We are asked to read Myth Today and consider three related tasks:
- Look up who Monou Drouet was. Why does Barthes cite her?;
- With reference to roses and black pebbles and find elements within a couple of images that you know that signify passions, emotions or other objects of events;
- Consider phyis and anti physis and find an example of the image that changes the real into a message
These are covered in the notes at the end.
Before reading the chapter in the course reader, let us summarize the Semiotics chapter by Howells and Negreiros (2012). read this before starting course, now rereading as refresher.
Semiotics originated with the Swiss linguist de Saussure, who devised the 'lexicon of signification', a group of terms comprising the 'signifier' (that which stands for something else), the 'signified' (the idea it stands for) and the 'sign' (the union of the two).
Example is D-O-G means furry quadruped with cold, wet nose. In French it would be C-H-I-E-N.
The key is that nothing naturally means anything and therefore meaning must be cultural. There is nothing God given that DOG means a four footed domestic animal, for example. Sign is arbitrary, else there would be only one language.
(A good example would be secret code - the sign is to be secret in order that only certain people can know what the signifier stands for).
Saussure concentrated on written and spoken language. His early work on semiotics sowed seeds for extension into many areas beyond the literary, notably anthropology and psychoanalysis. Barthes extended semiotics into visual and popular culture.
We live in a more semiotic world than we realise: H&N give examples of wearing a tie to an interview (shows we are serious about the job), the tie needs to be right as well - not too garish or heavily patterned (colours are semiotic as well, take pink as very feminine for example). H&N point out the power of car logos too - the propeller badge of BMW 'oozes expense and sophistication'. Mercedes Benz is recognizable by 3 pointed star, but add one stroke and it becomes CND.
Because sign is arbitrary, relationship can change over time. H&N give the example of the Eiffel Tower; today it is the icon of Paris, but when built was viewed as an ugly eyesore. Blackpool Tower was modelled on Eiffel but has entirely different connotations as the icon for a resort popular with northern English working classes as opposed to the chic sophistication of Paris. "The signifier is an empty vessel into which cultural meaning is poured to imbue it with meaning."
Before reading the chapter in the course reader, let us summarize the Semiotics chapter by Howells and Negreiros (2012). read this before starting course, now rereading as refresher.
Semiotics originated with the Swiss linguist de Saussure, who devised the 'lexicon of signification', a group of terms comprising the 'signifier' (that which stands for something else), the 'signified' (the idea it stands for) and the 'sign' (the union of the two).
Example is D-O-G means furry quadruped with cold, wet nose. In French it would be C-H-I-E-N.
The key is that nothing naturally means anything and therefore meaning must be cultural. There is nothing God given that DOG means a four footed domestic animal, for example. Sign is arbitrary, else there would be only one language.
(A good example would be secret code - the sign is to be secret in order that only certain people can know what the signifier stands for).
Saussure concentrated on written and spoken language. His early work on semiotics sowed seeds for extension into many areas beyond the literary, notably anthropology and psychoanalysis. Barthes extended semiotics into visual and popular culture.
We live in a more semiotic world than we realise: H&N give examples of wearing a tie to an interview (shows we are serious about the job), the tie needs to be right as well - not too garish or heavily patterned (colours are semiotic as well, take pink as very feminine for example). H&N point out the power of car logos too - the propeller badge of BMW 'oozes expense and sophistication'. Mercedes Benz is recognizable by 3 pointed star, but add one stroke and it becomes CND.
Because sign is arbitrary, relationship can change over time. H&N give the example of the Eiffel Tower; today it is the icon of Paris, but when built was viewed as an ugly eyesore. Blackpool Tower was modelled on Eiffel but has entirely different connotations as the icon for a resort popular with northern English working classes as opposed to the chic sophistication of Paris. "The signifier is an empty vessel into which cultural meaning is poured to imbue it with meaning."
So let us now turn to Myth Today.
Barthes opens with this simple definition: myth is a type of speech. At first sight, this appears disarming, but actually it is a necessary statement because Barthes is extending de Saussure's lexicon from words to images.
He continues that myth is a system of communication, that it is a message.
