Part Three – reflection

Having finished Part Two of the course in August 2016, I was looking forward to moving on smartly with Part Three.  Life conspired against me however, which it sadly seems to enjoy doing these days, and personal circumstances meant that I wasn’t able to make a start until January.  I won’t go too much into it here but illness in my husband’s family and a temporarily flattened cat set my husband back in his recovery process and put paid to any study time on my part.  The good news is that my parents-in-law are on the mend and the cat has recovered from playing with the traffic and is back to his usual bouncy, nosey self.  So once again I picked up my books.Having touched on both semiotics and advertising on my previous OCA course (Context and Narrative), I thought that I would enjoy this section of the module and I wasn’t disappointed.  It was also nice to find that this section of the course, unlike the first two, was not completely new to me.

The first project was a kind of practice assignment, asking us to make brief analyses of tow current advertisements.  I found this extremely interesting as I often take advertising for granted, forgetting that each element of an advert has been deliberately chosen and included in order to help the advertiser deliver their message.

I also enjoyed the project on Structuralist analysis and initially used the concepts considered here (form, medium, allusion and purpose) as a preliminary framework for my assignment, although I did move away from this and back to Barthes’ theories for my final assignment structure.

I had come across Barthes’ essay ‘Death of the Author’ (Barthes, 1967)  previously, and re-reading it again affirmed that his ideas that the viewer takes what they want from an image dependent upon their knowledge and culture (as opposed to fixed direction from the author/photographer) form an important part of my photographic practice.

I did struggle however with the opaque and rather verbose language of the philosophical writers whose writings we studied.  A lot of re-reading helped, although I am still baffled by Derrida and I do wonder whether it was his intention to be deliberately obfusticating.

I was extremely pleased with my tutor’s feedback on my second  assignment, both on the assignment piece itself as well as on the coursework and my learning log.  This has given me both a boost in morale and in confidence.

Whilst I really enjoyed this part of the course I realised that with my tendency to over-research and to go off in all sorts of different directions I needed to keep a check on myself so I made a conscious effort here and got much better at drawing a line and moving on.

Overall, this section was the part of the course that I’ve enjoyed the most so far.  Although some  of the texts were difficult, as I’ve mentioned above, the subject matter I found really interesting and I thorough enjoyed both researching and writing the assignment. However  I won’t talk about the assignment here as I will be reflecting on this in a separate blog post.

Bibliography

Barthes, R. (1967)  The Death of the Author.  At: http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf  (accessed on 22 March 2017)

 

Project 3-4: Author? What Author?

For the third part of this project we are asked to look at the work of Sherrie Levine and Cindy Sherman (or another two artists of our choice) whose work may be better explained following our readings of the two essays by Barthes and Foucault respectively.  We are then asked to respond to a number of questions.

Sherrie Levine

A well known contemporary appropriation artist, I looked at Levine’s work as part of my second assignment for this course.   Levine appropriates work from modernist artworks by male artists such as Walker Evans, Edward Weston and Eliot Porter (The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, s.d.) and re-presents it as her own.  Her photographic work is often indistinguishable from the original image that she has copied, for example  Levine’s ‘After Walker Evans: 4’ is an exact reproduction of Walker Evans’ ‘Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife’.

Appropriation directly challenges the originality of work.  Through her appropriation of the work of others, I understand Levine to be intentionally interrogating modernist beliefs on originality and uniqueness in art as well as questioning the modernist concepts of ownership and authorship.  By photographing the work of other artists and re-presenting it as her own, she posits that there is more than one creator of an artwork.  She does not deny the concept of authorship but appears to follows Barthes’ structuralist viewpoint that ‘the author is dead’, inviting her audience to look her work from their own viewpoint rather than the history behind it, echoing Barthes’ comment that ‘the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination’ (Barthes, 1967:6) i.e. in the reader rather than in the author.

In my opinion Levine also follows Foucault’s views on discourses – ‘Perhaps it is time to study  discourses not only in terms of their expressive value or formal transformations, but according to their modes of existence’ (Foucault, 2003:952). As well as  the former, her work also raises questions on circulation, valorization, attribution and appropriation, the modes of existence mentioned by Foucault above (ibid.)

Cindy Sherman

Sherman is a photographer renowned for using herself both as the photographer and a model in her images and is best known for her body of work Untitled Film Stills (1977-80), a series of 69 black and white photographs.  However she does not directly reproduce works in the precise manner of Levine, being more referential through the evocation of a particular style or moment which she creates by acting out roles in disguise playing cliched characters such as a Hollywood film star (Sturken and Cartwright, 2009).

Sherman’s images are postmodern in nature, stemming from the viewpoint that our identities are constructed of ‘multiple selves dished up and adopted in a series of performances and masquerades in order to fit in with how culture has defined and identified us’ (Bright, 2011:20).  By presenting a series of stereotypical identities in Untitled Film Stills, she demonstrates Barthes’ view that ‘[the] text is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture’ (Barthes, 1967:4).  Stereotypes are created through the widely-held view of a set of ideas that are reproduced over and over so as to become cliched, with loss of the identity of the original author  so Sherman, with her images of stereotypical identities, can in my opinion be seen to directly challenge originality and authorship.  She aligns herself with the ideas of Foucault who asks us at the end of his essay What is an Author? (Foucault, 2003:953) ‘What difference does it make who’s speaking?’

If the birth of the reader is at the expense of the author is there still any of Benjamin’s ‘aura’ left? 

Benjamin (1999) posited that the aura was lost from an original work of art by way of its mechanical reproduction.  He used the term ‘aura’ to describe the authority of an original work, its uniqueness and authenticity and its tradition; ‘its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.’ (Benjamin, 1999:73).

One could propose that through her direct copying, Levine both questions and depletes the value of the ‘aura’ of the original work.  Crimp (s.d., cited in Hacking, 2012:421) is of the view that the loss of the ‘aura’ from the original artwork and the glorification of the ‘copy’ became two of photography’s defining features during the postmodernist period. However in my opinion one could argue that, as appropriated art is now accepted as art work in its own right, Levine’s appropriated images in fact establish their own aura.

However, I find that I still have a sense of awe when I’m standing in an art gallery in front of a famous work of art and consider this feeling of awe to be ‘aura’ (the painting’s presence in time and space, the fact that I am looking at an original work).  I admit to marvelling at the skill of the artist and feeling a sense of wonderment that looking at a copy would not give me.  So in my opinion, both the concept of the author and Benjamin’s aura do still exist. Interestingly in my own personal photographic work the images I put out to public view are often with no accompanying text, thus deliberately forcing the viewer to apply their own reading to the work.

