount of mud and possibly the willingness of a broad range of the population to join together in protest. Although the latter may seem to be non-commercial the stories that it offers to the news media and how it is reported is driven by commercial imperatives that in the case of newspapers is to increase the readership so that advertisers will (have to ) pay more that in turn will feed back into the commercial world of selling. Popular culture is forever evolving with what is fashionable today becoming 'old hat' tomorrow. Indeed to be recognised as the latest thing is to condemn that particular activity to being no longer desirable.

High culture is more resilient to change in part because its disciples are a relatively small group who have a vested interest (their need to belong to an 'elite' group) in maintaining the status quo. Opera; Classical Music as offered by the world's leading orchestras in purpose built concert halls; Art as displayed in Art Galleries and/or highly priced art sales points; Drama by the recognised (now, although possibly not when they were alive) dramatists such as Shakespeare, Chekov and Ibsen;  and Ballet as offered by National Ballet Companies such as Sadler Wells. Cynically one could suggest that reference to the amount of taxpayers money they receive is a clue to whether something is seen as high culture.

Largely due to the financial problems that such organisations face they are forced to, at least, acknowledge the existence of a 'popular' audience and so make efforts to find a niche in popular culture through such things as orchestral renditions of popular music. Attempts are made to engage schoolchildren in high culture through special events that rely upon the use of high culture such as music having been used in such things as adverts that children can recognise and see as part of their world. There will always be attempts, both well meaning and simply commercial, to move down market to reach a larger audience but one has to accept that this is seen as a means for ensuring the continuing existence of something that is definitely not 'pop'.

On the opposite side I once owned a CD that consisted of recordings of classical music that had been used as the background music to commercials. The cover claimed that such use had made them 'popular' and well known. Yet, presumably, they had been used as backing for commercials because they were popular and well known by a larger audience.

The Course material says 'We need to ask "Who is to decide what is good taste in the first place"' I am left wondering why. History suggests that what is todays popular culture may one day become high culture and the reverse can also be true. It is not a fixed entity and at the margins is highly fluid. The deciders during a time of limited mass communication are entirely different from those in a world where mass communication dominates our lives in a very real way. We do not need to decide. I personally think that Damien Hirst's work is an abomination but I accept that there are others who think the opposite. Should I care - only if they are using my money to buy his works. The world, whether 'round' or 'flat' is big enough for us all to live in relative harmony irrespective of our views of what constitutes good or bad taste even if those terms do not actually have any meaning.