A link to NPR's coverage of the 50th anniversary of West Side Story. I don't know if this will add anything to your reading of the Miller piece, but I thought it was interesting either way.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14732874&ps=bb4
Monday, October 1, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Abstract of "Seeing Beyond Believing"
Abstract of “Seeing Beyond Belief: Cultural Studies as an Approach to Analysing the Visual” by Martin Lister and Liz Wells
Abstract by Diane Neu
I. Description of Article
Lister and Wells divide their article up into the following five sections: “Introduction,” “Analysis,” “Looking: Form and Meaning,” “Looking: Recognition and Identity,” and “Conclusion.”
Lister and Wells begin by describing what Cultural Studies is before moving into a more detailed analysis of photographs. They describe their process for analyzing photographs and their reasons for analyzing photographs. The importance of asking certain questions about the photograph is stressed. After analyzing photographs from a more social angle, Lister and Wells attempt to look at photographs as more isolated images. The question of what an image means by itself is raised. They then discuss the role of the viewer in greater detail. The viewer can be seen as voyeuristic, and the creator of the image can be seen as catering to that voyeurism in order to send a specific message or to evoke a certain feeling. Lister and Wells conclude by remarking that “the photographic image, is, then, a complex and curious object” (90). Using methods of Cultural Studies can only help one in the process of analysis.
II. Comments and Questions
Introduction:
The introduction begins by describing what exactly Cultural Studies is. According to Lister and Wells, Cultural Studies analyzes “the forms and practices of culture” (61). They take care to note that this study looks at more than just obvious artifacts of culture – it also studies the relationship and power dynamic that these “forms and practices” have in relation to society. They also note that the “culture” in Cultural Studies refers to “everyday symbolic and expressive practices” (61). It is not merely concerned with the study of high culture. Essentially, Cultural Studies must look at society and culture as a whole in order to understand it. Relationships must be studied, understanding the role of institutions is key, and attempting “to separate the cultures of everyday life from practices of representation, visual or otherwise” is futile (61).
After explaining the timeframe which Cultural Studies mainly concerns itself with (“mainly those of the late eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries”), the article explains that one of the main features of Cultural Studies is “the search to understand the relationships of cultural production, consumption, belief and meaning, to social processes and institutions” (61). Looking at how everything in culture is intricately connected and how those connections lead to distributions of power is a key component of Cultural Studies. Cultural Studies also seeks to challenge the idea that those distributions of power are something that just naturally exists. There is no “just because” or “that’s just how it is naturally” in Cultural Studies.
Lister and Wells talk about two areas of study related to Cultural Studies: Media Studies and Visual Cultural Studies. “The study of advertising, popular cinema and television” are all examples of Media Studies, while Visual Cultural Studies seems to be primarily interested in the study of images (photographs) and how these images relate to everyday life and experience (62). This actually confused me a little, since the two seemed so similar and linked. In some ways, Visual Cultural Studies and Media Studies seem like the exact same thing, especially since media today is so visual. It was hard for me to discern the exact differences as Lister and Wells don’t go into the methodology of Media Studies in great detail. Media Studies is apparently more concerned with the Communication Studies aspect of thing.
They were also very clear that while Media Studies and Visual Cultural Studies are related to Cultural Studies, they are not just sub-fields of Cultural Studies. They are their own distinct fields of study. This also kind of confused me sine I felt that the Cultural Studies that they described on the first page of the article could easy be an umbrella for these other two fields of study. I’m not sure if I agree that Visual Cultural Studies in particular is wholly separate from Cultural Studies. Later on in the article they refer to Cultural Studies and Media Studies as a “compound field” (63). That is, the two are interdisciplinary and related. So, which is it? Are they separate or are they merged? Are they just related like how anthropology and sociology are related or are they part of the same field like mechanical engineering and civil engineering?
Lister and Wells then explain the methodology that they will be using to analyze photographs in the rest of the essay. They seek to analyze the photographs “without separating them from social processes” (64). They then provide a list of the seven main features that they will employ in their analysis (I will not repeat it here). These main features of their analysis serve to clarify their interest in the photograph and the methods they will use in studying the photograph. Many of the points are “recognition” points. Essentially, they are recognizing the human element of their research. They can never be entirely neutral or without bias.
Analysis:
When looking at an image, we must first ask the location of the image. Answering this question “will tell us much about how we meet or encounter the image” (65). We must then ask why the photograph is being looked at. What is the viewer seeking to get out of the viewing process? Lister and Wells use an example of a Marlboro cigarette advertisement. The advertisement exists in two forms: on a billboard and as a smaller ad in magazines and newspapers. This change of format impacts the viewing experience of the ad. The billboard is forced upon them, while the viewer selects the magazine ad (via them selecting the magazine). There are different questions to be asked in both contexts. I understood the basic concept here, but I disagreed with it a little. I don’t necessarily see the magazine ad as being “selected” by the viewer. They have no control over the ad material in the magazine. On the same side, you could argue that the billboard viewers could simply decide to not drive past the billboard. Of course, all this brings us back to questions of structuralism. Can we just decide to not look at the billboard or not read the magazine? I’m not sure that we can.
The production of the photograph must also be analyzed. How the image arrived at its location is a question that must be asked. Was the photo staged? Candid? What was the motive behind placing it in its current location? The Marlboro ad is clearly part of “the Philip Morris company’s wider marketing and advertising strategies” as this ad is “a response to the early 1990s ban on advertising cigarettes on British television” (69). So part of analyzing the photograph or advertisement entails understanding the process behind the photograph. What kinds of strategies have been employed? What shifts in cultural understanding is the photograph addressing?
Looking: Form and Meaning:
In this section, Lister and Wells address the issue of looking at an image by itself – without thinking about where it came from, etc. What does the image say on its own? Lister and Wells admit that attempting to do this can raise “difficult and vexed questions about the boundaries of an image” (70). Interestingly, at this point the image is also referred to as a “text.” They then explain five main ways of looking at a photograph unto itself that they refer to as types of conventions:
1. Pictorial conventions
2. Semiotics and codes
3. Photographic conventions
4. Social conventions
5. Power and photographic conventions
I didn’t really see these conventions and codes as being distinct from each other (and Lister and Wells don’t seem to intend them to be), but rather as building upon and relating to one another.
Looking: Recognition and Identity:
This section discusses looking from the viewer’s perspective. How has the artist cued the viewer to look at the image? Where is the viewer in relation to the image? Lister and Wells posit that in photography these visual cues are given through the use of camera techniques, different lenses, etc. They create the viewing experience for the viewer. These photographic techniques were “developed and adjusted in order to take on perspectival conventions already established within Western art” (83). Lister and Wells then go on to discuss some of these techniques in greater detail. The role of the viewer as voyeur is also discussed. What kind of pleasure does the viewer derive from the viewing experience? Was that pleasure intended on the part of the creator? I personally found this to be really interesting. I think that a lot of people tend to think of photography as a more “pure” art form. They think of it as a true representation of an image occurring in real life, but photography is capable of cultural distortion. We see it everyday in magazines and advertisements. There is no such thing as “what you see is what you get” in photography. For instance, the photograph of the biscuit-cutter sheep may be trying to appeal to “those of use who draw rural England into our sense of national identity” (88). The creator of the image may be trying to appeal to the viewer’s personal memories, sense of things lost, appreciate for rural landscape, etc. It’s the British meets Betty Crocker version of the Paris Match cover.