Does any of this explain or validate the un-regulated nature of the internet?

The internet has opened up endless possibilities for ‘mechanical reproduction’ – people can view works of art on their computer screens, download copies, purchase art onine in varying forms e.g. prints, posters, postcards.  Art is now available to almost everyone in some form and this easy access granted to the masses means that many ideas in art are now examined and re-formed by the viewer, demonstrating the thinking of Barthes and Foucault with regard to texts and discourses.

I’m not convinced that this explains or validates the un-regulated nature of the internet.  There is no overall regulator as far as I am aware, although certain countries such as China do censor some content.  Certainly in many countries there are copyright laws although how effectively these are policed is open to question.

Does this invalidate the interest in the artist’s or creator’s intent at the time of making?

The answer to this I am afraid is ‘it depends’.  It depends on the viewer’s interest.  Personally I like to find out some information, even if only a little, about the artist and what their intentions were when making their work.  Taking this on board does not stop me forming my own opinions about a work, however it does add a richness and depth that I find enlightening.

Bibliography

Barthes, R. (1967)  The Death of the Author.  At: http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf  (accessed on 22 March 2017)

Benjamin, W. (1999) ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’.  In: Evans, J. and Hall, S (eds.) Visual Culture: The Reader.  London: Sage Publications Ltd. pp.72-79

Bright, S. (2011)  Art Photography Now (2nd revised edition).  London: Thames & Hudson

Foucault, M. (2003) ‘What is an Author?’. In: Harrison, C. and Wood, P. (eds.) Art in Theory, 1900 – 2000, An Anthology of Changing Ideas. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 949-953

Hacking, J. (ed.) (2012) Photography: The Whole Story.  London: Thames & Hudson

Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. (2009) Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture (2nd ed.)  New York: Oxford University Press

Project 3-4: Author? What Author? Notes on the essay ‘The Death of the Author’ by Roland Barthes

We are asked to read the essay Death of the Author by Roland Barthes (Barthes, 1967) and make notes.

Barthes, similar to Foucault, deems the concept of the author to be a modern one, produced at the end of the middle ages.

Author > result of ideologist capitalism which considers the author’s ‘person’ to be important:

‘The author still rules in manuals of literary history, in biographies of writers, in magazine interviews, and even in the awareness of literary men, anxious to unite, by their private journals, their person and their work; the image of literature to be found in contemporary culture is tyrannically centred on the author his person, his history, his tastes, his passions’

Certain writers – Mallarme, Valery, Proust – have tried to topple the concept of the author.

For Mallarme (and Barthes concurs) ‘it is language which speaks, not the author’.

Barthes also considers that ‘linguistics has just furnished the destruction of the Author … linguistically, the author is never more than the man who writes …’

Traditionally the author ‘is always conceived as the past of his own book’. the author pre-exists the book.  Barthes argues against this, saying

‘Quite the contrary, the modern writer (scriptor) is born simultaneously with his text; he is in no way supplied with a being which precedes or transcends his writing, he is no way the subject of which his book is the predicate; there is no other time than that of the utterance, and every text is eternally written here and now’. (my bold)

Thus all that is needed in Barthes’ view is the words, nothing else.

Along with the death of the author, Barthe also proposes:

•  the death of the critic – ‘once the Author is gone, the claim to “decipher” a text becomes quite useless’
•  the birth of the reader – ‘the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination’.   It is up to the reader to interpret the text.

Barthes concludes that ‘the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author’.

Bibliography

Barthes, R. (1967)  The Death of the Author.  At: http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf  (accessed on 22 March 2017)

Project 3-4: Author? What Author? Notes on the essay ‘What is an Author’ by Michel Foucault

We are asked to read the Michel Foucault essay What is an Author (Foucault, 2003) and make notes.

Modernism privileged the author – the individual reaching its high point in the artist.  The searches for authenticity and originality were often found in works of art through the readings of biographies e.g. van Gogh and Jackson Pollock.

Structuralism challenged this privilege, questioning the homogenous individual (seen as an ideological concept) – Althusser, Barthes, Lacan, Foucault – questioned the concept of the author.  Critique of the author ‘locates the individual within a system of conventions, rules, grammars and so forth which, in effect, articulate him – or ‘speak’ him’ (p.949) > denial of biological individuality.

UPDATE FOLLOWING TUTOR FEEDBACK

Further to a comment form my tutor, i will add Postmodernism alongside Structuralism to the paragraph above, following on from my comments on Modernism.

Author – notion of ‘author’ > individualisation.  Author and the work is a solid unit.

Author’s name

•  more than an element in a discourse > performs a role – has a classificatory function > a name which allows us to group together texts, define them, differentiate them from others.
•  establishes a relationship between texts – relationship of homogeneity, filiation etc.
• characterizes a certain mode of being of discourse – ‘it is a speech that must be received in a certain  mode and that, in a given culture, must receive a certain status’ (p.950)
• name is always present – marks off the edges of text > characterises its mode of being.
• indicates the status of the discourse within a society, a culture.

Author-function

Some discourses have ‘author-function’ whilst some do not (e.g. writer of private letter is signer, not author, contract may have guarantor, but no author, anonymous text on wall has writer, not author).

Two characteristics of ‘author-function’ in discourse:

• discourses are types of appropriation – form of ownership. Historically penal – authors became subject to punishment.
• does not affect all discourses in the same way – varies e.g. scientific texts were only validated in the Middle Ages when marked with name of author whilst ancient texts were validated by their age (without need for recognition of author).  Reversed in 17th/18th centuries.

How to attribute a number of discourses to the same author? Four proposals by Saint Jerome to define a particular author:

• ‘a constant level of value’ to their works; texts are excluded if they are inferior to others;
• ’a field of conceptual or theoretical coherence’ i.e. a similar doctrine running through their works.   Texts are excluded if the ideas presented contradict the ideas in others;
• ‘conceived as a stylistic unity’ – use of similar words and expressions.  Texts are excluded if they contain words and expressions not used in others;
• Texts excluded if they refer to statements/events which were made/took place after the author’s death.