Everything can be a myth. Barthes points out that "a tree is a tree", but as expressed by Minou Drouet, it is more. (see note 1). Drouet imbues the tree with meaning - she anthropomorphises (leaves become 'green locks', branches swaying in the wind are 'living hands') and personalises it ('knowing like me the voices of silence'; 'the tree that I love').
Barthes emphasises the importance of 'sign' as the 'associative total' of the signifier and the signified. A bunch of roses may be used to signify passion, but 'roses' and 'passion' existed before their unification into a sign. A black pebble can be a signifier in many ways, but if it is imbued with a definite signified (say a death sentence) it will become a sign. (see note 2 for an example of images containing signified passions).
The most important theoretical part of Barthes' essay is where he extends Saussure's semiological system from language to pictures. He does this literally by the creation of a metalanguage: 'a second language in which one talks about the first' (termed the language-object). Slightly confusingly, Barthes uses myth, perhaps best described as the 'sum of signs', as a synonym for metalanguage.
So we have a flow from language object to myth or metalanguage. The sign resulting from the first becomes the signifier in the second. Barthes spatializes the relationship thus:
Barthes uses metalanguage in order to extend semiology beyond language; writing and pictures may be treated equally; they are both signs. He later uses the terms form, concept and signification instead of (respectively) signifier, signified and sign in the mythical system.
The essay continues with two examples, one taken from Latin grammar, the second the following cover from Paris Match:
He continues that myth is a system of communication, that it is a message.
Everything can be a myth. Barthes points out that "a tree is a tree", but as expressed by Minou Drouet, it is more. (see note 1). Drouet imbues the tree with meaning - she anthropomorphises (leaves become 'green locks', branches swaying in the wind are 'living hands') and personalises it ('knowing like me the voices of silence'; 'the tree that I love').
Barthes emphasises the importance of 'sign' as the 'associative total' of the signifier and the signified. A bunch of roses may be used to signify passion, but 'roses' and 'passion' existed before their unification into a sign. A black pebble can be a signifier in many ways, but if it is imbued with a definite signified (say a death sentence) it will become a sign. (see note 2 for an example of images containing signified passions).
The most important theoretical part of Barthes' essay is where he extends Saussure's semiological system from language to pictures. He does this literally by the creation of a metalanguage: 'a second language in which one talks about the first' (termed the language-object). Slightly confusingly, Barthes uses myth, perhaps best described as the 'sum of signs', as a synonym for metalanguage.
So we have a flow from language object to myth or metalanguage. The sign resulting from the first becomes the signifier in the second. Barthes spatializes the relationship thus:
Barthes uses metalanguage in order to extend semiology beyond language; writing and pictures may be treated equally; they are both signs. He later uses the terms form, concept and signification instead of (respectively) signifier, signified and sign in the mythical system.
The essay continues with two examples, one taken from Latin grammar, the second the following cover from Paris Match:
 |
| Available from www.visuality.org/parismatch/barthesanalysis.htm Accessed 20 April 2014 |
Barthes writes:
"I am at the barber’s, and copy of Paris-Match is offered to me. On the cover, a young Negro in a French uniform is saluting, with his eyes uplifted, probably fixed on a fold of the tricolour. All this is the meaning of the picture. But whether naively or not, I see very well what it signifies to me : that France is a great Empire, that all her sons, without any colour discrimination, faithfully serve under the flag, and that there is no better answer to the detractors of an alleged colonialism than the zeal shown by this Negro in serving his so-called oppressors ...”
The most complex part of the essay is the section on the form and the concept. Barthes recognizes the dialectic between the sign as recognized at the first level being the signifier (form) of the second:
"...a signification is already built, and could very well be self-sufficient if myth did not suddenly take hold of it and did not turn it suddenly into an empty. parastical form."
The meaning is complete at the first level, but when it becomes form "it empties itself". But "form does not suppress the meaning, it only impoverishes it." There is a constant game of hide and seek between meaning and form that defines myth.
Unlike the form, concept is not abstract - "a whole new history implanted in the myth". Myth is a double system: "its point of departure is constituted by the arrival of a meaning".
Barthes reveals his political leanings in the final section: Myth is depoliticized speech. He sees that myth has "the task of giving historical intention a natural justification", exactly the process of bourgeois ideology. He sees that "our (i.e capitalist) society" uses "mythical significations" because it suits the bourgeoisie to be in the background, not to be named. It achieves this by moving from anti physis - the refusal to engage with the real world - to pseudo physis – an appearance of a real world which is actually a world of signs (Robinson, 2011) (see note 3).