Conclusion:
Lister and Wells call on Barthes in their conclusion. They credit Barthes with drawing “our attention to the fleeting nature of the moment captured in the photograph” (89). Therefore, we must acknowledge that the photograph does not tell the whole story. The picture is not complete. We must aim to thoroughly analyze the photograph in the aforementioned ways in order to gain a greater understanding of the image. The essay then ends with a sort of defense of Cultural Studies. They admit that Cultural Studies is a field that borrows liberally from other fields, but they argue that while this is “a point of criticism,” it is “simultaneously its strength” (90). I didn’t really understand the point of begging their case again at the end, since I felt they had done that pretty thoroughly in the introduction.
III. Key Terms
Cultural Studies
Media Studies
Visual Cultural Studies
Convention(s)
Gaze
Voyeur/voyeurism
Viewing position
Abstract by Diane Neu
I. Description of Article
Lister and Wells divide their article up into the following five sections: “Introduction,” “Analysis,” “Looking: Form and Meaning,” “Looking: Recognition and Identity,” and “Conclusion.”
Lister and Wells begin by describing what Cultural Studies is before moving into a more detailed analysis of photographs. They describe their process for analyzing photographs and their reasons for analyzing photographs. The importance of asking certain questions about the photograph is stressed. After analyzing photographs from a more social angle, Lister and Wells attempt to look at photographs as more isolated images. The question of what an image means by itself is raised. They then discuss the role of the viewer in greater detail. The viewer can be seen as voyeuristic, and the creator of the image can be seen as catering to that voyeurism in order to send a specific message or to evoke a certain feeling. Lister and Wells conclude by remarking that “the photographic image, is, then, a complex and curious object” (90). Using methods of Cultural Studies can only help one in the process of analysis.
II. Comments and Questions
Introduction:
The introduction begins by describing what exactly Cultural Studies is. According to Lister and Wells, Cultural Studies analyzes “the forms and practices of culture” (61). They take care to note that this study looks at more than just obvious artifacts of culture – it also studies the relationship and power dynamic that these “forms and practices” have in relation to society. They also note that the “culture” in Cultural Studies refers to “everyday symbolic and expressive practices” (61). It is not merely concerned with the study of high culture. Essentially, Cultural Studies must look at society and culture as a whole in order to understand it. Relationships must be studied, understanding the role of institutions is key, and attempting “to separate the cultures of everyday life from practices of representation, visual or otherwise” is futile (61).
After explaining the timeframe which Cultural Studies mainly concerns itself with (“mainly those of the late eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries”), the article explains that one of the main features of Cultural Studies is “the search to understand the relationships of cultural production, consumption, belief and meaning, to social processes and institutions” (61). Looking at how everything in culture is intricately connected and how those connections lead to distributions of power is a key component of Cultural Studies. Cultural Studies also seeks to challenge the idea that those distributions of power are something that just naturally exists. There is no “just because” or “that’s just how it is naturally” in Cultural Studies.
Lister and Wells talk about two areas of study related to Cultural Studies: Media Studies and Visual Cultural Studies. “The study of advertising, popular cinema and television” are all examples of Media Studies, while Visual Cultural Studies seems to be primarily interested in the study of images (photographs) and how these images relate to everyday life and experience (62). This actually confused me a little, since the two seemed so similar and linked. In some ways, Visual Cultural Studies and Media Studies seem like the exact same thing, especially since media today is so visual. It was hard for me to discern the exact differences as Lister and Wells don’t go into the methodology of Media Studies in great detail. Media Studies is apparently more concerned with the Communication Studies aspect of thing.
They were also very clear that while Media Studies and Visual Cultural Studies are related to Cultural Studies, they are not just sub-fields of Cultural Studies. They are their own distinct fields of study. This also kind of confused me sine I felt that the Cultural Studies that they described on the first page of the article could easy be an umbrella for these other two fields of study. I’m not sure if I agree that Visual Cultural Studies in particular is wholly separate from Cultural Studies. Later on in the article they refer to Cultural Studies and Media Studies as a “compound field” (63). That is, the two are interdisciplinary and related. So, which is it? Are they separate or are they merged? Are they just related like how anthropology and sociology are related or are they part of the same field like mechanical engineering and civil engineering?
Lister and Wells then explain the methodology that they will be using to analyze photographs in the rest of the essay. They seek to analyze the photographs “without separating them from social processes” (64). They then provide a list of the seven main features that they will employ in their analysis (I will not repeat it here). These main features of their analysis serve to clarify their interest in the photograph and the methods they will use in studying the photograph. Many of the points are “recognition” points. Essentially, they are recognizing the human element of their research. They can never be entirely neutral or without bias.
Analysis:
When looking at an image, we must first ask the location of the image. Answering this question “will tell us much about how we meet or encounter the image” (65). We must then ask why the photograph is being looked at. What is the viewer seeking to get out of the viewing process? Lister and Wells use an example of a Marlboro cigarette advertisement. The advertisement exists in two forms: on a billboard and as a smaller ad in magazines and newspapers. This change of format impacts the viewing experience of the ad. The billboard is forced upon them, while the viewer selects the magazine ad (via them selecting the magazine). There are different questions to be asked in both contexts. I understood the basic concept here, but I disagreed with it a little. I don’t necessarily see the magazine ad as being “selected” by the viewer. They have no control over the ad material in the magazine. On the same side, you could argue that the billboard viewers could simply decide to not drive past the billboard. Of course, all this brings us back to questions of structuralism. Can we just decide to not look at the billboard or not read the magazine? I’m not sure that we can.
The production of the photograph must also be analyzed. How the image arrived at its location is a question that must be asked. Was the photo staged? Candid? What was the motive behind placing it in its current location? The Marlboro ad is clearly part of “the Philip Morris company’s wider marketing and advertising strategies” as this ad is “a response to the early 1990s ban on advertising cigarettes on British television” (69). So part of analyzing the photograph or advertisement entails understanding the process behind the photograph. What kinds of strategies have been employed? What shifts in cultural understanding is the photograph addressing?
Looking: Form and Meaning:
In this section, Lister and Wells address the issue of looking at an image by itself – without thinking about where it came from, etc. What does the image say on its own? Lister and Wells admit that attempting to do this can raise “difficult and vexed questions about the boundaries of an image” (70). Interestingly, at this point the image is also referred to as a “text.” They then explain five main ways of looking at a photograph unto itself that they refer to as types of conventions:
1. Pictorial conventions
2. Semiotics and codes
3. Photographic conventions
4. Social conventions
5. Power and photographic conventions
I didn’t really see these conventions and codes as being distinct from each other (and Lister and Wells don’t seem to intend them to be), but rather as building upon and relating to one another.