Modern literary criticism also defines the author:

• author provides basis for explaining certain events in a work, also their ‘transformations, distortions and diverse modifications’;
• author is principle of a certain unity of writing.;
• author serves to neutralise contradictions that may emerge in a series of texts;
• author is a particular form of expression, which may show itself in different forms e.g. letters, sketches etc.

Need to look at discourses ‘not only in terms of their expressive value or formal transformations, but according to their modes of existence.’ (p.952)

• circulation
• valorization
• attribution
• appropriation

which will vary with each culture and are modified within each.

Re-examination of the privileges of the subject – by setting aside biographical and psychological references in a work, one questions the absolute character and founding role of the subject > idea is to deprive the subject of its role as originator and analyse it as a variable and complex function of discourse. (p.952)

‘Ideological’ status of the author – the author allows the limitation of the proliferation of significations – ‘One can say that the author is an ideological product, since we represent him as the opposite of his historically real function.’ (p.953)

Foucault thinks that as society changes ‘the author-function will disappear, and in such a manner that fiction an its polysemic texts will once again function according to another mode, but still with a system of constraint – one which will no longer be the author, but which will have to be determined or, perhaps, experienced.’ (p.953)

Old questions –

• Who really spoke?
• Is it really he and not someone else?
• With what authenticity and originality?
• And what part of his deepest self did he express in his discourse?

will be replaced by new ones:

• What are the modes of existence of this discourse?
• Where has it been used, how can it circulate, and who can appropriate it for himself?
• What are the places in it where there is room for possible subjects?
• Who can assume these various subject-functions?

Foucault concludes by asking ‘what difference does it make who’s speaking?’

Bibliography

Foucault, M. (2003) ‘What is an Author?’. In: Harrison, C. and Wood, P. (eds.) Art in Theory, 1900 – 2000, An Anthology of Changing Ideas. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 949-953

Project 3-3: Myth is a type of speech

Following our reading of Barthes’ essay Myth Today (Barthes, 1999), the first part of this project asks us to respond to the following questions:

Who was Minou Drouet?  Why does Barthes cite her?

Minou Drouet was a eight year old child prodigy who published a collection of poems entitled Arbre Mon Ami (‘Tree, My Friend’) in 1956.  Whilst the poems appear to have been well received in Parisian literary circles they also caused controversy as to whether Drouet or her foster mother had actually written them.  To resolve the issue, Drouet’s poetic ability  was tested when the child was put in a room with no means of communication other than a pen and paper and asked to write a poem about the Paris sky.  She produced a poem in 25 minutes that moved the chairman of the French authors, composers and music publishers’ association to tears. (Dawn.com, 2009).

My opinion is that Barthes cites her as her poems transformed a real object into a myth.  Her words gave the tree a meaning that was far beyond that of a physical tree; it becomes  a connoted tree, laden with meanings.  Why did Barthes choose Drouet specifically?  It would seem that the controversy surrounding Drouet’s poetry was making headline news around the time that Barthes was writing his book Mythologies (Barthes, 1957).  In my opinion therefore It may well have been an topic that Barthes took specific interest in.

Think about Barthes’ reference to a bunch of roses and a black pebble.  Can you think of a couple of examples of elements within images that you know signify passions, emotions or even other objects or events.

The colour red – signifies the emotions of passion, desire, love.

A kiss – signifies love, passion, lust, also forgiveness, friendship

Barthes’ myth changes the real into an ideological statement.  Find an example of work that exemplifies this.

Alberto Korda’s image of Che Guevara entitled ‘Guerrillero Heroico’  (Korda, 1960) is an example of a photographic portrait that became an famous ideological statement, signifying the ideological concept of anti-imperialism and Marxist revolution (Smith, 2010).

Fig. 1. Guerrillero Heroico (1960)

For the second part of this project we are asked to consider a passage on meaning and form taken from Barthes essay Myth Today (Barthes, 1999) and annotate a piece of artwork illustrating my thoughts on this passage:

‘The meaning is always there to present the form; the form is always there to outdistance the meaning’.

To understand Barthes’ statement above, it helps to put it into context.  The passage is taken from Myth today, an essay where Barthes presents his theories on two semiological systems, language and myth.  Barthes (1999:56) contends that ‘myth is a double system … its point of departure is constituted by the arrival of a meaning.’  He continues by explaining that ‘the signification of myth is constituted by a sort of constantly moving turnstile which presents alternatively the meaning of the signifier and its form’.  In myth, ‘meaning’ is the sign in the first semiological system (language), with that sign becoming the signifier (‘form’) in the second semiological system (myth):

LANGUAGE = Signifier (= meaning) + Signified = Sign

MYTH = Sign (from above = meaning) becomes Signifier (= form) + Signified (= concept) = Sign (= Signification)

In his statement, Barthes (1999) is saying that the ‘form’ takes on a meaning which is beyond the original concept of the ‘meaning’.

Example:

First semiological system (language)

• Signifier [image] = apple  (denoted = ‘meaning’)
• Signified [concept] = good health
• Sign [associative total] = healthy apple

Second semiological system (myth)

For example when the sign above (healthy apple) is considered as advertising.

• Signifier = healthy apple (‘form’)
• Signified = good health – ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away’
• Sign = specific product purchase and expenditure of money in order to be healthy

To demonstrate my thoughts on Barthes’ passage as requested, I have selected and annotated an iconic photograph by Jeff Widener which can be found here.

Bibliography

Barthes, R. (1999) ‘Myth Today’.  In: Evans, J and Hall, S. (eds.) Visual Culture: The Reader. London: Sage. pp.51-58

Dawn.com (2009) The curious case of Minou Drouet.  At: https://www.dawn.com/news/840653  (accessed on 06 March 2017)

Smith, I. K. (2010) ‘Cuba, 5 March 1960 | Alberto Korda’. In: New Statesman 01.04.2010 [online].  At: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2010/03/che-guevara-alberto-korda  (accessed on 06 March 2017)

List of illustrations

Figure 1. Korda, A. (1960)  Guerrillero Heroico [online image].  At: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CheHigh.jpg  (Accessed on 07 March 2017)

Project 3-3: Further thoughts on `Myth today’ and Barthes’ concept of myth.

A few more thoughts on Barthes’ concept of myth.It took me a few readings of Myth today (Barthes, 1999) before I felt comfortable with having some sort of understanding of what Barthes was trying to say.

