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.
Wednesday 30 November 2011
Monday 28 November 2011
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.
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.
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.
Sunday 27 November 2011
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.
Saturday 26 November 2011
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.
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.
Friday 25 November 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday 22 November 2011
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.
Sunday 20 November 2011
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.
Saturday 19 November 2011
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.
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!
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!
Monday 14 November 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)