Looking: Recognition and Identity:
This section discusses looking from the viewer’s perspective. How has the artist cued the viewer to look at the image? Where is the viewer in relation to the image? Lister and Wells posit that in photography these visual cues are given through the use of camera techniques, different lenses, etc. They create the viewing experience for the viewer. These photographic techniques were “developed and adjusted in order to take on perspectival conventions already established within Western art” (83). Lister and Wells then go on to discuss some of these techniques in greater detail. The role of the viewer as voyeur is also discussed. What kind of pleasure does the viewer derive from the viewing experience? Was that pleasure intended on the part of the creator? I personally found this to be really interesting. I think that a lot of people tend to think of photography as a more “pure” art form. They think of it as a true representation of an image occurring in real life, but photography is capable of cultural distortion. We see it everyday in magazines and advertisements. There is no such thing as “what you see is what you get” in photography. For instance, the photograph of the biscuit-cutter sheep may be trying to appeal to “those of use who draw rural England into our sense of national identity” (88). The creator of the image may be trying to appeal to the viewer’s personal memories, sense of things lost, appreciate for rural landscape, etc. It’s the British meets Betty Crocker version of the Paris Match cover.
Conclusion:
Lister and Wells call on Barthes in their conclusion. They credit Barthes with drawing “our attention to the fleeting nature of the moment captured in the photograph” (89). Therefore, we must acknowledge that the photograph does not tell the whole story. The picture is not complete. We must aim to thoroughly analyze the photograph in the aforementioned ways in order to gain a greater understanding of the image. The essay then ends with a sort of defense of Cultural Studies. They admit that Cultural Studies is a field that borrows liberally from other fields, but they argue that while this is “a point of criticism,” it is “simultaneously its strength” (90). I didn’t really understand the point of begging their case again at the end, since I felt they had done that pretty thoroughly in the introduction.
III. Key Terms
Cultural Studies
Media Studies
Visual Cultural Studies
Convention(s)
Gaze
Voyeur/voyeurism
Viewing position
Abstract of "Seeing Beyond Belief"
Description of Article
I really enjoy this article because of its straightforward approach of explaining cultural studies as applied to visual artifacts. To begin with, Lister and Wells offer a definition of Cultural Studies in general: "...an academic field [...] interested in the enabling and regulating institutions, and less formal social arrangements, in and through which culture is produced, enacted and consumed" (61). I am surprised that this definition doesn't include mention of the artifacts themselves that are objects or conveyors of "culture." The authors elaborate by saying that "a distinctive feature of Cultural Studies is the search to understand the relationships of cultural production, consumption, belief and meaning, to social processes and institutions"(61). The rest of the article breaks down that definition by applying it to the study of visual media.
Researchers are interested in various elements of an image. These include: 1)the image's "social life and history"
2)it's "cycle of production, circulation, and consumption" and
3)it's "specific material properties"(64).
The analysis of the image is broken into two parts: the context of viewing and the context of production. Within the context of viewing we should ask certain questions:
1)Where is the image?
2)Why is the viewer looking at the photograph?
(Is it idle or purposeful looking?)
Within the context of production, we should another question:
1)How did the image get there?
The authors then go on to talk about ways of analyzing the "specific material properties" of a piece. If I am understanding correctly, they refer to these properties as originating from conventions within the visual format, and say that these conventions have sociological, literary, and art historical roots. Interestingly, the authors bring the idea of pictorial conventions back to the concept of signification, pointing out that often signs are arbitrary-- that the signifier or physical symbol or a thing may not bear much resemblance to the signified (what the thing stands for). I thought of the typical clip-art version of a tree as I was reading this. I have never seen a tree that looks like that signifier and yet I know exactly what is signified when I see that symbol. These conventions exist within every art medium--these authors spend a lot of time addressing the conventions within the world of photography.
Some of the impotant conventional operations in photography are:
1)framing (of the subject)--the "edges or boundaries of the picture"
2)gaze (of the subject)--are we viewer voyeurs or is the subject looking back at us?
There is a very interesting tangent to this piece, in which the authors show how the voyeuristic gaze (seeing but not being seen) can tend to make the viewer "objectify" the subject.
3)camera position
4)physical proximity (to the subject) and the viewer's position in relation to the subject's position(88).
5)lighting--it's quality, what it highlights and obscures
6)context
7)the depth of the field--how much of the scene is in sharp focus.
In treating the subject of a photograph, the fotographer relies on the viewer's knowledge of social conventions to understand the significance of the piece. We learn these conventions through our lived experience with the world. For example, we need to be able to understand the feelings of the subjects by observing their body language and facial expressions.
The analysis of these conventions shows us that photographs can be "complexely coded cultural artifacts"(89). Barthes identified this coded meaning as "the rhetoric of the image"(90).
Comments and Questions
As I am writing this abstract, I realize I am confused by the term "conventions" because I think of "conventional"--in other words, to me, conventions are the traditional and recognized way of doing things. So to say that photographers follow conventions means to me that they stick to an ordered process of photography. On page 74 the authors say that "the use of conventions by photographers is a matter of assimilated 'know-how', a trained sense of 'this is how to do it' gained 'on the job' and by observing what does and does not 'work' in concrete situations." However, the photographs that most catch our eye are the ones that break certain conventional models of photography. For example, Mapplethorpe's "Portrait of Clifton" is so jarring because it doesn't follow traditional methods---the proximity of the subject, the use of lighting, the subject's gaze--all of these are untraditional and therefore, call the viewer's attention.
I really enjoy this article because of its straightforward approach of explaining cultural studies as applied to visual artifacts. To begin with, Lister and Wells offer a definition of Cultural Studies in general: "...an academic field [...] interested in the enabling and regulating institutions, and less formal social arrangements, in and through which culture is produced, enacted and consumed" (61). I am surprised that this definition doesn't include mention of the artifacts themselves that are objects or conveyors of "culture." The authors elaborate by saying that "a distinctive feature of Cultural Studies is the search to understand the relationships of cultural production, consumption, belief and meaning, to social processes and institutions"(61). The rest of the article breaks down that definition by applying it to the study of visual media.
Researchers are interested in various elements of an image. These include: 1)the image's "social life and history"
2)it's "cycle of production, circulation, and consumption" and
3)it's "specific material properties"(64).
The analysis of the image is broken into two parts: the context of viewing and the context of production. Within the context of viewing we should ask certain questions:
1)Where is the image?
2)Why is the viewer looking at the photograph?
(Is it idle or purposeful looking?)
Within the context of production, we should another question:
1)How did the image get there?
The authors then go on to talk about ways of analyzing the "specific material properties" of a piece. If I am understanding correctly, they refer to these properties as originating from conventions within the visual format, and say that these conventions have sociological, literary, and art historical roots. Interestingly, the authors bring the idea of pictorial conventions back to the concept of signification, pointing out that often signs are arbitrary-- that the signifier or physical symbol or a thing may not bear much resemblance to the signified (what the thing stands for). I thought of the typical clip-art version of a tree as I was reading this. I have never seen a tree that looks like that signifier and yet I know exactly what is signified when I see that symbol. These conventions exist within every art medium--these authors spend a lot of time addressing the conventions within the world of photography.
Some of the impotant conventional operations in photography are:
1)framing (of the subject)--the "edges or boundaries of the picture"
2)gaze (of the subject)--are we viewer voyeurs or is the subject looking back at us?
