writing_ENG_files/barthes essay

Transcription

A Study on Roland Barthes’ “Myth Today”
Semiology, 1“the study of the function of signs and symbols in human communication,
both in language and by various nonlinguistic means”, was first proposed by the Swiss
linguist Ferdinand de Sassure, whom created a dualistic notion of signs through the use of
two concepts, the signifier and the signified. In his essay “Myth Today” Roland Barthes
appropriates his ‘semiotic’ approach drawn from the theories of Sassure and Marx to
interpret images in art and visual culture through the use of ‘the science of signs.’
Barthes draws his examples from images of the media such as Persil soap-powder
advertising, the cover of The Paris Match, and recognizes the problems for critical
analysis in visual media through the expansion of popular culture. Drawing from two
main theories, Saussure’s account of the sign and the Marxist concept of ideology,
Barthes discusses the use of a national or regional language which becomes necessary in
discussing his idea of ‘myth.’ Therefore it is important to clarify Barthes definition of
‘myth’, as a perpetuation of mass-culture upon society, a critique in the way in which
French bourgeois used cultural material within the media to assert specific values upon
others.
Barthes divides his essay in to the various types of myth which is used to contextualize
the images portrayed within visual culture. Stating that, 2“Semiology is a science of
forms, since it studies significations apart from their content” , he postulates and draws
upon an important factor; Semiology is a science which deals with values which are not
necessarily context bound to fact, but in fact 3“define and explore them as tokens for
something else.”
Semiology as restated by Barthes is essentially the relation between the two terms of
the signifier and the signified, dealing with a relationship between objects that belong to
different categories. Thus, despite basing his analysis on the theories of Sassure, he
1
Fowler, H. W and Pearsall, Judy, Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2004.
Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.111
3
2
1
essentially proclaims that the signifier and the signified create a third associative term of
the prior two, which is the sign.
Barthes states, 4“Since myth is a type of speech, everything can be a myth provided it is
conveyed by a discourse. Myth is not defined by the objects of its message, but by the
way in which it utters this message…Everything, then, can be a semiological system?
Yes, I believe this…” . Thereby employing the idea that every object and image that is
encountered is metamorphosized from a ‘silent state’ of being to one that of an ‘oral
state’, this is open to interpretation and appropriation by society itself. Barthes’ idea of
myth is understood that it is constructed through a semiological chain which contributes
to meaning. This is what Barthes refers to as the ‘second-semiological system.’, and I
conceive his intention to be appropriating a concept in which a correlation between the
signifier and the signified is present to create a mode of signification. The sign, the
association of the concept and image within the semiological chain, becomes a ‘mere
signifier’ in the second. Thus, my key understanding of Barthes’ explanation of ‘myth’,
is that it is the appropriation of a historical image in which it only survives in gesture as a
mode of signification, rather than a shared memory. Whether the material of this
mythical speech is perpetuated through photography, painting, posters etc, myth only
views them as ‘raw material’ and creates a unity that converts them to a mere form of
language, as 5“myth wants to see in them only a sum of signs, a global sign, the final term
of a first semiological chain.”
The importance of Barthe’s semiotic approach lies within the postulation that myth is a
construction of two semiological systems, one which deals within a linguistic system,
which Barthes refers to as the ‘language-object’, the language which myth perpetuates in
order to establish it’s personal system, and myth itself which he refers to as
‘metalanguage’ because 6“it is a second language in which one speaks about the first.”
Therein lies the consideration of the global sign as he believes that these two
semiological systems create a situation in which the semiologist is no longer in need of
4
6
5
2
taking in to account the ‘linguistic schema.’ Thus considered by Barthes, language and
pictures are both signs and abide to the same signifying function, in constituting a
‘language object.’
With this knowledge of the second-semiological system, the understanding is that myth
is observed from two points of view, firstly as the ‘final term of the linguistic system’ or
as the ‘first term of the mythical system.’ Within this Barthes creates specific
terminology to explain these claims. He refers to the final term of the linguistic system,
its signifier, as ‘meaning’, and within the plane of myth refers to the signifier as the
‘form’, and it’s signifier as ‘concept.’ It is important to note that ‘meaning’ and
‘concept’ are not terms to be confused. What Barthes refers to as ‘meaning’ is as a