My basic understanding of myth:

•  It is a second class of signification along the lines of association; to refer back to another of Barthes’ essays The Rhetoric of the Image (which I discussed in an earlier post here), myth is connotation rather than denotation.

• Myths obscure the realities behind them to the point that they become the concept, leading people to believe/assume they are how things naturally are.  Beliefs/assumptions that  ‘go without saying’ when in fact they don’t – beliefs/assumptions that are ‘falsely obvious’.  We need to reconsider what we take for granted – advertising is a prime example – advertisers often rely on myth to sell their products.

Chapter five (‘Semiotics’) of Howells and Negreiros (2012) provides some useful information about myth. Some of my comments below are a repetition of my earlier notes on the chapter as a whole (see my post here), however I’m finding it useful to have certain points reinforced.  Please note that this post is a list of jottings useful for me at this moment in time, an aide-memoire, rather than a full set of notes on the topic.

• • Fundamental to Barthes’ analysis is that everything can be a sign.
  • Whilst based on Saussure’s semiotic principles, Barthes takes these further (his introduction of ‘myth’).
  • Myth is the deliberate use of something to stand for something else – myth is more concerned with intention than form > connection is ‘never arbitrary’ (p. 120)
  • ‘Barthes contends that the function of myth is to (mis)represent history as nature’ (p.122)
  • Barthes argues that it is ‘bourgeois values that are falsely represented as natural and inevitable by the process of mythology’ (p.125)
  • For Barthes, mythology is essentially a right-wing phenomenon (p.126).  Exists also on softer left but ‘it is a myth suited to a convenience, not a necessity’ (p.126)

Another example of myth:

First semiological system (language)

• • •  Signifier = spoken word ‘dog’
    • Signified = the idea of a dog
    • Sign (A) =  union of the two – what we understand the word ‘dog’ to represent e.g. a furry animal that barks.

Second semiological system (myth)

• • • Signifier = Sign (A) – what we understand the word ‘dog’ to represent e.g a furry animal that barks
    • Signified = [takes the Signifier/Sign (A) a step further] e.g fidelity
    • Sign – union of the two.

Issues with Barthes’ viewpoint …

• • • Many strong left-wing myths – Stalin (propaganda approach of ‘purging’ people from history is famous), Chairman Mao, Che Guevara.
    • Barthes speaks of a ‘science’ of semiotics (p.126) but his methodology is not scientific; it is selective, subjective and interpretive – does not appear to be structured or rigorous.
    • Barthes sees what he wants to see > bourgeoisie appear in every myth.
    • Overly complicated.  Barthes terminology is often complex and confusing.

… However his theory has positives:

• • •  founded on semiotics > sound and sensible basis for visual analysis >> how communication of meaning is possible between two or more people.
    • extended Saussure’s linguistic model to visual culture.
    • theory that myths are made up of component sign systems opens up more complex visual texts for semiotic analysis > semiotic layerings – good example is in advertising.  Advertising campaigns can be heavily loaded with deliberate signifiers e.g. Renault campaign of the 1990s.

I also found  a good example of myth in Palmer (1997), using Barthes’ example of ‘passionified roses’ found in his essay Myth today (Barthes, 1999)

First semiological system (language)

• Signifier [image] = roses
• Signified [concept] = passion
• Sign [associative total] = passionified roses

(Palmer, 1997)

Palmer (1997:56) tells us that the signifier (roses) and signified (passion) ‘can be divided in analysis, but not in fact.  In real life we confront only the “associative total” – the sign itself’.

Second semiological system (myth)

For example when the sign above (passionified roses) is considered as advertising

• Signifier = passionified roses
• Signified = Valentine’s day
• Sign = product consumption and expenditure of money as romantic obligation

(Palmer, 1997)

So the original sign of the first semiological system (a signifier in the second) has now been emptied of its meaning.

Bibliography

Barthes, R. (1999) Myth Today.  In: Evans, J and Hall, S. (eds.) Visual Culture: The Reader. London: Sage. pp.51-58

Howells, R. & Negreiros, J. (2012)  Visual Culture (2nd ed.)  Cambridge: Polity Press

Palmer, D. (1997) Structuralism and Poststructuralism For Beginners (Reprint ed.)  Danbury CT: For Beginners

Project 3-3: Myth is a type of speech – notes on the essay ‘Myth today’ by Roland Barthes

We are asked to read the Roland Barthes essay Myth today (Barthes, 1999) and make notes.Before starting my reading, I needed to make clear in my mind the common definition of ‘myth’.  Oxford Dictionaries (2017) tells us that a myth is:

‘A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events: ‘ancient Celtic myths’.

And this is broadly in line with my current understanding of the term ‘myth’.

A quick semiotic recap:

Semiotics concerns the relationship between signifier, signified and sign:

• Signifier – something that stands for something else => the three letters ‘D-O-G’ (the signifier being this combination of three letters on a printed page)  NB could be ‘C-H-I-E-N’ in French or ‘P-E-R-R-O’ in Spanish.  Could also be made-up e.g. by a child
• Signified – the idea of the thing the signifier stands for => the idea we get in our head when we see the signifier ‘D-O-G’.
• Sign – union of the two.

Now on to Barthes’ essay:

According to Barthes, myth is a type of speech.  It is a system of communication, a message.

Myth is not an object, concept or idea; it is a mode of signification, a form.

As it is a type of speech, everything can be a myth provided it is conveyed by a discourse.  But it is not defined by the object of its message, rather the way it utters its message > it’s a way of saying something.  For example Barthes tells us that ‘a tree is a tree’, but can also be expressed as something more  > Drouet’s poem ‘ Tree that I Love’ imbues the tree with meaning, anthropomorphising and personalising it. (Drouet and her tree poem are discussed in greater detail in the second part of this project – see next post)

It is human history that converts reality into speech – myth is a type of speech chosen by history; it cannot evolve from the ‘nature’ of things.

Semiology proposes a relation between two terms – signifier and signified.   Relation of equivalence, not equality, hence we are dealing with three terms, not two:

Signifier (bunch of roses) + signified (passion) = sign (associative total of the first two terms =  passionified roses).    Both ‘roses’ and ‘passion’ existed before their unification into a sign.

Myth is a ‘second-order semiological system’ – it is constructed from a semiological chain which existed before it. A sign in the first system becomes a signifier in the second – ‘ … the materials of mythical speech (the language itself, photography, painting, posters, rituals, objects, etc.) however different at the start are reduced to a pure signifying function as soon as they are caught by myth.  Myth sees in them only the same raw material; their unity is that they all come down to the status of a mere language.’

