In the search for meaning of a photograph we consider here the impact of contexts and audience. Change the context and you change the interpretation that will be made by a viewer. Barthes tussles with the denoted and connoted nature of a photograph. He concludes there is no objective denoted state as connotation occurs from the moment a viewer sets eyes on the image.
A conclusion is that all photographic interpretation is subjective and full of connotation by the viewer.
Context as a Determinant of Photographic Meaning
(WALKER, JOHN A AND EVANS, JESSICA. Context as a deterninant of photographic meaning inThe camerawork essays:context and meaning in photography. Rivers Osram. P52-63.)
Walker published his article ‘context as a determinant of Photographic Meaning’ in 1980. In his introduction to a reprint within the above collection he finds ‘its arguments and conclusions are still sound’ (p53). In the light of further developments in the field he would now characterise it ‘as a contribution to reception studies.’ (p53).
He reminds us that ‘Ambiguity and complexity of the image itself was one reason for variations of interpretation. Another was the variety of contexts in which photographs are encountered.’ (p53)
For further developments in the field he recommends ‘ Alan Seluka in particular have shown an acute awareness of the ways the meanings of photographs are governed by the contexts of encounter and the social class of the viewers.’ (p53)
In the article he refers to the ‘immanent structure…(part to part, parts to whole within the framing edge.’ p56. He proposes ‘a context shift is a change of emphasis in the photographs’s depicted parts.’ (p56). ‘meaning is crucially influenced by moment of production but is also subject to changes as the photograph enters in to relationships with new circumstances and publics.’ p(57)
‘Need to examine the life of an image as well as its birth to consider its circulation, its currency as it moves through time and space from context to context.’ p(57)
He refers to what ‘Ernst Gombrich calls the beholder’s share. A viewer approaches an image not with a blank mind but with a mind already primed with memories, knowledge, prejudices; there is a mental set or context to be taken in to account.’ (p60)
‘Context is a troublesome determinant of meaning for artists because so often it lies outside of their control.’ (p61)
The Photographic Message
(White, Ed. How to Read Barthes’ Image-Music-Text, Pluto Press, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/falmouth-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3386680.
Created from falmouth-ebooks on 2019-03-19 06:55:46.)
‘complex system of “emission,” “transmission,” and “reception” for any press photograph
the image is not reality, but…“perfect analogon …it
“special status” of the photograph, according…“special status” of the photograph, according…“ it is a message without a code ”
that the signifier here corresponds to denotation, while the signified corresponds to connotation.
according to Saussure, the relationship between the signifier and the signified is not natural or inevitable (these roses will not always signify my passion).
But in an “historical reversal,” the text is now (as Barthes writes in the late twentieth century) “parasitic” upon the image (25). What Barthes means is that the text now provides connotation for the image, and in so doing undermines the image by “burdening it with a culture, a moral, an imagination” p20
As a rule, the image “has no denoted state, is immersed for its very social existence in at least an initial layer of connotation ” p21
The argument here is that, with the press photograph, the connotation— that which is signified— overwhelms the denotation— the analogous depiction of the photograph— more or less completely. Remember here the common-sense understanding of the sign: we typically think that the signifier (a rose) has some intrinsic or natural meaning (love, passion), and thus that the sign describes the dominance of the signifier over the signified. The Saussurean or structuralist analysis answered, No, the relationship between signifier and signified is not inevitable, but is instead contingent: the sign describes that contingent linkage between signifier and signified. But here Barthes offers a different understanding of that relationship, at least as it plays out in the press photograph: not only is the signifier-signified relationship contingent, but it may be the case that the signified dramatically dominates the signifier. So how does this overwhelming connotation— the priority of signified over signifier— occur? It may be the case that a first process of “perceptive connotation” takes place, isolating certain signifiers within the photographic analogon. A second and more complex stage might be “cognitive connotation,” whereby the reader or viewer seeks out “the greatest possible quantity of information” in a search for clarity (29). A third stage might then be some kind of ideological or ethical connotation (29-30). However this connotation happens as a mental process, it is clear that the image itself has no inherent political or ideological meaning. “[N]o photograph has ever convinced or refuted anyone” (30), and the same image can be interpreted to suit one’s views: one could give a “right-wing reading or a left-wing reading” to any image (30), because that reading is not part 22 How to Read Barthes’ p22
The argument here is that, with the press photograph, the connotation— that which is signified— overwhelms the denotation— the analogous depiction of the photograph— more or less completely. Remember here the common-sense understanding of the sign: we typically think that the signifier (a rose) has some intrinsic or natural meaning (love, passion), and thus that the sign describes the dominance of the signifier over the signified. The Saussurean or structuralist analysis answered, No, the relationship between signifier and signified is not inevitable, but is instead contingent: the sign describes that contingent linkage between signifier and signified. But here Barthes offers a different understanding of that relationship, at least as it plays out in the press photograph: not only is the signifier-signified relationship contingent, but it may be the case that the signified dramatically dominates the signifier. So how does this overwhelming connotation— the priority of signified over signifier— occur? It may be the case that a first process of “perceptive connotation” takes place, isolating certain signifiers within the photographic analogon. A second and more complex stage might be “cognitive connotation,” whereby the reader or viewer seeks out “the greatest possible quantity of information” in a search for clarity (29). A third stage might then be some kind of ideological or ethical connotation (29-30). However this connotation happens as a mental process, it is clear that the image itself has no inherent political or ideological meaning. “[N]o photograph has ever convinced or refuted anyone” (30), and the same image can be interpreted to suit one’s views: one could give a “right-wing reading or a left-wing reading” to any image (30), because that reading is not part 22 How to Read Barthes’ p23
Barthes concludes his essay. By “trying to reconstitute in its specific structure the code of connotation,” we may find “the forms our society uses to ensure its peace of mind and to grasp thereby, the magnitude, the detours and the underlying function of that activity” (31). These three qualities are important. “Magnitude” stresses the tremendous, almost universal range of forms. The “detours” reveal how indirect these forms may work— in this case, connotation both imposes upon and draws away from the potential of denotation, so that what seems straightforwardly real is actually nothing but connotation. Finally, the “underlying function” describes the ends for which such means work. p24
W
Categories: Uncategorized