Abstract of Sal Humphreys “Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms”
2005
by Tyson Livingston
Description of Article
In this article, Humphreys attempts to articulate the online computer game, specifically the Massive Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) EverQuest, as a new form of interactive media. She indicates that because players act as producers within the game, it creates an ever-evolving text, with multiple versions being created simultaneously based on the input of players across a vast world and variety of servers. She also indicates that production on the part of the players is composed not only of text, but of relationships and community. She feels that our current laws and structure of copyright and intellectual property are not sufficient to regulate this type of producer/consumer relationship. In addition, she explores the power relations inherent within the MMOG, both between players and publisher, and between players and players, as well as the ethics of the commodification of these online communities.
The article is composed of several sections: the unlabeled introduction; What is New about EverQuest and its Genre?; Productive Players, Implications: Intellectual Property, Regulation, Commerce, and Culture; How Far can Intellectual Property Take Us?; The Regulation of Social Space; Power and Free Labour; and Conclusion.
Key Terms
MMOG (Massive Multi-Player Online Game): EverQuest would probably now be classified as a MMORPG (Massive Multi-Player Online Role-Playing Game)
Intellectual Property (Not to be confused with Internet Protocol. In discussions of technology the abbreviation of IP often refers Internet Protocol Address. This caused me a brief moment of confusion when she started talking about IP in terms of the EULA)
EULA (End User License Agreement)
Community
Avatar
Consumption
Production
Player Investment
Guild
Comments and Questions:
The first two sections of the piece, the introduction and What is New about EverQuest and its Genre didn’t really stir up too many questions for me. My only real main problem here was one of definition. As a player of EverQuest, and someone who has obviously invested themselves heavily in the game, Humphreys has a tendency to use “game” terms liberally with little definition, i.e. trade skills, mob, guild, etc. While she provides enough definition and explanation of the game in general to get a grasp on the subject matter, I don’t think that the average reader that does not already possess some knowledge of these type of games would feel the resonance with these terms that Humphrey is trying to evoke, and obviously feels herself. In addition, it took me a while to get a real concrete idea of what she meant when she referred to the productivity of the players. After reading several pages, I came across the statement that, “Players are creators of the text; community and networks of relationships, systems of governance and norms; relationships with other players; and characters” (41). This seemed to sum up the most important part of what Humphreys is concerned about, although it still fails to include other aspects she has spoken of such as websites, and snap-in or secondary applications designed to assist players “in-game.”
My real problems with her argument begin to arise when she starts discussing the problems inherent in creating a community within a private sphere (42). She makes it sound as if this type of situation is a new thing. Communities within private spheres have always existed and often share a symbiotic relationship with their texts, even if they do not have the “real-time” response of Internet communication. Religious communities often have a private nature with rules that govern behavior and “production.” They also have texts, some of which are contemporary and are influenced by the leaders, and congregations of their particular sphere. Professional organizations form a similar situation, some of which are sponsored by corporations and have as their goal the generation of continuous “text” which is reactionary and developmental to their particular field. These organizations have dues and oftentimes generate revenue for the sponsoring organization. Microsoft is a prime example of this with their certification and professional programs.
Many other examples of this type of relationship exist. Talk radio has had a very similar relationship, with a host and production company acting as the publisher, and callers as the user/producers. Oftentimes a sense of community develops around different talk shows as regular callers and listeners begin to appear. In addition, the pen and paper-based role-playing community has been embroiled with these issues for over twenty years, with questions of community-generated intellectual property as the subject of lawsuits and debate.
Her generalization that “This is not an online chat room or email list community. The game adds specific layers of rules, governance, fantasy, goals, and constraints” (42) is also somewhat of a fallacy. Most chat or email distribution list communities have strict rules, goals, and constraints, just like an online game. Humphreys continues to stress this issue by pointing out the existence of the EULA, and the power given to the publisher to close accounts and block access if a player does not conform to the guidelines and usages stipulated by the game company. However, even though she mentions that players willingly play the game and follow the rules, she downplays the reality that the license agreement is essentially a contract. EULAs exist in a variety of contexts to govern the legal use of software and the generation of intellectual property. For example, Microsoft’s MSDNAA program allows universities (the community) to obtain certain software packages (the text) for free. This promotes the use of the software in industry (hence the economic benefit), but Microsoft puts strict guidelines on how the MSDNAA software can be used and what can be produced with it, and essentially place restrictions on intellectual property. This situation is similar to that argued by Humphreys. Furthermore, if Humphreys wants to compare game players to unpaid laborers (45), then the EULA becomes the contract of their employment, just as it would for any volunteer employee of a corporation or organization.
