On page 7, Berger talks about the relationship between the the signifier and the signified. He states that the relationship between the two is, "arbitrary, unmotivated, unnatural." When looking at media texts, is he stating that one can only understand the relationship between two aspects if they are studied carefully? When he gives the Star Trek example, he talks about the relationship between the setting and what is placed within the setting, so that the users can understand it is taking place in space. So let's say that the costumes or spaceships, used in the film were different. They didn't resemble what we would think "space gear," would look like. Is he saying that we wouldn't put the two together to fully understand the setting?
On pages 15-16, Berger introduces the terms connotation and denotation. What are the main differences between these two terms? Connotation is inferred and denotation is obvious, but than he also says that denotation needs to be described. If somthing is obvious to us, why do we need it to be described in order for us to understand it?
First off, I was wondering more on what Berger meant by "Americans tend to be more pragmatic, and that we do usually not find methodologies congenial." I did find his idea about language consisting of opposites interesting. The conception that there can be no good, without evil, and no happiness without sadness is a weird thought. I am a little confused by the term hyperreality...basically this whole reading is confusing. Now, I know I have heard about connotation and denotation before, but sort of forgot how they work as well. I liked the part about the perfume ad and how they conveyed all the underlying messages and hidden meanings. I tried googling the image to get a better look at it, and came across another ad quite similar. I guess they were right. http://www.punmiris.com/himg/o.876.jpg
The article was quite interesting in that it shows a different way to think about commonplace things which we encounter every day. It is as if he makes texts more complicated by simplifying their contents. On page 9 of the article, Berger states that we know that Star Trek is a science fiction show because at the beginning of each episode, the pilot states that they are venturing to other galaxies, that the show depicts spaceships, aliens, and ray guns, and that is what makes the show a science fiction show. My question would be whether a text needed to contain obvious indicators in order to fall into a certain mold. For instance, if Star Trek simply took place on another planet, but all of the characters appeared to be human and there was no advanced technology used or declarations that they are exploring space, if that would still be widely interpreted as a science fiction program.
On page 11 Berger states, "Signs, we must recognize, take a number of different forms. Words of course, are their most familiar form they stand for things, ideas, concepts, and so on. But sings have a number of other forms that we might consider." So I guess my question could be what are the other forms of signs, besides for advertising or giving us a specific location? Reading this whole article I thought a lot about religious symbols, because often when I think of symbols the first thing that comes to mind is religion. So I guess a question I have is what do symbols signify within any aspect of culture? If symbols are such a large part of our world, shouldn't we be more educated on what they mean? A lot of symbols are very familiar to us, while others like a country's flag, may not be familiar to us. What is the importance of symbols?
I thought that this article was very well written and gave a good perspective and insight into the signs and symbols that are present in texts. I think that I understand what Berger was talking about with hyperreality but need a little more clarification on that.
Berger mentions on p15 how the creator of a program intends to use codes that will speak to the audience. I was wondering if when creators think of these codes if they think about their messages on a global level? I was thinking of this because there are many shows that air in the united states but are also on the air around the world and there are different meanings behind the same symbol depending upon the culture (i.e. swastika in some cultures is a symbol of good luck while it also is a symbol of nazi germany)
Near the middle of the excerpt from "Media Analysis Techniques," Berger discusses the concept of hyperreality, i.e. the idea that people create or simulate a reality based on an "object, event, or experience." In class, we discussed versions of hyperreality (like audiences watching television or films or reading Shakespeare to escape their everyday lives). Can we think of any modern examples of hyperreality, aside from Disneyland? Similarly, what drives the western world's obsession with a simulated life and hyperreality? How does the media play into it?
I found the articles by Kellner and Berger to be somewhat related in the sense that both discuss the media's role in absorption and understanding of texts. As I read the second half of Berger's work (page 18) I found myself making a connection between the production of media texts and hidden agendas. In short, how do camera angles and editing techniques (Berger) play into production and political economy (Kellner)? Do you think that media uses specific camera angles to portray important political figures in a good or bad light?
On page 8, Berger makes note of the definitions of signifier and signified and each of their differences. While I think I understand their respective definitions. Does Berger mean that each term is effected by any change in the other? More or less if the signifiers change in any manner then the signified is changed and vice versa.
The example Berger uses in regards to Connotations and Denotations is the idea of how the Barbie Doll "signified the end of motherhood as a dominant role for women and the importance of consumer culture." Wouldn't it be to early to 'assume' that the importance of motherhood is drawn down in children just by playing with their dolls? To me, it doesn't make sense just because these girls play dress up with their Barbies then they wouldn't be good Mothers. So thus, I don't believe that this is a good example of a connotation.
1. I appreciate what Berger is saying when he picks apart that perfume ad. I love to read into subtext and connect the dots like that. I understand that the color red and open lips symbolize passion, and that a tropical environment suggests an escapist fantasy, but one of the other hints was kind of obscure. Why do simplicity and spaciousness represent wealth? Wouldn't wealth at times be marked by ostentation and conspicuousness? Sometimes inferring things can be a stretch. Berger here emulates a palm reader or tarot seer, suggesting clues mean a certain thing when really they are arbitrary at best.
2. I think it's odd that Berger didn't credit Marshall McLuhan at all with the development of signifiers and semiotics. Semiotics, after all is the study of how meaning is generated and conveyed by different texts. In 1964, McLuhan stated that "the medium is the message", which means that the medium bonds with the message, creates a relationship, and influences how the message is interpreted. Don't you think that there are similarities between what Peirce and Suassure pioneered and McLuhan's theory? If Berger really wanted to discover how meaning is interpreted he might want to entertain it.
On page 13 Berger states, "If something cannot be used to tell a lie, conversely it cannot be used to tell the truth; it cannot be used "to tell" at all. I am confused about this concept. What would be an example of something that cannot be used to tell a lie? I see the chart on page 13, but these are all examples of signs that can lie.
Also, by "something" does he mean a signifier,the signified or just the complete sound-image/ concept, a sign?
Another thought, can everything (every word,image,object,concept) be broken down by semiotics? I know we are focused on media but I don't understand how far the science of semiotics goes or is supposed to go. Does the sign have to be part of a narrative to apply semiotics?
@Justin: I understand your point about the Barbie doll, but I think that Berger means to address what the doll herself indicates about women's changing roles, not what it means for girls to play with her. Because Barbie is so glamorous and career-oriented, she does not fit the traditional role of mother and thus signifies a shift in those expectations for women.
@Rachel: In theory, yes, everything--every sign--could be broken down or analyzed using semiotics. We will talk more about this (and your other questions) in class.
On page 7, Berger talks about the relationship between the the signifier and the signified. He states that the relationship between the two is, "arbitrary, unmotivated, unnatural." When looking at media texts, is he stating that one can only understand the relationship between two aspects if they are studied carefully? When he gives the Star Trek example, he talks about the relationship between the setting and what is placed within the setting, so that the users can understand it is taking place in space. So let's say that the costumes or spaceships, used in the film were different. They didn't resemble what we would think "space gear," would look like. Is he saying that we wouldn't put the two together to fully understand the setting?
ReplyDeleteOn pages 15-16, Berger introduces the terms connotation and denotation. What are the main differences between these two terms? Connotation is inferred and denotation is obvious, but than he also says that denotation needs to be described. If somthing is obvious to us, why do we need it to be described in order for us to understand it?
First off, I was wondering more on what Berger meant by "Americans tend to be more pragmatic, and that we do usually not find methodologies congenial." I did find his idea about language consisting of opposites interesting. The conception that there can be no good, without evil, and no happiness without sadness is a weird thought. I am a little confused by the term hyperreality...basically this whole reading is confusing. Now, I know I have heard about connotation and denotation before, but sort of forgot how they work as well. I liked the part about the perfume ad and how they conveyed all the underlying messages and hidden meanings. I tried googling the image to get a better look at it, and came across another ad quite similar. I guess they were right.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.punmiris.com/himg/o.876.jpg
The article was quite interesting in that it shows a different way to think about commonplace things which we encounter every day. It is as if he makes texts more complicated by simplifying their contents. On page 9 of the article, Berger states that we know that Star Trek is a science fiction show because at the beginning of each episode, the pilot states that they are venturing to other galaxies, that the show depicts spaceships, aliens, and ray guns, and that is what makes the show a science fiction show.
ReplyDeleteMy question would be whether a text needed to contain obvious indicators in order to fall into a certain mold. For instance, if Star Trek simply took place on another planet, but all of the characters appeared to be human and there was no advanced technology used or declarations that they are exploring space, if that would still be widely interpreted as a science fiction program.
On page 11 Berger states, "Signs, we must recognize, take a number of different forms. Words of course, are their most familiar form they stand for things, ideas, concepts, and so on. But sings have a number of other forms that we might consider."
ReplyDeleteSo I guess my question could be what are the other forms of signs, besides for advertising or giving us a specific location?