There is a very interesting tangent to this piece, in which the authors show how the voyeuristic gaze (seeing but not being seen) can tend to make the viewer "objectify" the subject.
3)camera position
4)physical proximity (to the subject) and the viewer's position in relation to the subject's position(88).
5)lighting--it's quality, what it highlights and obscures
6)context
7)the depth of the field--how much of the scene is in sharp focus.
In treating the subject of a photograph, the fotographer relies on the viewer's knowledge of social conventions to understand the significance of the piece. We learn these conventions through our lived experience with the world. For example, we need to be able to understand the feelings of the subjects by observing their body language and facial expressions.
The analysis of these conventions shows us that photographs can be "complexely coded cultural artifacts"(89). Barthes identified this coded meaning as "the rhetoric of the image"(90).
Comments and Questions
As I am writing this abstract, I realize I am confused by the term "conventions" because I think of "conventional"--in other words, to me, conventions are the traditional and recognized way of doing things. So to say that photographers follow conventions means to me that they stick to an ordered process of photography. On page 74 the authors say that "the use of conventions by photographers is a matter of assimilated 'know-how', a trained sense of 'this is how to do it' gained 'on the job' and by observing what does and does not 'work' in concrete situations." However, the photographs that most catch our eye are the ones that break certain conventional models of photography. For example, Mapplethorpe's "Portrait of Clifton" is so jarring because it doesn't follow traditional methods---the proximity of the subject, the use of lighting, the subject's gaze--all of these are untraditional and therefore, call the viewer's attention.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Some Links
I was particularly intrigued by Van Leeuwen's mention of "golliwog" dolls since I had never seen or heard of them before. Here are some links that I found with a quick Google search. I thought it was pretty interesting how many people deal and collect these dolls. I understand collecting them for their historical significance, but the graphics on some of the pages were pretty offensive - more cherishing the dolls than studying them, if that makes sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/golliwog/
http://www.geocities.com/~gipsytoo/golliwogs.html
http://golliwogs.com/history/
http://www.geocities.com/~gipsytoo/golliwogcollectables.html
A personal blog that talks about golliwogs - I thought it interesting that the person writing seems so grateful that "our culture had moved past such horrible displays of racial intolerance and misunderstanding" by the time they grew up in the 80's. I'm not so sure about that.
http://www.threadbared.com/2005/05/golliblog.html
My personal favorite (note the sarcasm) - a "Save our Golliwoggs" page. Wow.
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/golliwog.htm
The Guardian has a lot of articles on golliwogs, although their archives don't go far back enough to find the one referenced in the article. However, I thought this one was pretty interesting because of the political ramifications.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,,547562,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/golliwog/
http://www.geocities.com/~gipsytoo/golliwogs.html
http://golliwogs.com/history/
http://www.geocities.com/~gipsytoo/golliwogcollectables.html
A personal blog that talks about golliwogs - I thought it interesting that the person writing seems so grateful that "our culture had moved past such horrible displays of racial intolerance and misunderstanding" by the time they grew up in the 80's. I'm not so sure about that.
http://www.threadbared.com/2005/05/golliblog.html
My personal favorite (note the sarcasm) - a "Save our Golliwoggs" page. Wow.
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/golliwog.htm
The Guardian has a lot of articles on golliwogs, although their archives don't go far back enough to find the one referenced in the article. However, I thought this one was pretty interesting because of the political ramifications.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,,547562,00.html
Monday, September 24, 2007
Semiotics and Iconography
Semiotics and Iconography
By Theo van Leeuwen
Abstract by Patricia Little
Summary
In the chapter entitled “Semiotics and Iconography” in the book Handbook of Visual Analysis, Theo van Leeuwen distinguishes the differences between semiotics and iconography. He specifically refers to Roland Barthes visual semiotics in this discussion. Van Leeuwen immediately begins by describing their basic differences, “But where Barthian visual semiotics studies only the image itself, and treats cultural meanings as a given currency which is shared by everyone who is at all acculturated to contemporary popular culture, and which can then be activated by the style and content of the image, iconography also pays attention to the context in which the image is produced and circulated, and to how and why cultural meanings and their visual expressions come about historically” (92).
Van Leeuwen begins by describing denotation in semiotics. He explains, while this is the literal phase, viewers of the image can still see what they want to see. In order to rectify this and make viewers see just what the producers of the image want them to see, they use a few different techniques. These techniques include categorization, groups vs. individuals, distancing, and surrounding text.
Connotation is taken up next and is described as what the denoted images stand for. He explains that this is myth according to Barthes. An interesting note that van Leeuwen points out is what the visual images are doing (their actual literal poses) has meaning. Posing people or objects in a certain way will mean something specific to most people. He uses, for example, President Kennedy’s pose with his hands clasped, looking up. This is a general pose that makes the viewer feel they are looking at, “youthfulness, spirituality, and purity” (97).
Van Leeuwen then moves to iconography. His first topic in this section is representational meaning. He asks, “How does iconography establish that a particular image represents a particular (kind of) person (or object or place)?” (102). He lists several ways that an image can be particularized. These ways include a title, background research, identity through research, and on the basis of verbal descriptions. One amusing aside, clearly not intended by the author, is when he describes identity established through reference to other pictures. He explains that many popular images do not need to be titled because they are common. It is after time has passed that these once common names become forgotten. He states, “No ‘title’ is needed for the recognition of runner Nellie Cooman in an advertisement” (106). He is clearly right about fading recognition because I have never heard of Nellie Cooman!
He next moves to iconographical symbolism. This type of symbolism has two main subgroups; abstract and figurative symbolism. Abstract symbols have “abstract shapes with symbolic value, for example the cross” and figurative symbols “represent people, places, and things with symbolic value” (107). However, what is of more interest in this section is the difference between open symbolism and disguised symbolism.
To explain this difference he refers to Renaissance painting. He states, “A motif is an open symbol of something when it is not represented naturalistically… a disguised symbol when it is represented naturalistically” (109). Seems slightly vague, but he continues with a more current explanation. Disguised symbolism is an interesting problem for the contemporary artist. He writes “When artists draw on unconscious inspiration rather than on consciously known symbolic traditions symbolism will be repressed on a conscious level. When critics then nevertheless give a symbolic interpretation of such works, the artist will often contest it” (109-110). This point is made very clear in Amy Tan’s memoir The Opposite of Faith: Memoirs of a Writing Life. Tan is often surprised when readers and critics place symbolic significance in practically every page of her book, where she never had intended it. While this is not the type of art van Leeuwen is referring to, it remains a valid example of disguised symbolism.
Van Leeuwen finally moves on to his last section, iconological symbolism. This move from iconographical to iconological has to do with discussing the identification of these symbols to interpreting them. He states, “Iconological analysis, then, draws together the iconographical symbols and stylistic features of an image or a representational tradition into a coherent interpretation which provides the ‘why’ behind the representations analyzed” (116).
In conclusion, van Leeuwen sums up the differences between semiotics and iconography. These differences are two fold and are; first, a “difference between the two methods…art works of the past versus media images of the present” (117). And secondly, “visual semiotics remains restricted to textual arguments…whereas iconography also uses arguments based on intertextual comparison and archival background research” (117).