signifier which postulates a clear reading, through what he calls a ‘sensory reality.’ We
grasp the meaning visually (as opposed to mentally, which Barthes states is the case with
the linguistic signifier), such as his example of the Negro’s salute on the cover of the
Paris Match; it holds a rationality which is credible on its own. He states,
7
“The meaning of the myth has its own value, it belongs to a history…in the meaning, a
signification is already built and could very well be self-sufficient if myth did not take
hold of it and did not turn it suddenly into and empty, parasitical form. The meaning is
already complete, it postulates a kind of knowledge, a past, a memory, a comparative
order of facts, ideas, decisions.”
Meaning only becomes emptied of its history when it becomes form.
An image I have chosen to perpetuate Barthes’ semiotic approach is one taken from
advertising. The relevancy of choosing an image from advertising is based on Barthes’
concentration on images within the mass-media. Advertising in my belief, is a myth
created by society through the manipulation not only of images, but through linguistic
means (captions) in order to postulate an idea that is easily recognizable by its intended
7
3
target market. As Barthes states, 8“Myth is a type of speech defined by its intention,
much more than by its literal sense.”
The image presented here is from cigarette advertising. There is an image of former
United States president Ronald Reagan smoking a Chesterfield cigarette whilst signing
limited edition Christmas wrapped cigarette cartons. The caption, “I’m sending
Chesterfields to all my friends. That’s the merriest Christmas any smoker can haveChesterfield mildness plus no unpleasant after-taste.”, is presented along with this image,
to advertise the sales of Chesterfield cigarettes during the Christmas season. In such an
image it is important to relate back to what Barthes refers to as “the global sign” the
concept explained in his essay “The Rhetoric of the Image” where symbols are used to
represent ideologies that are universally recognizable. Using an image of an American
president whom was a key figure in history, smoking a cigarette in what can be perceived
as a machismo style, connotes a sense of ‘Americanism.’ Such a term is used to describe
an idea that is universally perceived to be ‘American’, yet may not exactly be historically
context bound. I believe the term itself merely represents an assumption of society’s
projection of such a notion. Do images of cowboys and burgers and chips present an
overall impression of a nation? Or is it that we are lead to believe through the media such
notions that affect our understanding of specific cultural characteristics? Stereotypes
placed on one’s culture by another, such as a ‘tourist stereotype’, increases universal
familiarity in the international market. It is this idea of a specifically created identity
within society, which influences a way in which an image is captured and interpreted.
This is what Barthes reiterates as being ‘myth.’ 9“There is no myth without motivated
form”, as it resorts to the false nature of representation through an analogy. This analogy
is between ‘meaning and form’, and myth plays and establishes a sense of identity
between the signs that are presented.
In deciphering this image through Barthes key concepts, it is integral to follow his
system of the ‘empty signifier’, ‘the full signifier’, and the ‘mythical signifier.’ Barthes
8
9
4
states that 10“If I focus on an empty signifier, I let the concept fill the form of the myth
without ambiguity, and I find myself before a simple system, where the signification
becomes literal again.” Through this I interpret the image of Reagan smoking a cigarette
to present an example of Americanism, and liberal freedom of choice (such as smoking a
cigarette) hence he is thus a symbol for this notion. This type of focusing as emphasized
by Barthes is ‘that of the mythologist’, the emergence of a form from an initial concept.
Furthermore, the understanding of the ‘full signifier’ in which 11“I (Barthes) clearly
distinguish the meaning and the form, and consequently the distortion which the one
imposes on the other, I undo the signification of the myth.”, creates a situation in which
the form undoes the initial significance within the myth, and the president smoking a
cigarette becomes an ‘alibi’, a term used by Barthes to signify a mere representation that
is a temporary creation. The ‘deciphering of myth’ allows one to understand the
distortion. The president smoking a cigarette may support liberal rights for smokers, but
there is no concrete historical evidence to prove that Reagan was indeed a smoker. My
understanding, is the creation of myth through the use of an important political figure, is
promoting to the market that smoking is not an act that is condemned (at least not at the
time in which the advertisement was released), and temporarily allows one to presume
that Reagan was a pro-smoking individual.
With the prior two concepts of the signifier, Barthes finally comes to placing the focus
on the mythical signifier as a wholesome state, ‘made of meaning and form’ in which an
ambiguous signification is constructed. Thus, by this the president smoking a cigarette is