Overall, I believe that the points Humphrey’s brings up regarding the interaction between community, media, and commerce to be interesting, as well as her questions regarding the power relations between the game players and the publisher and between each other. However, I think that her insistence that these relationships are a wholly new construct resulting from the MMOG is inaccurate. I believe it would be better described as an evolution, or perhaps even a culmination, of these relationships and power structures in a new media. Furthermore, I believe that her analysis needs further exploration of how copyright laws specifically treat computer code and applications, as well as ownership of Internet resources, both virtual and physical.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Abstract on Humphreys
Abstract of Sal Humphreys’s “Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms” 2005
By Bridgett VanDerwalker
Description of Article:
Humphreys begins the article by discussing how online games are part of the genre of interactive media. As such, the terms intellectual property and copyright material should be broaden to fit both the player’s rights and those of those of the producers of the online games. Humphreys discusses the complex nature of the time, labor, and social connections that players’ commit to the game that results in the blurry line between production and consumption.
In the latter half of the article she raises the question of whether players have a right to sell their characters for profit when the producers provide all the resources to build those characters. Humphreys concludes the article with the statement that interactive media needs to be researched more so we can better understand the relationship between gamers/producers and the line between where consumption and manufacturing ends in such a complex environment.
Key terms:
Massive Multiplayer Online Games: (MMOG)
Regulation
Production
Intellectual Property
Comments and Questions:
Humphreys starts by telling the audience her purposes of writing the article starting with the need of study in interactive media. She notes that new methods need to be employed to study such complex relationships and that the games are changed and manipulated by those who play the games unlike traditional media forms. Gamers are allowed to established social connections with one another, which the players have a “configurative role,” and the “producer/consumer trajectory” is very complex and complicated. This last sentiment leads to the main discussion that being the “disruption in the areas of Intellectual Property, content, regulation, and the relationship between commerce and culture” (38).
The most interesting observation that Humphreys makes is that the gamers using the product by their very actions are creating it also. She also says that the gaming environment is a present-medium and it is for this reason perhaps that the environment is constantly being created by the players themselves. Juul says that “the player is the performer and the game evaluates the performance (and adapts to it)”(38). I agree with this statement as a person who lives with two heavy game players of WOW (World of War craft) I see the game adapt itself and see the relationships my roommates have with other gamers in the gaming environment.
It is interesting that within the virtual environment that players have goals that they hone such as killing monsters, developing trades, and gaining weapons, money, or magic. One issue that Humphreys fails to mention is that these players are playing these games not only for social relationships but for entertainment, in particular, escaping reality. I think this is an important point in why these players play the game and why it is so popular in the first place. The idea that raids are set up by using social networking skills is fascinating and encouraging in that these people are meeting people all around the world and contributing to the ongoing process of globalization.
Humphreys states that “The trajectory of gameplay is thus contingent upon the particular dynamics and action generated by shifting combinations of players” (40). She goes on to name these contributions such as money to play the game, time, and social connections with others. She goes on to describe how these games spawn other websites that give hints to new players or act as forums to organize guilds or plan raids.
Humphreys turns her attention to the sponsors that own these games. She talks about how publishers want to keep these games going so they gain revenue. These publishers have no personal investment in these games outside the financial gains and it seems to be once the game is initially released it is up to the players to build the gaming environment and keep it going and evolving. Based on this point alone I think Humphreys has a point that perhaps the players themselves should have more rights especially in the realm of Intellectual property. Without their continued efforts the game would fail and thus both the gamers and the publishers would lose. She poses a good question. “Can corporations own people’s relationships and communities? Who has what forms of power in this configuration of a media space?” (42). I don’t see where she reaches a definitive answer to these questions but I don’t think are easy answers to these questions either.
Humphreys talks about how players by agreeing to play and pay for their rights to play the game give up ownership rights and IP rights. She makes the point that perhaps this is not fair for this new media because there are no clear lines of where production begins and ends and where consumerism begins or ends as the players develop the game as they play it. She sees that these corporations are perhaps being exploitive of the players’ emotions and in essence owning their social relations. I think Humphreys does a really good job in covering the issue from multiple viewpoints and how she remains impartial for the most part. I think she does a good job in saying that the boundaries of production and consumerism needed to be reexamined in light of this new media.
