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!
No comments:
Post a Comment