The world supplies to myth an historical reality; myth in return presents a natural image of this reality. In the case of the Negro, myth does not seek to reject imperialism, rather the fabricated quality of colonialism.
"Myth does not deny things, on the contrary, its function is to talk about them; simply, it purifies them, it makes them innocent, it gives them a natural and eternal justification, it gives them a clarity which is not that of an explanation but that of a statement of fact. If I state the fact of French imperiality without explaining it, I am very near to finding that it is natural and goes without saying: I am reassured."
This is powerful and persuasive writing. The concept of "goes without saying" is viewed by Howells and Negreiros (ibid, p123) as the most important of all mythologies to the student of visual culture. They point out that Barthes is part of the intellectual scene that expands bourgeois values to conventional middle-class respectability, typified by smug, reactionary lack of thinking.
"I am at the barber’s, and copy of Paris-Match is offered to me. On the cover, a young Negro in a French uniform is saluting, with his eyes uplifted, probably fixed on a fold of the tricolour. All this is the meaning of the picture. But whether naively or not, I see very well what it signifies to me : that France is a great Empire, that all her sons, without any colour discrimination, faithfully serve under the flag, and that there is no better answer to the detractors of an alleged colonialism than the zeal shown by this Negro in serving his so-called oppressors ...”
The most complex part of the essay is the section on the form and the concept. Barthes recognizes the dialectic between the sign as recognized at the first level being the signifier (form) of the second:
"...a signification is already built, and could very well be self-sufficient if myth did not suddenly take hold of it and did not turn it suddenly into an empty. parastical form."
The meaning is complete at the first level, but when it becomes form "it empties itself". But "form does not suppress the meaning, it only impoverishes it." There is a constant game of hide and seek between meaning and form that defines myth.
Unlike the form, concept is not abstract - "a whole new history implanted in the myth". Myth is a double system: "its point of departure is constituted by the arrival of a meaning".
Barthes reveals his political leanings in the final section: Myth is depoliticized speech. He sees that myth has "the task of giving historical intention a natural justification", exactly the process of bourgeois ideology. He sees that "our (i.e capitalist) society" uses "mythical significations" because it suits the bourgeoisie to be in the background, not to be named. It achieves this by moving from anti physis - the refusal to engage with the real world - to pseudo physis – an appearance of a real world which is actually a world of signs (Robinson, 2011) (see note 3).
The world supplies to myth an historical reality; myth in return presents a natural image of this reality. In the case of the Negro, myth does not seek to reject imperialism, rather the fabricated quality of colonialism.
"Myth does not deny things, on the contrary, its function is to talk about them; simply, it purifies them, it makes them innocent, it gives them a natural and eternal justification, it gives them a clarity which is not that of an explanation but that of a statement of fact. If I state the fact of French imperiality without explaining it, I am very near to finding that it is natural and goes without saying: I am reassured."
This is powerful and persuasive writing. The concept of "goes without saying" is viewed by Howells and Negreiros (ibid, p123) as the most important of all mythologies to the student of visual culture. They point out that Barthes is part of the intellectual scene that expands bourgeois values to conventional middle-class respectability, typified by smug, reactionary lack of thinking.
How does Barthes' theory seem nowadays? I would say there are four problems with his analysis:
- It is isolationist to use the expression I used in a previous post. There is an arrogant overtone that somehow his mythology is the theory of visual culture;
- It is overly complicated - Barthes hardly needs to construct a theoretical structure around his rants against bourgeois ideology. He adds terminology for the sake of it, and sometimes confusingly so. The semiotics are aimed to give the polemics a pseudo scientific and therefore intellectually more robust appearance;
- He sees what he wants to see - his examples are selective;
- That mythology is not restricted to bourgeois attitudes but is present in all societies. History has itself been manipulated in 1984 year zero style by societies that would see themselves as the antithesis of bourgeois culture. A recent example was the removal of the uncle of Kim Jong-un - the leader of North Korea - from pictures (BBC, 2013). All establishments use mythology in order to control their subjects, from nation states to religions to sects.