Humphreys closes the essay by saying: “Protections need to be provided in a manner that ensures the rights of participates are not infringed by corporate practices, at the same time recognizing the needs of companies to facilitate engaging and healthy communities” (49). As new technologies emerge these questions will need to be addressed and it is up to the users to bring their insights and concerns to the attention of the publishers or produces of such products or resources. We are only now exploring how the Internet is impacting our social relationships and I think as the years progress it will be increasingly important to research the many intricacies that this media hold not only culturally but academicallyalso.
By Bridgett VanDerwalker
Description of Article:
Humphreys begins the article by discussing how online games are part of the genre of interactive media. As such, the terms intellectual property and copyright material should be broaden to fit both the player’s rights and those of those of the producers of the online games. Humphreys discusses the complex nature of the time, labor, and social connections that players’ commit to the game that results in the blurry line between production and consumption.
In the latter half of the article she raises the question of whether players have a right to sell their characters for profit when the producers provide all the resources to build those characters. Humphreys concludes the article with the statement that interactive media needs to be researched more so we can better understand the relationship between gamers/producers and the line between where consumption and manufacturing ends in such a complex environment.
Key terms:
Massive Multiplayer Online Games: (MMOG)
Regulation
Production
Intellectual Property
Comments and Questions:
Humphreys starts by telling the audience her purposes of writing the article starting with the need of study in interactive media. She notes that new methods need to be employed to study such complex relationships and that the games are changed and manipulated by those who play the games unlike traditional media forms. Gamers are allowed to established social connections with one another, which the players have a “configurative role,” and the “producer/consumer trajectory” is very complex and complicated. This last sentiment leads to the main discussion that being the “disruption in the areas of Intellectual Property, content, regulation, and the relationship between commerce and culture” (38).
The most interesting observation that Humphreys makes is that the gamers using the product by their very actions are creating it also. She also says that the gaming environment is a present-medium and it is for this reason perhaps that the environment is constantly being created by the players themselves. Juul says that “the player is the performer and the game evaluates the performance (and adapts to it)”(38). I agree with this statement as a person who lives with two heavy game players of WOW (World of War craft) I see the game adapt itself and see the relationships my roommates have with other gamers in the gaming environment.
It is interesting that within the virtual environment that players have goals that they hone such as killing monsters, developing trades, and gaining weapons, money, or magic. One issue that Humphreys fails to mention is that these players are playing these games not only for social relationships but for entertainment, in particular, escaping reality. I think this is an important point in why these players play the game and why it is so popular in the first place. The idea that raids are set up by using social networking skills is fascinating and encouraging in that these people are meeting people all around the world and contributing to the ongoing process of globalization.
Humphreys states that “The trajectory of gameplay is thus contingent upon the particular dynamics and action generated by shifting combinations of players” (40). She goes on to name these contributions such as money to play the game, time, and social connections with others. She goes on to describe how these games spawn other websites that give hints to new players or act as forums to organize guilds or plan raids.
Humphreys turns her attention to the sponsors that own these games. She talks about how publishers want to keep these games going so they gain revenue. These publishers have no personal investment in these games outside the financial gains and it seems to be once the game is initially released it is up to the players to build the gaming environment and keep it going and evolving. Based on this point alone I think Humphreys has a point that perhaps the players themselves should have more rights especially in the realm of Intellectual property. Without their continued efforts the game would fail and thus both the gamers and the publishers would lose. She poses a good question. “Can corporations own people’s relationships and communities? Who has what forms of power in this configuration of a media space?” (42). I don’t see where she reaches a definitive answer to these questions but I don’t think are easy answers to these questions either.
Humphreys talks about how players by agreeing to play and pay for their rights to play the game give up ownership rights and IP rights. She makes the point that perhaps this is not fair for this new media because there are no clear lines of where production begins and ends and where consumerism begins or ends as the players develop the game as they play it. She sees that these corporations are perhaps being exploitive of the players’ emotions and in essence owning their social relations. I think Humphreys does a really good job in covering the issue from multiple viewpoints and how she remains impartial for the most part. I think she does a good job in saying that the boundaries of production and consumerism needed to be reexamined in light of this new media.
Humphreys closes the essay by saying: “Protections need to be provided in a manner that ensures the rights of participates are not infringed by corporate practices, at the same time recognizing the needs of companies to facilitate engaging and healthy communities” (49). As new technologies emerge these questions will need to be addressed and it is up to the users to bring their insights and concerns to the attention of the publishers or produces of such products or resources. We are only now exploring how the Internet is impacting our social relationships and I think as the years progress it will be increasingly important to research the many intricacies that this media hold not only culturally but academicallyalso.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Seemed appropriate
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
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14732874&ps=bb4
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