no longer a symbol or an example, but now postulates the very presence of Americanism
and pro-smoking mentality. This as Barthes discusses is now 12“less than an alibi” it is a
way of providing a visual and linguistic situation in which Americanism is connoted.
These three states of the signifier provide a much broader perspective on the various
interpretations and deciphering of the myth however, it is necessary to consider this
10
12
11
5
image through the various messages that are presented. Barthes divides these ‘messages’
in to categories such as, ‘The linguistic message’, ‘The iconic message’, and ‘The literal
message.’ I focus my analysis of the image on these three messages, as focusing the
engagement between the text provided, and the use of the president as an ‘icon’, and the
values that each these messages require in order to ‘read’ the image.
This image includes a caption, one which is linguistic, the quote at the top of the
advertisement, the logo of the product, are inserted in to the scene within the image. The
fact that the name of the product ‘Chesterfields’ portrays the notion of one having a
knowledge of English/American names as well as the language itself as the advertisement
is written in English, adds on to the connoted idea of this advertisement. The general
knowledge of English being the universal language of business and global marketing, and
the understanding of America being a country of power and high influence within the
world, is both part of the presumed knowledge and the message connoted within this
image. The product logo itself, ‘Chesterfields’ as previously mentioned by myself,
presents an idea of ‘Americanism’ for it not only gives the name of the company and firm,
but also through the assonance and the signified of cultural values, the linguistic message
here is 13“denotational and connotational.”
As we put the linguistic message to the side and consider the image purely on its own,
it is evident that there are a few euphoric values that are presented. Firstly, there is the
signified of the president’s image which is used in pro-marketing the specified cigarettes.
The values presented are that of exclusivity as they are a Christmas limited edition as
interpreted through this image as being both signed and wrapped by the president himself,
and the target market in which they are destined to reach-smokers during Christmas time.
The signifiers of these values are the cartons of cigarettes wrapped in colorful wrapping
paper, as well as the president signing these cartons whilst smoking a cigarette himself.
To read this sign, the knowledge is required that there is a sense of irony created in
wrapping cigarette cartons to send out to smokers. The cartons are customized in a way
in which the usually recognizable cigarette label is altered to create a sense of exclusivity,
13
Barthes, Roland. “Image, Music, Text”, London: Fontana Press, 1993, p.33
6
and at the same time seems to conceal the act of smoking behind an image which is
generally associated with merriment. Christmas as discussed here is not a celebration for
children but for adults, the irony is created in using a holiday that is mainly associated
with children and family, to conceal something which is generally portrayed as a “bad
habit” and something which can harm one’s health. Despite the president smoking and
creating an assonance in which smoking is seen as an encouraged act, it is still ironically
concealed by the act of wrapping them up in paper. The second sign in this case thus, is
seen through the colors used within this advert (the heavy use of green and red) to
connote the idea of merriment which is associated with the celebration of Christmas.
This adds to the idea that smoking is an act which is not condemned, and in this case the
receiving of these cigarettes connote a sense of merriment as they are exclusively
wrapped for a limited period of time.
7
Famous Life Magazine featured Ronald Reagan
in a Chesterfield cigarette advertisement, December, 1956
The knowledge concerned in deciphering this image is cultural based on the
understanding of certain holidays and political figures. Furthermore, through the
additional information of the iconic pointers and the captions, one is aware that this is an
advertisement. Barthes states, 14“The advertising nature of the image is essentially
functional: to utter something is not necessarily to declare I am speaking, except in a
14
Barthes, Roland. “Image, Music, Text”, London: Fontana Press, 1993, p.35
8
deliberately reflexive system such as literature” and portrays the notion that returns to the
issue of a myth created after motivation. The motivation concerned within this message
is the potential sales of the product of release. The creators whom brought together this
image specifically chose the symbols, colors, and captions in order to manipulate the sale
of Chesterfield cigarettes.
Thus, the iconic message within the image is initiated through the linguistic message
and the raw image (the literal message) forming a coherent whole, discontinuous in
history, and require a general cultural knowledge of America. Even if the captions were
to be removed and we were left with the image itself without any arbitrary analogy to
