After watching the documentary on Shelby Lee Adam’s photographs of the Appalachian people, I was really compelled on the differencing of opinions. One said that adding too much style takes away from the purity of image while the other professed that an image no matter how you look at is true, stylized or not. For class we also had to read Bryson’s article “The Natural Attitude”, which offered a very interesting idea of what an image can and should represent. Personally, I tend to side with the ideal that no matter what an image is, it will always carry some kind of connotation or style behind it so therefore it will never be completely pure but it does bare some truth.
As a student, I’ve heard the phrase “A picture is worth a thousand words” multiple times from teachers. This phrase plays perfectly into the idea that an image/picture will never be completely true; it will always have some sort of meaning. An artist or photographer cannot realistically hold back someone else’s or even their own interpretation of an image or painting. Bryson comments on this in his article “The struggle towards perfection is recognized as long and arduous: the Essential Copy, if it were ever achieved, would possess no stylistic features, since the simulacrum would at last have purged away all traces of the productive process” (pg 27). This struggle for perfection that Bryson’s discussed prevents an image from being without objectivity, actually in his vision an image becomes more subject as it is created.
In regards to the documentary, Shelby Adam’s images portrayed the truth even though they were stylized to a point. Adam’s views of his photos were respectful and elegant to a way while his opposition viewed it as a way to further the negative stereotypes. I believe that Adam did nothing wrong in his photographs, the Appalachian people were portrayed how they are. It was not Adam’s intention to portray them in a negative way but to portray a truth to a sense of who they were. The negative connotations were not of Adam’s own mindset but more so dependent on the audience.
Finally, going back to the phrase “A picture is worth a thousand words”, there is no way to think of every different meaning of a picture. No matter how a picture/ image are created there will always be some difference of interpretation. We don’t question an image of Martin Luther King Jr. professing his need of freedom for African Americans as powerful and inspirational but, we question the authenticity of an image that pictures the Appalachian people being proud and humble people? Both of these images carry meaning and should be considered truthful to a point. The key phrase in this sentence is “ To a point” an image will never be a perfect copy or replication of the subject but still should be accepted.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Response to Bryson's "The natural attitude"
Bryson writes about how "the ancient tale sees painting as faced with a task of enormous magnitude: it is to depict everything - gods, men, beasts, things; 'groves, woods, forests, hills, fish-pools, conduits, and drains, riverets, with their banks, and whatsoever a man would wish to see.' The problem lies in the task - its performance, its infinity of possible subject matter, its manual difficulty - but not in the means by which the task is to be performed. Painting itself has no problematic. The difficulties confronted by the painter are executive and concern the fidelity of his registration of the world before him...resurrect exists out there..." (25). I found this to be one of the most powerful passages from Bryson's text. It shows that in the past, painting was viewed as having a huge effect on people and what they could see, using imagination or thoughts that came from within to paint for the audience.
There is so much that could be painted and some artists I think painted from what came from within them, what God helped them to see. Others painted things that were new and exciting. Bryson thinks that an image is substituted for the real. This means that an image doesn't necessarily reflect reality; art is an abstract of Reality. Using lots of colors or adding more to a painting than what you see just adds an "awe" factor for those who look at it. It is an expression of more than what is actually being said and there is nothing wrong with that.
Even though he states the dominant aim of the image is the natural attitude, sometimes when you look at a painting or a photograph, there is nothing natural about it. I take pictures and when I do, I try to capture people doing what they do, but once someone knows there is a camera, they pose or try to look "cool" and not stupid when other people could see these later. The goal is to try to capture everything in it's "real form" and natural state, but sometimes it is impossible. When an artist draws something, it is set up for them or they add their own spin to their work so it can be recognized. This is the abstract of Reality and I understand it very well.
There is so much that could be painted and some artists I think painted from what came from within them, what God helped them to see. Others painted things that were new and exciting. Bryson thinks that an image is substituted for the real. This means that an image doesn't necessarily reflect reality; art is an abstract of Reality. Using lots of colors or adding more to a painting than what you see just adds an "awe" factor for those who look at it. It is an expression of more than what is actually being said and there is nothing wrong with that.
Even though he states the dominant aim of the image is the natural attitude, sometimes when you look at a painting or a photograph, there is nothing natural about it. I take pictures and when I do, I try to capture people doing what they do, but once someone knows there is a camera, they pose or try to look "cool" and not stupid when other people could see these later. The goal is to try to capture everything in it's "real form" and natural state, but sometimes it is impossible. When an artist draws something, it is set up for them or they add their own spin to their work so it can be recognized. This is the abstract of Reality and I understand it very well.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Response to Barthes
Being in the fast pace society of today, we are constantly bombarded by advertisements and other images by the media. It is our job as the viewer to digest each one of the messages and decide how we really feel about them. In “The Rhetoric of Image” by Roland Barthes, Barthes discussed how we as the audience go through our processes to break down these images. He broke down an image into three main parts: linguistic, coded iconic and finally non-coded iconic. Linguistic refers to the text attached to an image commonly used in captions. Coded iconic is the idea that each image has as cultural interpretation, this I commonly where the hidden message are developed. Finally, there is non-coded iconic images which are images that are what they are with no hidden messages or attached meanings.
Personally, Barthe’s ideas that each image has linguistic value, coded iconic and non-coded processes really spoke to me. Like I stated above, our society is so fast paced that it is almost impossible to not encounter some sort of image or advertisement in a day. Going into public relations/marketing it will be my job in the future to produce these images. I will eventually have to provoke some sort of response by an audience using these three concepts. I actually have a lot of fun breaking down an ad and trying to determine the hidden meanings behind it all. The funny thing is you can do it with almost any image, especially advertisements. Barthes’ made a good point about these hidden messages by saying, “…we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in pure state” (38). I completely agree with this statement, it’s rare to find an advertisement without some sort of hidden meaning. This isn’t a bad thing either; it challenges us as consumers of an image to basically ask why did the producer use this and what are the hidden meanings. It actually makes us better consumers when we are able to interpret and find what is really being said in the image.
In conclusion, Barthes ideas behind the meaning of many images presented to us in our everyday life is really interesting. The idea the each image can be divided or more so defined by linguistic meanings, coded and non-coded iconic meanings really helps to understand some of the ideas and reasoning why some images are created.
Personally, Barthe’s ideas that each image has linguistic value, coded iconic and non-coded processes really spoke to me. Like I stated above, our society is so fast paced that it is almost impossible to not encounter some sort of image or advertisement in a day. Going into public relations/marketing it will be my job in the future to produce these images. I will eventually have to provoke some sort of response by an audience using these three concepts. I actually have a lot of fun breaking down an ad and trying to determine the hidden meanings behind it all. The funny thing is you can do it with almost any image, especially advertisements. Barthes’ made a good point about these hidden messages by saying, “…we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in pure state” (38). I completely agree with this statement, it’s rare to find an advertisement without some sort of hidden meaning. This isn’t a bad thing either; it challenges us as consumers of an image to basically ask why did the producer use this and what are the hidden meanings. It actually makes us better consumers when we are able to interpret and find what is really being said in the image.
In conclusion, Barthes ideas behind the meaning of many images presented to us in our everyday life is really interesting. The idea the each image can be divided or more so defined by linguistic meanings, coded and non-coded iconic meanings really helps to understand some of the ideas and reasoning why some images are created.
While reading "Rhetoric of the Image" by Roland Barthes, we learn that every image is a re-presentation of something that already exists. Barthes even argues that some people believe that images come nowhere as close to conveying an image as actual language can do. However, for some reason, we see many images today, both familiar and unfamiliar, that we can derive meaning from.
Barthes goes on to explain that every image can convey meaning to us in three different ways: linguistic, coded iconic messages, and non-coded iconic messages.
Linguistic meanings come from things such as captions on the actual image of even just text on the labels of the things being presented in the image. Like Barthes says, these captions of words included in the images are important because they convey meanings or explain things the actual image might not represent to us. For example, in the Panzani advertisement for Italian food, we read words written in French, which signals that this is not American cuisine (34).
The coded iconic messages refer to the actual image itself. For example, in the Panzani ad we see images of noodles, tomatoes, peppers, sauces and so on. We see colors we consider to be indicative of Italy. Therefore, we image ourselves shopping for fresh produce in a market in Italy where we might be preparing a meal for our family. Because the images are somewhat familiar to us, we can draw other conclusions not soley based on what we see.
Finally, non-coded iconic messages represent a sort of "it is what it is" mentality. We see the same noodles, tomatoes, peppers and so on and think "oh, that is an image of noodles, tomatoes, and peppers coming out of a bag". There is no other meaning other than what we actually see (34).
It is definitely important to be aware of how we derive meaning form the images we see, becuase we hundreds of images every day. If we were driving down the highway looking at billboards without text, we might never get any meaning out of any of them. It is interesting to consider how important the details are in images, because one minor mistake could send the viewer in the wrong direction and the purpose of the image would have failed.
Barthes goes on to explain that every image can convey meaning to us in three different ways: linguistic, coded iconic messages, and non-coded iconic messages.