Some Analysis
There does not seem to be much analysis needed for this work. Van Leeuwen is extremely exact with his explanation of the given material. One note, however, that I find interesting is the space and the way in which he discusses the given topic. His explanation of semiotics is clear and concise. Examples are given, when needed, and then he quickly moves on to the next topic. When van Leeuwen finally moves on to iconography the reader gets a sense that this is where he really wants to be. It is in this material that we get the best of the author. He uses more exciting and interesting examples and litters the text with pictures to better describe what he is talking about. It is interesting to note when he uses the example of President Kennedy’s pose he fails to supply the reader with a picture. However, when discussing African-Americans in relation to racist images with fruit, he gives the reader ample proof. It does not seem that he has anything in particular against semiotics, but it is clear that he believes iconography is a more useful and full system.
By Theo van Leeuwen
Abstract by Patricia Little
Summary
In the chapter entitled “Semiotics and Iconography” in the book Handbook of Visual Analysis, Theo van Leeuwen distinguishes the differences between semiotics and iconography. He specifically refers to Roland Barthes visual semiotics in this discussion. Van Leeuwen immediately begins by describing their basic differences, “But where Barthian visual semiotics studies only the image itself, and treats cultural meanings as a given currency which is shared by everyone who is at all acculturated to contemporary popular culture, and which can then be activated by the style and content of the image, iconography also pays attention to the context in which the image is produced and circulated, and to how and why cultural meanings and their visual expressions come about historically” (92).
Van Leeuwen begins by describing denotation in semiotics. He explains, while this is the literal phase, viewers of the image can still see what they want to see. In order to rectify this and make viewers see just what the producers of the image want them to see, they use a few different techniques. These techniques include categorization, groups vs. individuals, distancing, and surrounding text.
Connotation is taken up next and is described as what the denoted images stand for. He explains that this is myth according to Barthes. An interesting note that van Leeuwen points out is what the visual images are doing (their actual literal poses) has meaning. Posing people or objects in a certain way will mean something specific to most people. He uses, for example, President Kennedy’s pose with his hands clasped, looking up. This is a general pose that makes the viewer feel they are looking at, “youthfulness, spirituality, and purity” (97).
Van Leeuwen then moves to iconography. His first topic in this section is representational meaning. He asks, “How does iconography establish that a particular image represents a particular (kind of) person (or object or place)?” (102). He lists several ways that an image can be particularized. These ways include a title, background research, identity through research, and on the basis of verbal descriptions. One amusing aside, clearly not intended by the author, is when he describes identity established through reference to other pictures. He explains that many popular images do not need to be titled because they are common. It is after time has passed that these once common names become forgotten. He states, “No ‘title’ is needed for the recognition of runner Nellie Cooman in an advertisement” (106). He is clearly right about fading recognition because I have never heard of Nellie Cooman!
He next moves to iconographical symbolism. This type of symbolism has two main subgroups; abstract and figurative symbolism. Abstract symbols have “abstract shapes with symbolic value, for example the cross” and figurative symbols “represent people, places, and things with symbolic value” (107). However, what is of more interest in this section is the difference between open symbolism and disguised symbolism.
To explain this difference he refers to Renaissance painting. He states, “A motif is an open symbol of something when it is not represented naturalistically… a disguised symbol when it is represented naturalistically” (109). Seems slightly vague, but he continues with a more current explanation. Disguised symbolism is an interesting problem for the contemporary artist. He writes “When artists draw on unconscious inspiration rather than on consciously known symbolic traditions symbolism will be repressed on a conscious level. When critics then nevertheless give a symbolic interpretation of such works, the artist will often contest it” (109-110). This point is made very clear in Amy Tan’s memoir The Opposite of Faith: Memoirs of a Writing Life. Tan is often surprised when readers and critics place symbolic significance in practically every page of her book, where she never had intended it. While this is not the type of art van Leeuwen is referring to, it remains a valid example of disguised symbolism.
Van Leeuwen finally moves on to his last section, iconological symbolism. This move from iconographical to iconological has to do with discussing the identification of these symbols to interpreting them. He states, “Iconological analysis, then, draws together the iconographical symbols and stylistic features of an image or a representational tradition into a coherent interpretation which provides the ‘why’ behind the representations analyzed” (116).
In conclusion, van Leeuwen sums up the differences between semiotics and iconography. These differences are two fold and are; first, a “difference between the two methods…art works of the past versus media images of the present” (117). And secondly, “visual semiotics remains restricted to textual arguments…whereas iconography also uses arguments based on intertextual comparison and archival background research” (117).
Some Analysis
There does not seem to be much analysis needed for this work. Van Leeuwen is extremely exact with his explanation of the given material. One note, however, that I find interesting is the space and the way in which he discusses the given topic. His explanation of semiotics is clear and concise. Examples are given, when needed, and then he quickly moves on to the next topic. When van Leeuwen finally moves on to iconography the reader gets a sense that this is where he really wants to be. It is in this material that we get the best of the author. He uses more exciting and interesting examples and litters the text with pictures to better describe what he is talking about. It is interesting to note when he uses the example of President Kennedy’s pose he fails to supply the reader with a picture. However, when discussing African-Americans in relation to racist images with fruit, he gives the reader ample proof. It does not seem that he has anything in particular against semiotics, but it is clear that he believes iconography is a more useful and full system.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Edwards: Echoes of Camelot
Bill Schnupp
Abstract: Janis Edwards’ “Echoes of Camelot”
I. Summary
Edwards opens his piece with the argument that images disseminated by the mass media in connection with noteworthy social events became inextricably linked with those events in the form of “cultural remembering.” Essentially, the image encapsulates a particular historical or social moment—along with the associations that accompany such moments—and embeds it in the collective consciousness, easily retained and recalled. The poignancy of these images is found in the way they “express particulars to evoke the universal” (179). As an example, Edwards cites Joe Rosenthal’s World War II image of the flag raising at the battle of Iwo Jima—a very specific image that imparts (at least in one potential reading) ideas of patriotism, victory, and collective effort. Edwards expands on this example to demonstrate the longevity of the flag image by linking it to a similar image of firefighters raising a flag over the ruins of the WTC in 2002. The ideas present in the depiction of the flag raising at Iwo Jima are called forth in the image with the firefighters, and subsequently expanded on, thus granting the image a greater and more immediate potency.
Edwards next moves into a more illustrative example: the assassination of John F. Kennedy, particularly the photograph of a 3 year-old JFK Jr. saluting his father’s funeral procession. The author posits that this photograph is an instance of depictive rhetoric, an image that lives in the collective consciousness. The image of the lonely child, his father stolen away, paralleled the “national grief”: a country dispossessed of its innocence, leaderless. This and other photos of the Kennedy family served to forge a parasocial relationship (a one-sided relationship between the public and those represented by the mass media).
Edwards later expands on the “salute” image in a discussion of JFK Jr.’s own death in 1999: his plane crash was remote and isolated; not under media scrutiny until after the fact. Consequently, the image of the salute was widely and effectively used by the media to convey a sense of loss and mourning similar to that created in the photograph’s original context. Indeed the feelings were equally as poignant, and further reveal the depth of the parasocial relationship: “the salute photograph functions to engender outrage—not simply the outrage that accompanies a premature and (apparently) avoidable accident, but the outrage that this can be happening again—to the Kennedy’s, to us. The salute photograph connects the past and the present through its symbolic twin expressions of outrage and regret” (185). This stems into the ideas of an image’s truth value (meaning) and its symbolic value (accompanying connotations and ideas).
The author then offers eleven qualities common to such iconic/outrage-provoking photographs:
1. Celebrity
2. Prominence
3. Frequency
4. Profit
5. Instantaneousness
6. Fame of Subjects
7. Transposability
8. Importance of Events
9. Metonymy
10. Primordiality and/or Cultural Resonance
11. Striking Composition
The piece then moves to a notation of how depictive rhetorics and iconic images are appropriated by cartoonists and the mass media (sometimes inappropriately). Edwards’ closing thoughts are particularly engaging: “The invocation of the mythic narrative of the Kennedy promise and end of that promise prompted a mourning that was directed inward. As a nation, we mourned our own destiny, remembered through media images that returned us to that earlier time. . .the use of such images connects two messages, from now and then, linking together the “truth value” of a photograph and its symbolic value in harmonious resonance” (193).
II. Analysis
I think Edwards controlling idea here--that events of social gravity stick in our collective memory to be applied not only to their initial circumstances, but to successive events as well--is very compelling (and accurate). For example, I don't think it would be possible to ask someone about 9/11 and receive nothing in return: the image of the WTC smoking and tumbling lives in the American collective consciousness. What I find even more interesting though, is the way Edwards describes how an event can serve as the impetus for us to turn in upon ourselves. I think of it as a kind of frame of reference: it begins wide, on a social event of mass significance, but then tightens to each individual and causes them to refelct on themselves, to focus on their problem, their loss.
Fresh from Barthes, I also find myself attempting interpretation of Edwards’ idea through a semiotic/mythic lens; I think the parallels are definitely present. The image of the young Kennedy saluting holds the truth value of a child, formally dressed for a funeral or other somber occasion. The symbolic value, however, are the ideas of national grief and the loss of both innocence and a leader. To me, this feels like the movement between the linguistic and semiotic systems: in the linguistic scheme, there is photo of a boy in formal dress saluting as a funeral procession passes; the meaning is clear, a somber occasion, personal loss, etc. This filters into the mythic narrative, and the boy is no longer a boy, but a nation bereft of leadership. Edwards’ final remarks about the harmonious union of truth and symbolism also suggest the fluid relationship of meaning and form, of linguistics and semiotics to achieve meaning.
That said, I don’t think a completely pure version of Barthes’ ideas can be applied to this reading, as I believe Edwards definitely employs some iconographical ideas (despite the fact that iconography seems more centered on classic/antiquated art). For instance, at one point in her discussion, she writes that “the news media poses a situation that requires a distinction between how a photograph was understood at the time and how it might be understood in the current day” (184). If I read Barthes correctly, texts are severed from their historical context in their interpretation, as the role of the semiologist/mythologist is to stop the fluid movement between the linguistic and mythologic systems. A large part of Edwards argument, however, is that images are encapsulated in their historic context; this quality is what allows for the layered meaning that results from re-presenting a past image in contemporary times. This idea clearly conforms to Van Leeuwens’ “Semiotics and iconography” when he writes that “iconography also uses arguments based on intertextual comparison[a past image recalled to the present] and archival background research[ inclusion of historical context]” (117).
It is in my attempt to apply and understand Van Leeuwens’ ideas that I find myself a bit confused about a part of Edwards’ piece. I understand that the salute photograph is a myth of sorts, and that it consequently holds a meaning beyond that of a little boy saluting. Edwards frequently calls the photo an iconic image. I can’t decide if this image is an example of iconographical or iconological symbolism, as Van Leeuwen distinguishes them in the following way:
“Iconographical symbolism. . .denote[s] a particular person, thing or place, but also the ideas or
concepts attached to it. . .iconographical symbolism is apprehended by realizing that a male figure with a
knife represents St. Bartholomew. . .” (100-1).
“Iconological symbolism is what, in another context, would be called ideological meaning. . .to ascertain
those underlying principles which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or
philosophical persuasion” (101).
The two ideas seem almost indistinguishable to me. In each case, the iconic symbol is accompanied by associations, concepts, and idea. At first, I thought the fact that Van Leeuwen explicitly mentions nations in his discussion of iconological symbolism made it clear, but now I’m not so sure. Iconographical also denotes a symbol that evokes more than just itself. Perhaps I’m reading to much into this; maybe someone can straighten it out for me?
III. Questions, Key Terms, and Further Reading
1. What do you make of Edwards’ closing thought—that the symbolic meanings of images spark a self-reflexive
impulse?
2. What ideas do you feel this piece is more informed by: Semiotics? Iconography? Both?
Key Terms:
Visual rhetoric
Depictive Rhetoric
Parasocial Relationship
Truth Value
Symbolic Value
Iconic
Cultural Remembering/Collective Memory
Links:
http://www.participations.org/volume%203/issue%201/3_01_hortonwohl.htm
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal201459
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~prope002/visualRhet.htm
Abstract: Janis Edwards’ “Echoes of Camelot”
I. Summary
Edwards opens his piece with the argument that images disseminated by the mass media in connection with noteworthy social events became inextricably linked with those events in the form of “cultural remembering.” Essentially, the image encapsulates a particular historical or social moment—along with the associations that accompany such moments—and embeds it in the collective consciousness, easily retained and recalled. The poignancy of these images is found in the way they “express particulars to evoke the universal” (179). As an example, Edwards cites Joe Rosenthal’s World War II image of the flag raising at the battle of Iwo Jima—a very specific image that imparts (at least in one potential reading) ideas of patriotism, victory, and collective effort. Edwards expands on this example to demonstrate the longevity of the flag image by linking it to a similar image of firefighters raising a flag over the ruins of the WTC in 2002. The ideas present in the depiction of the flag raising at Iwo Jima are called forth in the image with the firefighters, and subsequently expanded on, thus granting the image a greater and more immediate potency.
Edwards next moves into a more illustrative example: the assassination of John F. Kennedy, particularly the photograph of a 3 year-old JFK Jr. saluting his father’s funeral procession. The author posits that this photograph is an instance of depictive rhetoric, an image that lives in the collective consciousness. The image of the lonely child, his father stolen away, paralleled the “national grief”: a country dispossessed of its innocence, leaderless. This and other photos of the Kennedy family served to forge a parasocial relationship (a one-sided relationship between the public and those represented by the mass media).
Edwards later expands on the “salute” image in a discussion of JFK Jr.’s own death in 1999: his plane crash was remote and isolated; not under media scrutiny until after the fact. Consequently, the image of the salute was widely and effectively used by the media to convey a sense of loss and mourning similar to that created in the photograph’s original context. Indeed the feelings were equally as poignant, and further reveal the depth of the parasocial relationship: “the salute photograph functions to engender outrage—not simply the outrage that accompanies a premature and (apparently) avoidable accident, but the outrage that this can be happening again—to the Kennedy’s, to us. The salute photograph connects the past and the present through its symbolic twin expressions of outrage and regret” (185). This stems into the ideas of an image’s truth value (meaning) and its symbolic value (accompanying connotations and ideas).
The author then offers eleven qualities common to such iconic/outrage-provoking photographs:
1. Celebrity
2. Prominence
3. Frequency
4. Profit
5. Instantaneousness
6. Fame of Subjects
7. Transposability
8. Importance of Events
9. Metonymy
10. Primordiality and/or Cultural Resonance
11. Striking Composition
The piece then moves to a notation of how depictive rhetorics and iconic images are appropriated by cartoonists and the mass media (sometimes inappropriately). Edwards’ closing thoughts are particularly engaging: “The invocation of the mythic narrative of the Kennedy promise and end of that promise prompted a mourning that was directed inward. As a nation, we mourned our own destiny, remembered through media images that returned us to that earlier time. . .the use of such images connects two messages, from now and then, linking together the “truth value” of a photograph and its symbolic value in harmonious resonance” (193).
II. Analysis
I think Edwards controlling idea here--that events of social gravity stick in our collective memory to be applied not only to their initial circumstances, but to successive events as well--is very compelling (and accurate). For example, I don't think it would be possible to ask someone about 9/11 and receive nothing in return: the image of the WTC smoking and tumbling lives in the American collective consciousness. What I find even more interesting though, is the way Edwards describes how an event can serve as the impetus for us to turn in upon ourselves. I think of it as a kind of frame of reference: it begins wide, on a social event of mass significance, but then tightens to each individual and causes them to refelct on themselves, to focus on their problem, their loss.
Fresh from Barthes, I also find myself attempting interpretation of Edwards’ idea through a semiotic/mythic lens; I think the parallels are definitely present. The image of the young Kennedy saluting holds the truth value of a child, formally dressed for a funeral or other somber occasion. The symbolic value, however, are the ideas of national grief and the loss of both innocence and a leader. To me, this feels like the movement between the linguistic and semiotic systems: in the linguistic scheme, there is photo of a boy in formal dress saluting as a funeral procession passes; the meaning is clear, a somber occasion, personal loss, etc. This filters into the mythic narrative, and the boy is no longer a boy, but a nation bereft of leadership. Edwards’ final remarks about the harmonious union of truth and symbolism also suggest the fluid relationship of meaning and form, of linguistics and semiotics to achieve meaning.
That said, I don’t think a completely pure version of Barthes’ ideas can be applied to this reading, as I believe Edwards definitely employs some iconographical ideas (despite the fact that iconography seems more centered on classic/antiquated art). For instance, at one point in her discussion, she writes that “the news media poses a situation that requires a distinction between how a photograph was understood at the time and how it might be understood in the current day” (184). If I read Barthes correctly, texts are severed from their historical context in their interpretation, as the role of the semiologist/mythologist is to stop the fluid movement between the linguistic and mythologic systems. A large part of Edwards argument, however, is that images are encapsulated in their historic context; this quality is what allows for the layered meaning that results from re-presenting a past image in contemporary times. This idea clearly conforms to Van Leeuwens’ “Semiotics and iconography” when he writes that “iconography also uses arguments based on intertextual comparison[a past image recalled to the present] and archival background research[ inclusion of historical context]” (117).
It is in my attempt to apply and understand Van Leeuwens’ ideas that I find myself a bit confused about a part of Edwards’ piece. I understand that the salute photograph is a myth of sorts, and that it consequently holds a meaning beyond that of a little boy saluting. Edwards frequently calls the photo an iconic image. I can’t decide if this image is an example of iconographical or iconological symbolism, as Van Leeuwen distinguishes them in the following way:
“Iconographical symbolism. . .denote[s] a particular person, thing or place, but also the ideas or
concepts attached to it. . .iconographical symbolism is apprehended by realizing that a male figure with a
knife represents St. Bartholomew. . .” (100-1).
“Iconological symbolism is what, in another context, would be called ideological meaning. . .to ascertain
those underlying principles which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or
philosophical persuasion” (101).
The two ideas seem almost indistinguishable to me. In each case, the iconic symbol is accompanied by associations, concepts, and idea. At first, I thought the fact that Van Leeuwen explicitly mentions nations in his discussion of iconological symbolism made it clear, but now I’m not so sure. Iconographical also denotes a symbol that evokes more than just itself. Perhaps I’m reading to much into this; maybe someone can straighten it out for me?
III. Questions, Key Terms, and Further Reading
1. What do you make of Edwards’ closing thought—that the symbolic meanings of images spark a self-reflexive
impulse?
2. What ideas do you feel this piece is more informed by: Semiotics? Iconography? Both?
Key Terms:
Visual rhetoric
Depictive Rhetoric
Parasocial Relationship
Truth Value
Symbolic Value
Iconic
Cultural Remembering/Collective Memory
Links:
http://www.participations.org/volume%203/issue%201/3_01_hortonwohl.htm
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal201459
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~prope002/visualRhet.htm
Monday, September 17, 2007
The World of Wrestling
Abstract of Roland Barthes’ “The World of Wrestling” (1957)
By Jennifer Lowry
Description of Article
The whole of Barthes’ essay examines wrestling in light of the theatre, and wrestling being a theatrical act. Like theatre, wrestling is based upon a sign system. Each element of wrestling, whether the wrestler’s physique or his gestures indicate an “absolute clarity, since [the spectator] must always understand everything on the spot” (16). In the theatre, the private becomes public; in wrestling this “Exhibition of Suffering […] is the very aim of the fight” (19). Like the theatre, the public watches wrestling for the “great spectacle of Suffering, Defeat, and Justice. As in the theatre, “wrestling presents man’s suffering with all the amplification of tragic masks” (19).
The comparisons to theatre continue as Barthes argues that wrestling (and I am thinking of the WWF type wrestling) is not a sport but a spectacle (15) one in which the audience is not concerned with “what it thinks but what it sees” (15). He compares wrestling to boxing and judo, which he considers sports, but unlike sports, wrestling, has no winner (16). It is not the function of the wrestler to win, “it is to go through the motions which are expected of him” (16).
The bastard or villain is usually the sufferer in wrestling. Barthes describes how the body of the bastard sums up all of his “actions, his treacheries, cruelties and acts of cowardice” (17). “The physique of the wrestlers therefore constitutes a basic sign, which like a seed contains the whole fight” (18). The costumes, like those of the theatre, represent the tragic play of wrestling.
According to Barthes, Defeat and Justice go hand in hand. Defeat is not an “outcome”, but a “display” (21). Defeat of the bastard “is a purely moral concept: that of justice” (21). The defeated must deserve the punishment (21) which is why the “crowd is jubilant at seeing the rules broken” (21) as long as it is just. “In wrestling, nothing exists except in the absolute, there is not symbol, no allusion, everything is presented exhaustively” (25). Again, as compared, there is no question of truth, the spectator just accepts what is presented to them as the way it is and should be.
Comments and Questions
This article does not lend much to commenting and is more of a summary… and my own personal thoughts.
Barthes begins his essay by arguing that wrestling is not a sport because there are no winners – at least that is not the point of the fight. He states:
The public is completely uninterested in knowing whether the contest is rigged or not, and rightly so; it abandons itself to the primary virtue of the spectacle, which is to abolish all motives and all consequences: what matters is not what it thinks but what it sees. (15)
While I have not experienced wrestling in France during this period I have watched wrestling on television (and I am quite sure that it is the kind of theatrical wrestling Barthes is discussing). I think it is pompous of him to assume that no one is interested in whether the contest is rigged. I also think there are many that would argue that wrestling is a sport. There are winners and losers and the winners are not always the good guys.
I do understand his contention that wrestling is like the theatre. Clearly, this type of wrestling is much more dramatic than that of the “sporting” kind. The use of costume and masks separate wrestling from recognized sporting competitions and do represent a theatrical appeal. Barthes argues in “Myth Today” that “myth is a system of communication, that it is a message” (109). He is clearly trying to get this point across in his examination of wrestling. Everything about the wrestler carries a message. The body of the wrestler, Barthes argues, carries the first message. The repulsiveness of the wrestler, his ugliness and the crowd’s reaction to that reflect on the characteristics of the wrestler. Even the wrestler’s commentary reflects upon his character, the gestures he engages in only further represent the character he is meant (assigned) to be.
What really strikes me as important is Barthes idea that the private is publicly displayed through wrestling as it is in the theatre. Using wrestling, spectators are able to identify with the characters and inflict the punishment that they feel is deserved. It seems to me that the caricatures of wrestling are exaggerations of real life. But by portraying them in exaggeration, the spectator is able to separate himself from the feelings associated.
Barthes argues that French and American wrestling are different in that the “heroes in French wrestling […are] based on ethics and not on politics” (23). He also states the American wrestling is based on “a sort of mythological fight between Good and Evil” (23) with the bad wrestler always some sort of Communist (which I don’t really think is always the case). But at the end of his essay he states:
In the ring, and even in the depths of their voluntary ignominy, wrestlers remain gods because they are, for a few moments, the key which opens Nature, the pure gesture which separates Good from Evil, and unveils the form of a Justice which is at last intelligible. (25)
I understand that he is probably using these references to “Good and Evil” in different contexts, but isn’t it possible that some Americans actually do view Communism as Evil? This clearly explains to me why they would portray the villain as a Communist.
I don’t really have any questions… the only thing that really struck me was my defensiveness at his comparison between American and French wrestling. Of course, only being familiar with the one and not the other doesn’t really give me much of a foot to stand on. I am curious as to why he even felt he had to throw in this comparison of French and American wrestling, as I don’t really see it necessary to his argument.
By Jennifer Lowry
Description of Article
The whole of Barthes’ essay examines wrestling in light of the theatre, and wrestling being a theatrical act. Like theatre, wrestling is based upon a sign system. Each element of wrestling, whether the wrestler’s physique or his gestures indicate an “absolute clarity, since [the spectator] must always understand everything on the spot” (16). In the theatre, the private becomes public; in wrestling this “Exhibition of Suffering […] is the very aim of the fight” (19). Like the theatre, the public watches wrestling for the “great spectacle of Suffering, Defeat, and Justice. As in the theatre, “wrestling presents man’s suffering with all the amplification of tragic masks” (19).
The comparisons to theatre continue as Barthes argues that wrestling (and I am thinking of the WWF type wrestling) is not a sport but a spectacle (15) one in which the audience is not concerned with “what it thinks but what it sees” (15). He compares wrestling to boxing and judo, which he considers sports, but unlike sports, wrestling, has no winner (16). It is not the function of the wrestler to win, “it is to go through the motions which are expected of him” (16).
The bastard or villain is usually the sufferer in wrestling. Barthes describes how the body of the bastard sums up all of his “actions, his treacheries, cruelties and acts of cowardice” (17). “The physique of the wrestlers therefore constitutes a basic sign, which like a seed contains the whole fight” (18). The costumes, like those of the theatre, represent the tragic play of wrestling.
According to Barthes, Defeat and Justice go hand in hand. Defeat is not an “outcome”, but a “display” (21). Defeat of the bastard “is a purely moral concept: that of justice” (21). The defeated must deserve the punishment (21) which is why the “crowd is jubilant at seeing the rules broken” (21) as long as it is just. “In wrestling, nothing exists except in the absolute, there is not symbol, no allusion, everything is presented exhaustively” (25). Again, as compared, there is no question of truth, the spectator just accepts what is presented to them as the way it is and should be.
Comments and Questions
This article does not lend much to commenting and is more of a summary… and my own personal thoughts.
Barthes begins his essay by arguing that wrestling is not a sport because there are no winners – at least that is not the point of the fight. He states:
The public is completely uninterested in knowing whether the contest is rigged or not, and rightly so; it abandons itself to the primary virtue of the spectacle, which is to abolish all motives and all consequences: what matters is not what it thinks but what it sees. (15)
While I have not experienced wrestling in France during this period I have watched wrestling on television (and I am quite sure that it is the kind of theatrical wrestling Barthes is discussing). I think it is pompous of him to assume that no one is interested in whether the contest is rigged. I also think there are many that would argue that wrestling is a sport. There are winners and losers and the winners are not always the good guys.
I do understand his contention that wrestling is like the theatre. Clearly, this type of wrestling is much more dramatic than that of the “sporting” kind. The use of costume and masks separate wrestling from recognized sporting competitions and do represent a theatrical appeal. Barthes argues in “Myth Today” that “myth is a system of communication, that it is a message” (109). He is clearly trying to get this point across in his examination of wrestling. Everything about the wrestler carries a message. The body of the wrestler, Barthes argues, carries the first message. The repulsiveness of the wrestler, his ugliness and the crowd’s reaction to that reflect on the characteristics of the wrestler. Even the wrestler’s commentary reflects upon his character, the gestures he engages in only further represent the character he is meant (assigned) to be.
What really strikes me as important is Barthes idea that the private is publicly displayed through wrestling as it is in the theatre. Using wrestling, spectators are able to identify with the characters and inflict the punishment that they feel is deserved. It seems to me that the caricatures of wrestling are exaggerations of real life. But by portraying them in exaggeration, the spectator is able to separate himself from the feelings associated.
Barthes argues that French and American wrestling are different in that the “heroes in French wrestling […are] based on ethics and not on politics” (23). He also states the American wrestling is based on “a sort of mythological fight between Good and Evil” (23) with the bad wrestler always some sort of Communist (which I don’t really think is always the case). But at the end of his essay he states:
In the ring, and even in the depths of their voluntary ignominy, wrestlers remain gods because they are, for a few moments, the key which opens Nature, the pure gesture which separates Good from Evil, and unveils the form of a Justice which is at last intelligible. (25)
I understand that he is probably using these references to “Good and Evil” in different contexts, but isn’t it possible that some Americans actually do view Communism as Evil? This clearly explains to me why they would portray the villain as a Communist.
I don’t really have any questions… the only thing that really struck me was my defensiveness at his comparison between American and French wrestling. Of course, only being familiar with the one and not the other doesn’t really give me much of a foot to stand on. I am curious as to why he even felt he had to throw in this comparison of French and American wrestling, as I don’t really see it necessary to his argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