ADDITIONAL NOTES FOR THE TASKS IDENTIFIED
Note 1: Minou Drouet's tree. Drouet was quite an enigmatic character (Dawn.com, 2008). She was only eight when her poem came to public attention. The media and French opinion was split in two as to whether it was Minou or her mother who penned the poem. The dispute was resolved only when the child was put in a locked room with no outside communication and asked to write a poem on Paris sky. 25 minutes later she revealed a poem that brought the chairman of the poet's association to tears. Her authenticity as a poet was not in doubt.
Drouet's poem is set out below.
“Tree that I Love”
by Minou Drouet
Tree that I love,
tree in my likeness,
so heavy with music
under the wind’s fingers
that turn your pages
like a fairy tale,
tree
knowing like me
the voices of silence
that sways
the depth of your green locks
the quiver of your living hands
tree
that I love
my all alone
lost like me
lost in the sky
lost in the mud
lacquered in the dancing light
by the rain
tree
echo of wind’s grief
and birds’ joy
tree undressed by winter
for the first time I watch you.
There are many poems that Barthes could have chosen to demonstrate the point that material objects can have meaning laden upon them. I thought of this poem from Walter de la Mare:
As I was walking,
Thyme sweet to my nose,
Green grasshoppers talking,
Rose rivalling rose:
And wing, like amber,
Dispread in light,
As from bush to bush
Linnet took flight:
Master Rabbit I saw
In the shadow-rimmed mouth
Of his sandy cavern,
Looking out to the South.
'Twas dew-tide coming;
The turf was sweet
To nostril, curved tooth,
And wool-soft feet.
Sun was in West;
Crystal in beam
Of its golden shower
Did his round eye gleam.
Lank human was I,
And a foe, poor soul—
Snowy flit of a scut,
He was into his hole,
And—stamp, stamp, stamp!
Through dim labyrinths clear,
The whole world darkened,
A murderer near.
Walter de la Mare
But Barthes was French so he was likely to think first of a French poet. He may well have chosen Drouet's simply because the controversy over the authorship of her work was national news, so it came to his mind.
Note 2: Elements in images that signify passions emotions etc.
I am old enough to recall the Milk Tray ads, in which a handsome man performs James Bond style acts in order to deliver a box of chocolates to his loved one. The catchphrase was "and all because the lady loves Milk Tray". The chocolates are meant as the signifier but just in case the audience needs a nudge to understand what is meant, the man performing acts of derring do in order to deliver said chocolates acts as a further signifier; it may be argued that neither acts in isolation - it is 'Milk Tray Man' (MTM) with chocolates that is the signifier. In the same way that Barthes' black pebble my be weighted with a definite signified, so the chocolates are weighted by the presence of MTM.
 |
| The milk-tray-man Available from http://www.virginmedia.com/images/the-milk-tray-man.jpg |
Let's take another example from today's (19 April 2014) news, just to prove that you should need to go far to find examples of emotions within images
 |
| BBC News 19 April 2014. Available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27085857 |
- She is famous - many people on the right (few of whom are themselves recognisable) trying to glimpse one on the left;
- Everyone is happy, even adoring - smiling, trying to touch hands, signifying their adoration for the woman;
- The people towards the back are using cameras, iPads, smartphones etc to capture their own "I was there" moment. The number of cameras etc signifies that the woman is popular and famous, and taking her image presents no threat to them, indeed quite the contrary;
- The woman is appreciative, relaxed and welcoming of the attention - she is engaging in an informal way;
- The reactions are spontaneous and warm
This is therefore quite a complex image. The signifiers are many: smiling faces, an unstructured but well-behaved crowd; cameras; outstretched hands; one woman facing right, many people looking towards her. Joy and adoration may be said to be signified, the two elements coming together in the sign captured by the image.
We can notice as well that the camera operator has used a shallow depth of field, thus blurring people in near and far distance and emphasising the importance of the woman by ensuring she is in sharp focus and well lit, thus increasing the impact of the sign.
Note 3: Barthes uses the terms anti-physis and pseudo physis in his analysis of capitalism (Robinson, ibid). He believes the bourgeoisie does not wish to be named, especially at the level of ideology and everyday life. This refusal occurs by moving from anti-physis to pseudo physis, i.e. moving from a refusal to engage with the real world to an appearance of the real world which is actually a world of signs. Pseudo physis denies to people their ability to remake the world by setting narrow limits on how people are to live so as not to upset the dominant order.