Reading this whole article I thought a lot about religious symbols, because often when I think of symbols the first thing that comes to mind is religion. So I guess a question I have is what do symbols signify within any aspect of culture? If symbols are such a large part of our world, shouldn't we be more educated on what they mean? A lot of symbols are very familiar to us, while others like a country's flag, may not be familiar to us. What is the importance of symbols?
I thought that this article was very well written and gave a good perspective and insight into the signs and symbols that are present in texts. I think that I understand what Berger was talking about with hyperreality but need a little more clarification on that.
ReplyDeleteBerger mentions on p15 how the creator of a program intends to use codes that will speak to the audience. I was wondering if when creators think of these codes if they think about their messages on a global level? I was thinking of this because there are many shows that air in the united states but are also on the air around the world and there are different meanings behind the same symbol depending upon the culture (i.e. swastika in some cultures is a symbol of good luck while it also is a symbol of nazi germany)
Near the middle of the excerpt from "Media Analysis Techniques," Berger discusses the concept of hyperreality, i.e. the idea that people create or simulate a reality based on an "object, event, or experience." In class, we discussed versions of hyperreality (like audiences watching television or films or reading Shakespeare to escape their everyday lives). Can we think of any modern examples of hyperreality, aside from Disneyland? Similarly, what drives the western world's obsession with a simulated life and hyperreality? How does the media play into it?
ReplyDeleteI found the articles by Kellner and Berger to be somewhat related in the sense that both discuss the media's role in absorption and understanding of texts. As I read the second half of Berger's work (page 18) I found myself making a connection between the production of media texts and hidden agendas. In short, how do camera angles and editing techniques (Berger) play into production and political economy (Kellner)? Do you think that media uses specific camera angles to portray important political figures in a good or bad light?
On page 8, Berger makes note of the definitions of signifier and signified and each of their differences. While I think I understand their respective definitions. Does Berger mean that each term is effected by any change in the other? More or less if the signifiers change in any manner then the signified is changed and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteThe example Berger uses in regards to Connotations and Denotations is the idea of how the Barbie Doll "signified the end of motherhood as a dominant role for women and the importance of consumer culture." Wouldn't it be to early to 'assume' that the importance of motherhood is drawn down in children just by playing with their dolls? To me, it doesn't make sense just because these girls play dress up with their Barbies then they wouldn't be good Mothers. So thus, I don't believe that this is a good example of a connotation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I appreciate what Berger is saying when he picks apart that perfume ad. I love to read into subtext and connect the dots like that. I understand that the color red and open lips symbolize passion, and that a tropical environment suggests an escapist fantasy, but one of the other hints was kind of obscure. Why do simplicity and spaciousness represent wealth? Wouldn't wealth at times be marked by ostentation and conspicuousness? Sometimes inferring things can be a stretch. Berger here emulates a palm reader or tarot seer, suggesting clues mean a certain thing when really they are arbitrary at best.
ReplyDelete2. I think it's odd that Berger didn't credit Marshall McLuhan at all with the development of signifiers and semiotics. Semiotics, after all is the study of how meaning is generated and conveyed by different texts. In 1964, McLuhan stated that "the medium is the message", which means that the medium bonds with the message, creates a relationship, and influences how the message is interpreted. Don't you think that there are similarities between what Peirce and Suassure pioneered and McLuhan's theory? If Berger really wanted to discover how meaning is interpreted he might want to entertain it.
On page 13 Berger states, "If something cannot be used to tell a lie, conversely it cannot be used to tell the truth; it cannot be used "to tell" at all. I am confused about this concept. What would be an example of something that cannot be used to tell a lie? I see the chart on page 13, but these are all examples of signs that can lie.
ReplyDeleteAlso, by "something" does he mean a signifier,the signified or just the complete sound-image/ concept, a sign?
Another thought, can everything (every word,image,object,concept) be broken down by semiotics? I know we are focused on media but I don't understand how far the science of semiotics goes or is supposed to go. Does the sign have to be part of a narrative to apply semiotics?
@Justin: I understand your point about the Barbie doll, but I think that Berger means to address what the doll herself indicates about women's changing roles, not what it means for girls to play with her. Because Barbie is so glamorous and career-oriented, she does not fit the traditional role of mother and thus signifies a shift in those expectations for women.
ReplyDelete@Rachel: In theory, yes, everything--every sign--could be broken down or analyzed using semiotics. We will talk more about this (and your other questions) in class.