Linguistic meanings come from things such as captions on the actual image of even just text on the labels of the things being presented in the image. Like Barthes says, these captions of words included in the images are important because they convey meanings or explain things the actual image might not represent to us. For example, in the Panzani advertisement for Italian food, we read words written in French, which signals that this is not American cuisine (34).
The coded iconic messages refer to the actual image itself. For example, in the Panzani ad we see images of noodles, tomatoes, peppers, sauces and so on. We see colors we consider to be indicative of Italy. Therefore, we image ourselves shopping for fresh produce in a market in Italy where we might be preparing a meal for our family. Because the images are somewhat familiar to us, we can draw other conclusions not soley based on what we see.
Finally, non-coded iconic messages represent a sort of "it is what it is" mentality. We see the same noodles, tomatoes, peppers and so on and think "oh, that is an image of noodles, tomatoes, and peppers coming out of a bag". There is no other meaning other than what we actually see (34).
It is definitely important to be aware of how we derive meaning form the images we see, becuase we hundreds of images every day. If we were driving down the highway looking at billboards without text, we might never get any meaning out of any of them. It is interesting to consider how important the details are in images, because one minor mistake could send the viewer in the wrong direction and the purpose of the image would have failed.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Rhetoric of the Image
In Roland Barthes’ essay Rhetoric of the Image, the way in which we see and interpret images are broken down into three parts: linguistic, coded iconic, and non-coded iconic. Barthes breaks images down in this way, defining linguistic as the text attached to the image, the coded iconic as the cultural interpretation of the image, and the non-coded iconic as the image itself with no meanings attached. However, Barthes argues that people recognize the coded and non-coded iconic forms of images at the same time, making the latter of the two impossible.
According to Barthes, “…we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in a pure state. Even if a totally ‘naïve’ image were to be achieved, it would immediately join the sign of naivety and be completed by a third—symbolic—message. Thus the characteristics of all literal messages cannot be substantial but only relational” (pg 38). I agree with Barthes and would go so far as to say that we never see an image in a pure state, no matter if it’s in advertising or in daily life. Everything that we see has some sort of meaning attached to it. Just walking down the street, people are reading each other in a connotative manner. Being tall, short, fat, skinny, a male, or a female all has some sort of connotative meaning that people immediately think of. Rather than seeing a physically fit man standing on the sidewalk wearing a suit, someone is more likely to see a successful business man who is probably smart, wealthy, and works out. It is human nature to want to know about a person and be able to fit that person into a certain category, and society gives us the tools to do just that.
Even if a person were on a secluded beach watching the sun set, she wouldn’t only see the sun setting for what it is, but she would attach other meanings to it. Beauty, serenity, the end of a day, relaxation—all of these words and feelings would overtake her. But even though these words are all attached to a sunset, they really have nothing to do with the sunset itself. Literally, a sunset results from the earth’s rotation. It has nothing to do with beauty or serenity; it’s just a natural event that happens every day. But humans have a tendency to give everything meaning or something to be associated with, and these associations stick and become second nature. It is for this reason that Barthes is correct—we can never encounter a literal image in a pure state. By instinct, people will always add a connotative meaning.
According to Barthes, “…we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in a pure state. Even if a totally ‘naïve’ image were to be achieved, it would immediately join the sign of naivety and be completed by a third—symbolic—message. Thus the characteristics of all literal messages cannot be substantial but only relational” (pg 38). I agree with Barthes and would go so far as to say that we never see an image in a pure state, no matter if it’s in advertising or in daily life. Everything that we see has some sort of meaning attached to it. Just walking down the street, people are reading each other in a connotative manner. Being tall, short, fat, skinny, a male, or a female all has some sort of connotative meaning that people immediately think of. Rather than seeing a physically fit man standing on the sidewalk wearing a suit, someone is more likely to see a successful business man who is probably smart, wealthy, and works out. It is human nature to want to know about a person and be able to fit that person into a certain category, and society gives us the tools to do just that.
Even if a person were on a secluded beach watching the sun set, she wouldn’t only see the sun setting for what it is, but she would attach other meanings to it. Beauty, serenity, the end of a day, relaxation—all of these words and feelings would overtake her. But even though these words are all attached to a sunset, they really have nothing to do with the sunset itself. Literally, a sunset results from the earth’s rotation. It has nothing to do with beauty or serenity; it’s just a natural event that happens every day. But humans have a tendency to give everything meaning or something to be associated with, and these associations stick and become second nature. It is for this reason that Barthes is correct—we can never encounter a literal image in a pure state. By instinct, people will always add a connotative meaning.
Response to Barthes' "Rhetoric of the Image"
Barthes talks about the image and how "...the image is felt to be weak in the respect of meaning: there are those who think that the image is an extremely rudimentary system in comparison with language and those who think that signification cannot exhaust the image's ineffable richness."
A photograph should offer us three messages: a linguistic message, a coded iconic message, and a non-coded iconic message. The linguistic message refers to the words in or around an image that help to explain the photograph one is looking at. Barthes says that in today's society, it seems every image is presented with a text to explain a photograph; this could be a title or a caption. I would completely agree with this. I've taken photography classes for the last 3 years and in every critique I've had, the professor has asked me to name a photo or series of photos to describe something about them. I never think to do that as I'm taking the pictures or even how they all fit together until after they are finished in photoshop and in front of me. I feel like things could be interpreted the wrong way without a title or explanation with it, hence artist statements, but at the same time I do think that an image speaks volumes on its own. There shouldn't need to be a caption unless the "artist" wants to convey a specific message. I like the idea of people getting what they want out of a photo and seeing something different than the person who looks at it after them. In news and advertisements, I agree that photos should be presented with text, but not when it comes to art, but that is because you only want to convey one message.
He makes references to the literal image and the symbolic image when it comes to advertising. I would consider the literal image to be that one message you get because of your experiences and the symbolic one to be taken any way, or more than one way, as you look at it. I agree that everything is constructed. You may not think about how it is when you take a picture, but there is meaning behind why you took that picture and why you stood in that spot, at that angle and chose to take it at that moment. Culture is a huge part of what happens when an image is constructed. There are certain things you can do and cannot, even as you try to do something no one has ever done before. You must start with the trend before you move on to something new. Ideas are created by our experiences in culture.
A photograph should offer us three messages: a linguistic message, a coded iconic message, and a non-coded iconic message. The linguistic message refers to the words in or around an image that help to explain the photograph one is looking at. Barthes says that in today's society, it seems every image is presented with a text to explain a photograph; this could be a title or a caption. I would completely agree with this. I've taken photography classes for the last 3 years and in every critique I've had, the professor has asked me to name a photo or series of photos to describe something about them. I never think to do that as I'm taking the pictures or even how they all fit together until after they are finished in photoshop and in front of me. I feel like things could be interpreted the wrong way without a title or explanation with it, hence artist statements, but at the same time I do think that an image speaks volumes on its own. There shouldn't need to be a caption unless the "artist" wants to convey a specific message. I like the idea of people getting what they want out of a photo and seeing something different than the person who looks at it after them. In news and advertisements, I agree that photos should be presented with text, but not when it comes to art, but that is because you only want to convey one message.
He makes references to the literal image and the symbolic image when it comes to advertising. I would consider the literal image to be that one message you get because of your experiences and the symbolic one to be taken any way, or more than one way, as you look at it. I agree that everything is constructed. You may not think about how it is when you take a picture, but there is meaning behind why you took that picture and why you stood in that spot, at that angle and chose to take it at that moment. Culture is a huge part of what happens when an image is constructed. There are certain things you can do and cannot, even as you try to do something no one has ever done before. You must start with the trend before you move on to something new. Ideas are created by our experiences in culture.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
In Response to Poster
After reading Poster's, "Authors Analogue and Digital", I found that I appreciated his objectivity to both analogue forms of mediums(print) and digital(for example:blogs). We live in a culture that the mediums are rapdily tranistioning from analogue forms such as books to the everday evolving form of digital media like websights. Postor does a great job describing both the postives and negatives of traditional analogue and the digital revolution mediums
Poster pointed out some of the relativly simple but key argumens about why analogue should still be used as a primary medium. Within his piece, he made a point to talk about stablitly and accessaiblity of media like books and newspapers in comparison. Society still and will continue to rely on this very basic and simple concept of printed media because it will always be there. The finalization of print media being released into the general public is on of the it's greatest assets. Unlike digital, which can be changed at any second, print is sold and doesn't change as fast. Not only are books always going to be aroudn, they are widely more accessible to the public than the internet. The idea that anyone can go to the library and get a book, take it home and read is one thing the digital revolution cannot offer everyone. These few advantages have continued to keep analogue at the very basic medium level.
As stated above, digital mediums are forming a new wave of how many of our basic types of media are pushed out to society. Poster made the argument taht digital allows flexabilit in terms of when or who can write,read and publish their own work. Digial allows an open door to everyone to put whatever they want on the web whenever they want. Unlike pring, the words of this medium are not set in stone but are able to change on a moments notice. Poster pointed out that this ability to change and evolve whenever it wants has some positives and negaitves
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)