The notes suggest looking at this painting: Portrait of Stakhanov by Leonid Kotliarov.
Stakhanov was an early hero of the Soviet socialist revolution. He became a celebrity in 1935 as part of the movement intended to increase worker productivity and demonstrate the superiority of socialism (Wikipedia). Stakhanov reportedly mined 227 tonnes of coal in one shift on 19 September 1935, although it later transpired he may have been assisted in what was an event stage managed by the Communist Party (New York Times, 1985).
In Barthesian terms, the real image of the miner (the anti-physis) metamorphoses into an ideological statement that the socialist system is best (the pseudo physis).
Virtually any image that seeks to provide a message beyond the real, beyond the mere representation, can be viewed in this way. One of my favourite images is by Dorothea Lange:
Lange passed the woman on her way home from a long assignment, then turned back to take the photograph. The woman asked Lange no questions as the photographer took five exposures (Clark, 1997, p151).Clarke continues:
"The woman is used purely as a subject, She is appropriated within a symbolic framework of significance as declared and defined by Lange....The woman is viewed as a symbol larger then the actuality in which she exists."
The image is composed perfectly: the mother at the centre, looking away from the camera, the children in the background (Clarke see symbolism with Madonna and Child). It is the woman's expression that provides the defining message: a vacant yet almost defiant stare. The real image stands for something more profound.
References:
Clarke (1997) The Photograph. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
We can notice as well that the camera operator has used a shallow depth of field, thus blurring people in near and far distance and emphasising the importance of the woman by ensuring she is in sharp focus and well lit, thus increasing the impact of the sign.
Note 3: Barthes uses the terms anti-physis and pseudo physis in his analysis of capitalism (Robinson, ibid). He believes the bourgeoisie does not wish to be named, especially at the level of ideology and everyday life. This refusal occurs by moving from anti-physis to pseudo physis, i.e. moving from a refusal to engage with the real world to an appearance of the real world which is actually a world of signs. Pseudo physis denies to people their ability to remake the world by setting narrow limits on how people are to live so as not to upset the dominant order.
The notes suggest looking at this painting: Portrait of Stakhanov by Leonid Kotliarov.
Stakhanov was an early hero of the Soviet socialist revolution. He became a celebrity in 1935 as part of the movement intended to increase worker productivity and demonstrate the superiority of socialism (Wikipedia). Stakhanov reportedly mined 227 tonnes of coal in one shift on 19 September 1935, although it later transpired he may have been assisted in what was an event stage managed by the Communist Party (New York Times, 1985).
In Barthesian terms, the real image of the miner (the anti-physis) metamorphoses into an ideological statement that the socialist system is best (the pseudo physis).
 |
| Migrant Mother Dorothea Lange, 1934 |
Virtually any image that seeks to provide a message beyond the real, beyond the mere representation, can be viewed in this way. One of my favourite images is by Dorothea Lange:
"The woman is used purely as a subject, She is appropriated within a symbolic framework of significance as declared and defined by Lange....The woman is viewed as a symbol larger then the actuality in which she exists."
The image is composed perfectly: the mother at the centre, looking away from the camera, the children in the background (Clarke see symbolism with Madonna and Child). It is the woman's expression that provides the defining message: a vacant yet almost defiant stare. The real image stands for something more profound.
References:
BBC (2013) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25295312 Accessed 20 April 2014
Clarke (1997) The Photograph. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dawn.com (2008) The Curious Case of Minou Drouet Available from http://www.dawn.com/news/840653/the-curious-case-of-minou-drouet Accessed 19 April 2014
Robinson (2011) Roland Barthes’s Mythologies: Naturalisation, Politics and everyday life
Available from http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-barthes-3/ Accessed on 20 April 2014
New York Times (1985) quoted in Wkipedia, Alexy Stakhanov
Wikipedia Alexy Stakhanov Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Stakhanov Accessed on 23 April 2014
Available from http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-barthes-3/ Accessed on 20 April 2014
New York Times (1985) quoted in Wkipedia, Alexy Stakhanov
Wikipedia Alexy Stakhanov Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Stakhanov Accessed on 23 April 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment