Elements of Semiology by Roland Barthes
Ways of Seeing by John Berger
NOTE: IDENTIFY AND BRING TO CLASS THREE TO FIVE IMAGES THAT REPRESENT/SUPPORT/CONTRADICT/ILLUSTRATE THE SELECTED THEORIES PRESENTED IN THE TEXT BY BARTHES AND BERGER
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Caitlyn Doolin
John Berger – Ways of Seeing
John Berger begins with “Seeing before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak.” I feel that we still do this action to this day, we might see something know what it is but can’t remember or were never taught the word(s) for it. But we still know that we know it. He moves onto establishing yourself through the senses. To see is to establish your surroundings and to touch is to situate yourself in relation to it (whatever the object may be). I noticed that the relationship between seeing and knowing is very similar to the sign and signifier. His example was we see the sunset in the evening and we know that the earth is turning away from the sun. I feel the sign would he the sun setting and the signifier would be the earth turning away from the sun. Then he begins to talk about how what we look at is only seen because we are looking at it. If you make the choice to look at something, that act, is rewarded with knowing that we are looking at it. Once we establish we can see and looking at things, we realize that we can be seen. Which, we can then become vocal about what we are seeing. But that is when we realize that not everyone has the same word for “tree”, “green” or “cab.” This opens the knowing words that we are seeing. Next Berger talks about, in time, “now” an image has been recreated or reproduced. Nothing is its own original. I felt like he was saying that everything, in art, has been done already. Which in didn’t make sense while reading because he states later on that a photograph is not always a mechanical reproduced. He moves to a photographers way of seeing is reflected by the choice of subject and a painters is somewhat different. A painter sees by the construction of marks on the canvas or paper. I thought that was very similar because the photographer‘s subject can not be painted but it’s put in the frame to create an image. The camera is our medium; a painter has brushes and hands to use. I thought it was just a different way of getting the subject into the frame. Then he states that the audience way of seeing is on the appreciation of the artist way of seeing the image.
He begins talking about how the camera destroyed paintings; they were timeless, rarities, unique. A image separated the painting from is residence, from the era is was produced in, and the “one and only” feeling. This allowed the meaning to change in the image completely. Once it was seen by the masses, the meaning if the image was changed several times because more people were able to put their “two cents” in. I feel like this was a great idea, it gave the artist an opportunity to allow others to give critique on their art work and different opinions. This could help or not help the artist. Then he moves on to discuss text and imagery, especially the Van Gogh painting. He shows us the painting on one page then on the next the painting with text “This is the last picture Van Gogh painted before he killed himself.”Wow, well my initial feeling towards the painting was this is a beautiful painting (kind of uplifting) , wishing I had it in my living room, and wondering where he was when he painted it. Then, when I turned the page to read the text under it, I felt so differently. It became drowning in darkness and a very sad painting.
Elements of Semiology – Roland Barthes
This article has always been difficult. Some issues I have to the several references to other theorists that not explained in the article, the foot note numbers that didn’t have the foot notes and the amount of times “sign, signifier, and signified” was used. I understand that the article was only about those three words but I just got annoyed with it. Anyways this is what I understood of the article.
Ok, in the article he discusses the sign, signifier, signified, and value. And within these subjects he discusses the languages and signs behind the topics. In relation to linguistics, the example Barthes gave was, the word ox. And when you read “ox”, you mentally observe something different than the word “ox”. Such as, you actually think if an ox, the animal. But also related it to “I love pig but hate horse”, which could mean I love cops and hate heroin or actually mean you love pig (the animal) and hate horses (animals). Another topic that he discussed was the sign and signifier. The sign be “red light”, an actual red light, we associate that with “stop” which is the signifier. Because we are taught a young age that red lights mean to stop. And both these example I was taught in class by Thomas. I just didn’t understand that much of the heavy reading by Barthes.
I found this much more difficult to breakdown. The general basis of this writing is how multiple cultures interpret signs differently than others due to their specific backround, and the way each of us were brought up. Language both enables and limits one’s ability to express their world to others and determines what they see and distinguish as part or whole objects of reality. i understand that based on our cultural upbringing that we are taught different words symbolize different things, and we oftentimes are lost in the translation, being people from other cultures interpret them differently, but i feel as though Barthes goes entirely out of his way to make it sound much more long & drawn out and complicated then necessary. and it pissed me off. quite abit,
that was really strange, it only posted the second half of my response. anyway, that was on Elements of Semiology. here is this rest:
Ways of Seeing - Berger
I really really enjoyed this reading actually. it is probably my favorite handout thus far. I thought the entire concept of it put a very new spin on a lot of aspects of photography for me. “as a result of this act, what we see is brought within our reach – though not necessarily within arm’s reach. To touch something is to situate oneself in relation to it. We never look at just one thing; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves.” I found this very interesting to think about. I believe a large portion of this handout was based around the theory that sight is our strongest, most natural sense, and that we are constantly consciously looking at things, and absorbing them. Every day, all day, we are seeing thousands of images, and without thinking we immedietly associate ourselves with this image, if we can relate to it, and how it effects us. Berger also uses love and affection as an example, with how words are oftentimes insufficient ways of expressing such strong feeling, and that imagery is a suitable substitution. He also later states that photography is the strongest and most accurate method for documentation, much more so than literature or painting. Not only is it concrete proof of the past, but at the same time, we are seeing the world from that specific artist’s perspective, which I agree with entirely.
Post a Comment