First-order semiological system = linguistic system (the ‘language-object’) – the language used by myth to build its own system.

Second-order semiological system = myth itself (‘metalanguage’ – the second language in which one speaks about the first).

Example 1 – from Latin grammar

‘Quia ego nominor leo’  (because my name is lion)

First semiological system (language):

• Signifier = words are there, in a certain order – there to signify something to the reader.
• Signified = the words are a grammatical example illustrating a grammatical rule.
• Sign (A) = association of the written words and their literal meaning.

Second semiological system (myth):

• Signifier = sum of signs – sign (A) in first system becomes the signifier in this second system
• Signified = I am a grammatical example
• Sign = correlation of signifier and signified.

Example 2 – young black boy in French army uniform saluting (to the French flag?)

First semiological system (language):

• Signifier = photograph of a young black soldier giving a French salute = meaning
• Signified = mixture of Frenchness and militariness
• Sign (A) = message about France and its citizens

Second semiological system (myth):

• Signifier = sum of signs – sign (A) in first system becomes the signifier in this second system = form
• Signified = French imperiality  = concept
• Sign = correlation of signifier and signified – greatness of France, no colour discrimination, faithfully serving under French flag = signification.

Myth has double function – it points out an it notifies, it makes us understand something and it imposes it on us.

My summary:

LANGUAGE = Signifier (meaning )+ Signified = Sign

MYTH = Sign (from above)  becomes Signifier (= form) + Signified (= concept) = Sign ( = Signification)

The form and the concept

Signifier of myth is at the same time meaning and form – full on one side, empty on the other.

– As Meaning (= Signifier on first level), it already suggests a reading – has its own value.  It is already complete – it postulates a kind of knowledge, a past, a memory, a comparative order of facts, ideas, decisions.

– As Form (= Signifier on second level) the meaning empties itself, history evaporates, only the letter remains.  An abnormal regression from meaning to form.

But form does not suppress the meaning. ‘It only impoverishes it, puts it at a distance, holds it at one’s disposal.  Meaning loses its value but keeps its life.  ‘It is this constant game of hide-and-seek between the meaning and the form which defines myth.’ (p.56) 

Signified in myth – the history that drains out of the form will be wholly absorbed by the concept.  Concept drives the myth – it is a whole new history that is implanted in the myth.

Meaning is always there to present the form, the form is always there to outdistance the meaning.

Example – If in car looking through window, I can at will focus on the scenery or on the window-pane. Can see the presence of the glass and the distance of the landscape at one moment, at another I can see the transparence of the glass and the depth of the landscape.  The glass is at once present and empty, the landscape is unreal and full ==> mythical signifier – form is empty but present, meaning is absent but full.

‘… myth is a type of speech defined by its intention (I am a grammatical example) much more than by its literal sense (my name is lion)’ (p.57)

The ambiguity of mythical speech (uncertainty of form versus meaning) has two consequences for the signification – appears both like a  notification and statement of fact.

Myth is depoliticized speech

‘Myth has task of giving a historical intention a natural justification ‘>> = bourgeois ideology. (p.57)

World supplies to myth a natural reality – myth gives a natural image of this reality in return.

Myth is constitued by the loss of historical quality of things – ‘things lose the memory that they once were made.’ (p.58)

Myth in a bourgeois society is depoliticized speech  > myth does not deny things but talks about them simply and innocently, gives a natural and eternal justification > clarity which is not an explanation, just a statement of fact >> ‘it goes without saying’ – things appear to mean something by themselves.

Bibliography

Barthes, R. (1999) Myth Today.  In: Evans, J and Hall, S. (eds.) Visual Culture: The Reader.  London: Sage. pp.51-58

Oxford Dictionaries (2017) ‘Myth’ (definition 1)  [online]. At:   https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/myth  (accessed on 31 January 2017)

 

Project 3-1: Rhetoric of the Image

After reading and making notes on Barthes’ essay ‘The Rhetoric of the image’, the second part of this project asks us to make very brief notes on two or three advertising images that we find in everyday life, either in magazines or on hoardings.

The two advertising images I’ve chosen are by Alfa Romeo and O2.

1.  Alfa Romeo – Alfa MiTo and Giulietta

Alfa Romeo is an Italian car manufacturer known for its luxury and stylish cars.  Their website tells us that ‘Alfa Romeo has become a symbol of constant technical evolution and driving pleasure among automobile enthusiasts’.  (Alfa Romeo, 2017)

Linguistic message: 

This advert contains quite a quantity of text, set out in five elements:

First line of text.  The dominant line.  ‘The Alfa MiTo & Giulietta.  Style redefined’ is placed two thirds of the way down the advertisement directly below the images of the two cars. It would appear to be positioned according to the rule of thirds (more specifically on the lower line of the Golden Ratio grid).

• The first part of the text names the cars being advertised in easy to read white upper-case font.
• The second part of the text uses the same font style, this time in red. The wording ’style redefined’ suggests not just style but cutting edge, a luxurious style that we would expect from the Alfa Romeo brand.

Second line of text.  This is the invitation (or hook) to the potential purchaser – interest-free finance, coupled with reassurance once the car is purchased through the ‘Peace of Mind Package’ => we will look after you, you don’t have to worry.

Third segment of text.   Emphasises why someone would want to buy these cars – MiTo = fun, performance, hedonic. Giulietta – utilitarian, practical yet good-looking, racy even (reference to coupe) – yet both are affordable – each car is an attainable dream.

Logo and marketing strap line. In the bottom right hand corner of the advert (but above the fine print)  is the recognisable Alfa Romeo brand logo, together with what seems to be the strapline from the company website (ibid.) ‘La meccanica delle emozioni’ (= ‘Alpha Romeo Soul’).

The fine print.  Running along the bottom of the advert, in very small text, is the ’fine print’.  This is visually separated from the main part of the advert by both the background colour and by the red line which gives a visual block and contains the main part of the advert away from the ‘unexciting but necessary’.

Connotation in linguistic message

Use of the colour red for the text ‘Style redefined’.  Red is a very intense colour signifying  energy, passion, power.   The red colour is repeated in the line across the bottom of the advert and also links to the red in the Alfa Romeo logo.

Denoted image

Two cars, one deep blue and one white, set against a black/grey abstract background.

Connoted image

The positioning of the cars.  The car is the star.  The cars have been photographed from a fairly low viewpoint and at an angle which makes them look both overbearing and menacing, hinting at power, confidence. excitement, ‘life on the edge’.  Made me think of the Jaguar logo (a leaping jaguar) – connotations with the Jaguar brand of expensive, luxury cars.

Colours – dark blue connotes authority, confidence, white connotes purity, pristineness.  Safety angle – some people consider white cars are more visible and therefore safer.  Metallic paint connotes glamour, excitement, sophistication.

Slogan – ‘La meccanica delle emozioni’ (the mechanics of emotion = ‘Alpha Romeo Soul’) gives emotional attachment.  Reminds us that Alfa Romeo is an Italian company – connotes ‘italianicity’.

Logo – the green and red in the logo design connote ‘Italianicity’.

UPDATE FOLLOWING TUTOR FEEDBACK

My tutor suggested that I could expand on what ‘Italianicity’ might itself connote, although she did recommend that it is sufficient just to  give a general impression.  In my opinion ‘Italianicity’ connotes Italy, and the general feeling of culture and history, of well-being (good food and wine) and style that one conjures up when thinking about Italy.

2.  O2 – pay monthly sim.

O2 is one of the main providers in the UK of mobile phones, mobile broadband and sim only deals.  It is the commercial brand of Telefonica UK Ltd. (O2, 2017)

Linguistic message:

Seven elements:

1. ‘THE Stuff You Actually Want – SALE’ – telling you that you want O2’s ‘stuff’ (as opposed to any other mobile provider’s ‘stuff’.  Use of the word ‘stuff’ – informal approach to identify with the younger generation.

2. ‘SAVE 50%’ – yes, a whole whopping 50%!

3. Top left corner – parent company logo.

4. Top right corner ‘Pay Monthly’ – this is the type of contract that the advert relates to.

5.  Lower left side – details of the offer and how to get it.

6.  Lower right side – O2 logo and strap line ‘more for you’ – O2 is more than just a network; it can give you what you want.

7.  Fine print – similar to the Alpha Romeo advert, the ‘fine print’ runs along the bottom of the advert in very small print and separated from the main body of the ad by its different background colour. Unlike the Alpha ad where a graphic line added to the separation of the ‘come and buy’ from the ‘unexciting but necessary’, the reader of this ad will be drawn to the ‘fine print’ due to the positioning directly above to the left of text giving details of the offer.

Positioning of text in each corner of the main body of the advert acts as a block, a boundary to stop the eye moving away from the subject, escaping from the advertisement.

Denoted image

A gold-coloured sim embedded in a white card is placed in an upright position on a purple pedestal in the centre of the page.

Two pieces of text – ‘THE Stuff You Actually Want – SALE’ and ’SAVE 50%” are set inside what appears to be orange Christmas baubles (stars?)  suspended from thin wire or string above and to the left and right respectively of the sim card.  Background of advert is dark blue, becoming gradually lighter from top to bottom.

Connoted Image

White card references an iPhone (shape and colour) and therefore Apple products – connotes status, desirability.

The placing of the sim on a pedestal elevates it both literally and figuratively, the gold colour of the sim connotes success, achievement, wealth, affluence whilst the light shining on it from above it gives a spiritual connotation.  The feeling of status is echoed by the purple colour of the pedestal, a colour which also symbolises power and luxury and is associated with royalty.

Star-shaped baubles –  link with Christmas, gifts and giving, happy family times.  Connotes that you will want to receive this ‘gift’; therefore it is worth having. O2 is a company that gives.  Note: advert was in Time Out magazine issue of 10 – 16 Jan 2017 so I was a bit bemused by the references to Christmas, however the ‘fine print’ refers to the offer being valid from 22 December to 01 February which provides an explanation.

Bubbles to top-right of left hand star connote thoughts and ideas – yes, the sim is ‘stuff’ that the reader wants.

Design and colour of advert connotes summer and holidays – blue background representing the sea and sky, orange baubles represent the sun.  Connotations of warmth, happiness, relaxation, fun.  You too can feel better (escape from the cold and dark of winter) by buying this sim.

Colours – orange connotes joy, sunshine, energy, summer, blue connotes relaxation and also trustworthiness.

Bibliography

Alfa Romeo (2017) Emotion is Innovation  At: http://www.alfaromeo.co.uk/alfa-romeo-world/la-meccanica-delle-emozioni/alfa-romeo-soul#_  (accessed on 11 February 2017)

Kaufman, E. (2016) Blue, red or silver? Find out what your car color say about you.  At: http://www.today.com/home/blue-red-or-silver-find-out-what-your-car-color-t81381 (accessed on 12 February 2017)

Marketing-schools.org (2017) Marketing Cars  At: http://www.marketing-schools.org/consumer-psychology/marketing-cars.html  (accessed on 12 February 2017)

O2 (2017)   Company history: About us.   At: http://www.o2.co.uk/abouto2/company-history  (accessed on 19 February 2017)

O2 (2016) O2 unveils its new brand campaign: ‘More for you’   At: http://news.o2.co.uk/?press-release=o2-unveils-new-brand-campaign  (accessed on 19 February 2017)

PixelSpoke (2017)  What do your colors mean?   At: https://www.pixelspoke.com/blog/design/what-do-your-colors-mean/  (accessed on 19 February 2017)

QSX Software Group (2017) Color Wheel Pro – see Colour Theory in Action.  At: http://www.color-wheel-pro.com/terms.html  (accessed on 20 February 2017)

Project 3-1: Rhetoric of the image – notes on the essay ‘Rhetoric of the image’ by Roland Barthes

For the first part of this project we are asked to read the Roland Barthes essay Rhetoric of the Image and make notes.  We are directed towards the essay as it appears in the course reader, however I have chosen to comment on the longer version of this well-known essay that is widely available (see link here).

A couple of definitions to start with:

Rhetoric – Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016)

Image – 1) A representation of the external form of a person or thing in art; 2) The general impression that a person, organization, or product presents to the public: 3) A simile or metaphor – ‘he uses the image of a hole to describe emotional emptiness’  (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016)

Barthes begins by posing the question ‘can analogical representation (the ‘copy’) produce true systems of signs and not merely simple agglutinations of symbols?’

He comments that images are viewed in being weak in respect of meaning.  He disagrees and attempts to disprove this through the analysis of the messages that an image may contain.  For the purpose of this essay he studies an advertising image > ‘in advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional – the image is ‘frank’ > signs are formed with a view to the optimum reading.

Using a Panzani advert (see first page of Barthes’ essay here) Barthes identifies three messages:

The Three Messages

1. The linguistic message

This is twofold – denoted (literal) > caption, labels on products and connoted (symbolic) > the word ‘Panzani’ connotes ‘Italianicity’ but as it has only one sign (written language) it is only counted as one message.

At the level of the literal message the text replies to the question ‘what is it?’

2.  The coded iconic message (symbolic) = connoted

Barthes identifies four signs representing the symbolic message:

•  half-open bag signifies return from market (freshness of product, domestic preparation)
•  tomatoes, pepper, tri-coloured hues signify Italianicity
•  the collection of different objects signifies a total culinary service (‘as though Panzani furnished everything necessary for a carefully balanced dish’ and also ‘as though the concentrate in tin were equivalent to the natural produce surrounding it)
• overall composition of the image signifies a still life.

Barthes suggests that there might be a fifth sign – a pointer that this is an advert > the place of the image in a magazine and the emphasis on the labels and caption. However this fifth sign eludes signification as the advertising nature of the image is essentially functional.

3.  The non-coded iconic message (literal) = denoted.

Signifeds are made up of the real objects in the scene – the pepper, the tomato.  No ambiguity – message is not coded.  The signifier and the signified are essentially the same.  A literal message as opposed to a symbolic one.

The linguistic message

Some sort of linguistic message is present in almost all images (title, caption, film dialogue, comic strip balloon).  Two functions:

1.  Anchorage – all images are polysemous > imply a ‘floating chain’ of signifieds – readers can choose some and ignore others [CS note: presumably there would also be signifieds that readers don’t realise are there – e.g. present in some cultures, not in others, lack of reader knowledge etc].  Anchorage is used to fix this ‘floating chain’ so as to ‘counter the terror of uncertain signs’ – use of text is one technique.  Text directs the reader through the signifieds, using dispatching to steer him towards a meaning chosen in advance.

Anchorage is a control and has a responsibility to make sure the message is read as intended by the author.  It is the most frequent function of the linguistic message.  Commonly found in press photographs and adverts.

2.  Relay – text and image ‘stand in a complementary relationship’, working together to convey the intended meaning.  Less common with regard to fixed images; can be found more in films, cartoons and comic strips.

The denoted image

Very unlikely to encounter an image in its pure, literal state.  Characteristics of the literal message cannot be substantial, only relational – what is left in the image when all connotational signs are stripped away.  If these signs were removed we would only be able to read an image at ‘the first degree of intelligibility’  – we would see more than just shape, colour and form and see the object e.g. a pepper > a message without a code.

Barthes states that the medium of photography is a message without a code, as opposed to drawing whose coding can be seen on three levels:

• drawing requires a set of ‘rule-governed transpositions’; there is no essential nature of the pictorial copy;
• the act of drawing requires a distinction between the significant and the insignificant. A drawing does not reproduce everything whilst a photograph, unless by way of trickery, ‘cannot intervene within the object’.
• like all codes, drawing requires an apprenticeship (a fact that Saussure attached great importance to)

In photography, the relationship of signifier to signifieds is one of ‘recording’, not ‘transformation’.

Barthes describes the photograph as not just an object being in the present (‘being-there’), but one that also connects with the past (‘having-been-there).

The role of the denoted image within the general structure of the iconic message is one of naturalising the symbolic message – a kind of natural ‘being-there’. It ‘innocents the semantic artifice’ of connotation.

The version of Barthes’ essay in the course reader finishes at this point.  I have continued making notes from the longer version of the essay which is available here.

Rhetoric of the Image

Signs of the third message (connoted, symbolic) are discontinuous – drawn from a cultural code.  One image can connote multiple meanings – number of readings can vary depending on the individual > depends on that individual’s knowledge – practical, national, cultural, aesthetic.  A meaning is derived from a lexicon (body of knowledge within a viewer). ‘The one lexia mobilises different lexicons’ – meaning is constructed by viewer as well as creator. Meaning for viewer created by the interaction of their own lexicons with the signs in the image.  Co-existence of lexicons within one person > ‘idiolect’.

‘The language of the image is not merely the totality of utterances emitted …. it is also the totality of utterances received’.

Difficulty identified by Barthes in analysing connotation – no particular analytical language for naming or describing signifieds.  The common domain of the signifieds of connotation is ideology.

Barthes calls signifiers within a chosen medium connotators and the set of connotations a rhetoric.  Therefore the rhetoric of the image is all the visual elements within the image that can be used as signifiers to connote signifieds.  Rhetoric is thus appearing as the signifying aspect of ideology.

Rhetorics vary by substance but not by form – Barthes proposes the existence of a single rhetoric form ‘common for instance to dream, literature and image’.  The rhetoric of the image (i.e. the classification of its connotations) is specific (it is subject to physical constraints of vision) but also general (‘figures’ are never more than formal relations of elements).  Barthes stresses that not all visual elements are connotators;  there will always be elements in the image that are purely denotational.

Bibliography

Barthes, R. (s.d.)   Rhetoric of the Image  [online]  At: https://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Barthes-Rhetoric-of-the-image-ex.pdf  (accessed on 28 December 2016)

Oxford Dictionaries (2016) ‘Image’ definition [online].  At: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rhetoric (accessed on 31 December 2016)

Oxford Dictionaries (2016) ‘Rhetoric’ definition [online].  At: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/image (accessed on 31 December 2016)

Notes: ‘Semiotics’ – chapter 5 of ‘Visual Culture’ by Richard Howells and Joaquim Negreiros

Saussure – language = system of signs or signals which enable people to communicate with each other.Semiotics concerns the relationship between signifier, signified and sign:

Signifier – something that stands for something else => the three letters ‘D-O-G’ (the signifier being this combination of three letters on a printed page)  NB could be ‘C-H-I-E-N’ in French or ‘P-E-R-R-O’ in Spanish.  Could also be made-up e.g. by a child

Signified – the idea of the thing the signifier stands for => the idea we get in our head when we see the signifier ‘D-O-G’.

Sign – union of the two.

Many different signifiers for a signified => not a ‘God-given’ relationship between signifier and signified => sign is always arbitrary – key point in semiotics.  Relationship between signifier and signified is purely conventional e.g. ‘Nova’ in English = ‘bright and new’ => good name for car for English people.  But ‘Nova’ in Spanish = ‘doesn’t go’ => bad name for car to sell to Spanish people.

Words only mean what they do because we agree that they do.

Structuralists – group of mainly French intellectuals who advanced Saussure’s early linguistic theory into diverse areas such as anthropology and psychoanalysis.

Barthes extended semiotics to the analysis of visual and popular culture – used semiotics to reveal both the text and the underlying ideological assumptions of the society in which it was created e.g our choice of clothes goes further than just keeping us warm and dry – we make conscious decisions as how we want to look (e.g. wedding, interview, a date) => semiotic decisions.   E.g. a tie has no practical function > its function is entirely semiotic as a signifier e.g. showing seriousness at an interview.

A sign is arbitrary, therefore the relationship between a signifier and a signified can change over time e.g. Eiffel Tower > today signifies Paris (connotations of street cafes, artists, sophistication etc).  Yet when built was condemned as an eyesore.  Blackpool Tower moulded on Eiffel Tower – connotations differ greatly >> the signifier is an empty vessel into which cultural meaning is poured to imbue it with meaning. (p.118)

Barthes believed that everything could be a sign – any material can be endowed with meaning. – not limited to spoken or written.  Pictures can be more potent than writing – ‘they impose meaning with one stroke’.

Barthes’ analysis built on Saussurian semiotics – but took it further than Saussure’s model:

• he extended semiotics from Saussure’s concern with written and spoken language to an analysis of the visual and the popular culture.
• he took semiotics a stage further into the study of what he called ‘myth’

Barthes’ Myth

Not a common misconception but a ‘second-order semiological system’ > the sign created by the signifier and signified (e.g. dog) can then go on to become the signifier of something else (e.g. fidelity).  The final term or sign in the (first) order becomes the first term or signifier in the (second) mythical system > fidelity becomes the mythical signified.  The mythical sign is the union of the two.

=> Myth = a sum of signs

Characteristics of myth:

• Relationship between the form and the concept is unequal – form is poorer as concept could be signified by a number of different signifiers.
• Relationship is never permanently fixed
• The form is impoverished by its relationship with the concept (e.g. an individual may lose his identity and become solely a form for the communication of an idea)
• More concerned with intention than with form – connection between mythical signifier and signified is never arbitrary > always in part motivated – ‘there is no myth without motivated form’.

Barthes describes a major purpose of myth as to ‘transform a meaning into a form’ – however importance of interpretation in the reading of myth.

Idea of something standing for something else is not new > early Renaissance artists included symbols in religious paintings.  Procedure then formalised in emblem books of later centuries.  Semiotics breaks the code.

Barthes’ Mythologies

Central argument – Barthes contends that the function of myth is to (mis) represent history as nature.  Similar to Berger, he believes that contemporary society is the result of natural rather than historical forces.

Myth does not lie, it distorts – it is a story ‘at once true and unreal’.  It does not deny, justify or explain things, just states them as fact.   Myths therefore have a false clarity in which ‘things appear to mean something by themselves’ when in fact they are the results of man-made history and could have turned out (as they still might) very differently > Myth has the task of giving an historical intention a natural justification.

For Barthes, myth achieves the representation of the historical as natural by leaving the historical out = a kind of amnesia.  Kind of speech with politics removed > Barthes’ definition of myth as ‘depoliticized speech’(p.123).  There is the need to seek out the underlying cultural assumptions contained within a text, assumptions that seem so natural that ‘they go without saying’, when in fact they don’t – they are falsely obvious.

For Barthes, mythology is essentially a right-wing phenomenon (p.126).  Exists also on softer left but ‘it is a myth suited to a convenience, not a necessity’ (p.126)

Issues with Barthes’ viewpoint …

– Many strong left-wing myths – Stalin (propaganda approach of ‘purging’ people from history is famous), Chairman Mao, Che Guevara.

• Barthes speaks of a ‘science’ of semiotics (p.126) but his methodology is not scientific; it is selective, subjective and interpretive – does not appear to be structured or rigorous.
• Barthes sees what he wants to see > bourgeoisie appear in every myth.

… However his theory has positives:

 – founded on semiotics > sound and sensible basis for visual analysis >> how communication of meaning is possible between two or more people.

– extended Saussure’s linguistic model to visual culture

– theory that myths are made up of component sign systems opens up more complex visual texts for semiotic analysis > semiotic layerings – good example is in advertising.  Advertising campaigns can be heavily loaded with deliberate signifiers e.g. Renault campaign of the 1990s.

A signifier is an empty vessel until it is filled with meaning in order to signify.  In many car adverts, the car itself is not seen much > the less specific the signifier, the greater its potential to signify exactly as we wish (p.129).  A sign works as much by connotation as by denotation – it implies as much (and possibly more) than it states. (p130) > many advertisements sell lifestyles, which they imply are available by association with the product they are selling.  Analysis of an advert does not tell us about the product but about the things to which many people aspire > e.g. Potterton’s Pizza  –  first level tells us about the  product, second level about the happy life which we will get by eating PP.

Can images be more real than reality?

Baudrillard – new approach presented in the 1980s > the idea that signs clearly stand for something recognizable in the ‘real’ world (p.132).  The signifier-signified relationship upon which semiotics is built has been broken and has ceased to provide an adequate basis for defining the working of the contemporary sign.  Representation has been substituted by simulation.

Reference to Borges – map and territory allegory.  An empire created a detailed map that was as large as the Empire itself – therefore useless > falls into ruin. When Empire crumbled, all that was left was fragments of the map.

Baudrillard inverts Borges’ analogy – it is the map that people live in, the simulation of reality. ‘The map engenders the territory’. (p.133).  Baudrillard claims death of the real, or rather reality as we used to conceive it.  Baudrillard – the Gulf War did not take place – rather than an event is was a simulation created through technologies of information mastered by the Americans.

Online construction of personal identities – online versus real – perception of the ‘real’

Baudrillard’s views controversial – based on radical version of postmodernity > The production of things has become secondary to the production of desire.  

Baudrillard’s views can sound excessive – but offer a provocative insight into the nature of images which, with growing intensity and increasingly complex functions, fill up our daily lives.

Bibliography

Howells, R. & Negreiros, J. (2012)  Visual Culture (2nd ed.)  Cambridge: Polity Press