culture, we still would interpret the image through an instinctive anthropological
knowledge. We do not absorb the objects for what they symbolize, but for their literal
meaning. One understands what an image is, and what a cigarette is moreover, even
without the knowledge that Reagan was a former American president, we still absorb this
image plainly as a male individual. The literal message supports the linguistic message
and the iconic message, the inter-relationship of the three messages gives the analysis of
the image a structural description.
As a conclusion, it is important to access the possible limits and scope of such use of a
semiotic approach to appropriating images. Myth is created on the basis of
‘harmonizing’ with the world, which Barthes perpetuates as being a situation in which
15
“Mythology harmonizes with the world not as is, but as it wants to create itself.” Thus,
the problem that arises from the second-order semiological system that Barthes
appropriates in his theory of myth is that it cannot give a full interpretation of the image,
as it becomes a distortion of history, a form of ‘metalanguage.’ This presents the image
without any historical roots, and leaves the image to be partial and one-sided. The
‘unveiling’ that mythology carries out is a ‘political act’ which is based on a falsely
created nature through society, founded on the idea of language whether it may be visual
or purely linguistic therefore, myth is theoretical in its origins. The use of universal
symbols and ‘global signs’ allow viewers to interpret and recognize the image in a
15
9
reflexive manner yet, the generality of myth creates an ambiguity. The mythologist
excludes himself 16“from this history in the name of which he professes to act” and thus
the world is not concretely represented, but becomes a ‘subjective grasp of history’ in
which ideas and images are based on theory. What may be positive today may become
negative in the light of tomorrow. Barthes reemphasizes this through stating, 17“There is
for some men a subjective dark night of history where the future becomes an essence, the
essential destruction of the past”. Mythology is easily altered on a daily basis, as the
mythologist himself creates new myths through the destruction of old ones. This constant
re-writing of history in mythology issues a problem in approaching images. One may not
understand it’s pure origin (if there is indeed one) for there are no concrete historical
roots to specify its deciphering.
Furthermore, Barthes appropriation of myth in interpreting images, in my opinion, is
somewhat skeptical. Since he derives most of his linguistic and visual examples from the
media, the theory discussed from his point of view I feel, is biased. Advertisements are
created on the basis of motivation, of manipulating its audience. This is its essential
purpose. Therefore, the idea of images being myth, to an extent is something that cannot
be criticized. Whether the appropriation of his semiotic approach is effective in
discussing images from fine art, is another issue of concern. Art as I believe is both
subjective and objective, as there is art that is created to bring across a certain idea or
opinion, and there is art that is created in order to record history in itself. Advertisement
is created in order to make those who view it believe in what the creator of the image
(which Barthes appropriates as being ‘myth’) wants them to believe. Advertisement
images are manipulative and are based on symbols that can be universally recognized and
generalized, thus perhaps can more appropriately be referred to as ‘myth.’ However,
despite the artist’s intention in creating a piece and their motivated message which they
strive to convey, the symbols are less generalized and are more open to differences in
interpretation. One may look at a work of art and view it as being something completely
different in contrast to another viewer, and their opinions may not necessarily coincide
16
17
10
with those of the creator. If Barthes theory is appropriated in discussing fine art, it would
almost be that of a similar approach to art historian Clement Greenberg, who insisted on
the theorization that art is art, and must purely be viewed through aesthetic means. The
irony is that myth is created on a subjective history based on politics and society, yet the
motivation and theorization behind its interpretation is objective. I feel that the scope of
his semiotic approach is its way of using a step method to interpret images concisely
through unveiling the various symbols behind them, yet it has its limitations as it only
seems to apply to select images. Not all images are a ‘myth’ in my opinion, and it is
important to draw the line between what images are based on a subjective history, and
those that are based on concrete historical roots.
11

writing_ENG_files/barthes essay

Transcription

Similar documents

Semiotics The meaning of things

Heteronym - Peter Rostovsky

Approaching Posthumanism and the Posthuman

Dispell the Romance Myth!

the truth - Join RE/MAX

the truth - RE/MAX All-Pro

INH pg.18 LOSER.indd

Greek Mythology

CNC Router: (ShopBot PRSalpha) specify movements in 3 axes (X

EV presentation in PDF format