I noticed how Fiske said there were certain connotations one can make from looking at the photo about race and class, but I also wonderered what he might say about how gender, and the lack of females in the photo, might have a connotation as well.
I also needed clarification in that if one who saw this photo and disagreed with the caption and what it signified, or simply interpreted it differently than what the author/writer intended, is that what he means by aherrant decoding?
When I think myths, the first thing I usually think of is old wives tales, monsters, ghosts, spooky stories, etc... but this time for some reason I am thinking about science vs. religion, and how they both play a part in our lives today. Religion basically says in different ways that certain gods created all life on Earth, with not really any hardcore evidence to back it up, while science says that we are here because of evolution, with lots of hardcore evidence to back it up. I mean, back in the times of ancient tribes, when it rained and thundered, people thought it was because of "the gods", but we all know now that that is just the weather working in different ways. So many things in life can, over time with advancements in science and technology, can be explained for even the dumbest person to understand. There are still plenty of unsolved mysteries out there, but I think with time we will continue to find more and more answers to the unknown that exists in our world.
Upon reading the article "signification" I was enthralled with the idea of myth. On page 8, he says that "the mythologist reveals the hidden history and thus the socio-political works of myths by 'demystifying' them." I find this idea very interesting, because most people are born into a culture where myths are established and don't realize that there's a possibility for any other path of discourse than what there already is. I wonder whether different cultures all have these myths, and whether third world cultures function with less myths than more technological cultures. On the bottom of page 108 in the article about Notting Hill, he states that "Meanings are never just textual; they are always socio-political, and it is upon this dimension that the mythologist focuses." This makes me question whether it has always been that way, or whether myth has evolved to carry socio political connotations over the years.
In the signfication reading on page 4, Fiske uses an example relating to photography. He says that a child being photographed in a soft focus, would make it's user feel a certain way towards the photograph. Certain meanings would come to them vs. a dark black and white picture. So my question is, could the photographer be trying to sway the connotation, emotional meaning? But that is the point in let's say a commercial, right? The connotation of the commercial could differ between it's users, but not drasticly.
On page 5 of the same article, Fiske says, "if connotation is the second-order meaning of the signifer, myth is the second-order meaning of the signified." What does he mean by second-order meaning? (fig. 19 is unclear to me.)
In the knotting hill article, a picture is cropped so it may be placed in a newspaper article. Was the main reason of this to look at connotation and how certain changes make us feel certain ways about it? Or was it simply the newspapers opinion on the instance? When looking at connotation, is this studyied to find certain techniques to use in the media?
In the "signification" article, I was a little confused on Barthes 3 ways in which signs works in the second order...are connotations and myths completely unrelated to each other? From what I was understanding, it seemed to me that our connotations are based off of our cultural myths, but was not sure why Barthes had separated them into different categories of how signs work. If they are different, how?
I also wanted some clarification regarding the "Knotting Hill" section of this article. When Fiske, on p109 mentions "whether other cultures, or subcultures within our own society, have the same paradigm of 'ways of photographing the police,'" is Fiske using the term "paradigm" to mean a culture's or subculture's connotation? Again, I am interpreting them as very similar and am having trouble making a distinction between the 2 terms...so if they are different, how?
As I was reading Fiske's "Signification," I instantly thought of political economy and production. On pages 6 and 7, Fiske discusses myths, and the naturalization of myths to support a dominant force. Can we think of any modern societal myths? If so, who do they serve and how are they being naturalized? Historically, slavery, discrimination against women, and violence against people with non-heterosexual desires are examples of myths supported and "nauralized" by the media. More recently, gender myths have changed...for instance, women are no longer expected to marry by a certain age, or have children. How have gender myths in our society changed, and how have they changed in terms of dynamism?
On page 6 of Fiske's "Notting Hill" article, the text states, "Meanings are never just textual; they are always socio-political, and it is upon this dimension that the mythologist functions." If everyone who consumed media texts could read and understand this passage, how do think their perception of the media would change? Do you think it would vary cross-culturally, or are Americans the most concerned with media messages and their effects on our children, our culture, etc.?
On page 8, Fiske mentions the connotations associated with photo captions, and the significance of what these captions say and mean. In another course, I read an article about Muslim women in a Dutch paper. The photo showed a picture of a woman from the neck up, with only her eyes showing. The rest of her body was covered with a thick black veil. There was no photo caption. In this case, what does the lack of a caption say to the reader? What connotation does it give the article and the image? What kind of "preferred reading" do you think the lack of a caption would suggest? In terms of aberrant decoding, what ideas would be closed-off to the reader, simply because the photo did not have a caption?
In the first reading on page 15 & 86 Fiske talks about the first and second order of signification. These two orders are not clear to me at all. He says, the first order describes the relationship between the signifier and the signified within the sign, and of the sign with its referent to external reality. To my understanding, he is saying the sound/image and the meaning or concept needs to be understood within what the sign stands for in the external reality. He goes on to talk about the second order of signification and uses connotation to describe it. He says connotation describes the interaction that occurs when the sign meets the feelings or emotions (the signified?) of the users and the values of their culture. He uses a composer’s instructions to illustrate this idea.
I guess I don’t really understand the difference between the first and second order. So the first order is important because we are trying to understand a sign within its context. And the second order is important because we look at how the sign changes interactions based on the users feelings and emotions. These seem very similar. Aren’t emotions and feelings a part of a users context?
As I read further in the second reading on page 106 Fiske states, “Once we start thinking about the signifieds, we realize how unreal the distinction is between the first and second order.” Can we clarify further in class the difference between the first and second order of signification, and why the two categories are separate. Are these to orders just different ways of explaining connotation and denotation or do they tell us more?
1. In the first section, Fiske describes the second way signs work in the second order of signification (according to Barthes). This entails the utilization of myth--which is defined as a story by which a culture explains and understands some aspect of reality. He goes on to say that primitive myths are about life and death, men and gods, and good and evil. Sophisticated myths are something different. But don't you think that primitive myths still persist to this day? They have become more layered, but I don't think you can so easily categorize them as primitive since they are still envoked in our society. We still, after all, have creation myths thanks to Genesis. We still have a simplified, cut-and-dried version of good and evil that the government likes to explain to us: terrorism: bad, our way of life: good. Maybe a way to explain a culture as backwards and regressive would be to analyze how old their myths are and how long effective they still are.
2. I was interested by Barthes' definition of anchorage, or the captions accompanying photographs. Visuals are polysemous, or comprise of floating chains of signifieds. The viewer can choose some and ignore others. The words provided by the caption ground the viewer and "fix the floating chain of signifieds to counter the terror of uncertain signs". If that is the case for our modern society, which some think to be oppressive and overburdened by the dominant code (and preferred reading), then will revolution come in the form of art? It seems like that is the source of freedom, which is constantly tied down and bound by text.
On Page 87 Fiske goes into detail about the connotation in a hierarchial society. Fiske notes that a high ranking officer's uniform connotates ranking. I was confused if Fiske only says that a high ranking officer's uniform can be understood as a connotation or does he mean all of the army's code of uniforms is a connotation. Starting with the person who has the lowest ranking uniform and on up.
I don't think I completely understand Fiske's mentioning of science and its counter-myth. Is Fiske saying that science is a connotation in that is it is a counter-myth?
@Dugan. Primitive myths are still around. You can think of them as undergirding the more "sophisticated" myths that circulate. At base, you may be able to reduce those "sophisticated" myths to their "primitive" origins.
@Eddie. Re: use of "dynamism" on p. 91 -- this refers to change and idea that myths can and do change over time.
More on these ideas and others' questions in class today.
Fiske Reading
ReplyDeleteI noticed how Fiske said there were certain connotations one can make from looking at the photo about race and class, but I also wonderered what he might say about how gender, and the lack of females in the photo, might have a connotation as well.
I also needed clarification in that if one who saw this photo and disagreed with the caption and what it signified, or simply interpreted it differently than what the author/writer intended, is that what he means by aherrant decoding?
When I think myths, the first thing I usually think of is old wives tales, monsters, ghosts, spooky stories, etc... but this time for some reason I am thinking about science vs. religion, and how they both play a part in our lives today. Religion basically says in different ways that certain gods created all life on Earth, with not really any hardcore evidence to back it up, while science says that we are here because of evolution, with lots of hardcore evidence to back it up. I mean, back in the times of ancient tribes, when it rained and thundered, people thought it was because of "the gods", but we all know now that that is just the weather working in different ways. So many things in life can, over time with advancements in science and technology, can be explained for even the dumbest person to understand. There are still plenty of unsolved mysteries out there, but I think with time we will continue to find more and more answers to the unknown that exists in our world.
ReplyDeleteUpon reading the article "signification" I was enthralled with the idea of myth. On page 8, he says that "the mythologist reveals the hidden history and thus the socio-political works of myths by 'demystifying' them." I find this idea very interesting, because most people are born into a culture where myths are established and don't realize that there's a possibility for any other path of discourse than what there already is. I wonder whether different cultures all have these myths, and whether third world cultures function with less myths than more technological cultures.
ReplyDeleteOn the bottom of page 108 in the article about Notting Hill, he states that "Meanings are never just textual; they are always socio-political, and it is upon this dimension that the mythologist focuses." This makes me question whether it has always been that way, or whether myth has evolved to carry socio political connotations over the years.
In the signfication reading on page 4, Fiske uses an example relating to photography. He says that a child being photographed in a soft focus, would make it's user feel a certain way towards the photograph. Certain meanings would come to them vs. a dark black and white picture. So my question is, could the photographer be trying to sway the connotation, emotional meaning? But that is the point in let's say a commercial, right? The connotation of the commercial could differ between it's users, but not drasticly.
ReplyDeleteOn page 5 of the same article, Fiske says, "if connotation is the second-order meaning of the signifer, myth is the second-order meaning of the signified." What does he mean by second-order meaning? (fig. 19 is unclear to me.)
In the knotting hill article, a picture is cropped so it may be placed in a newspaper article. Was the main reason of this to look at connotation and how certain changes make us feel certain ways about it? Or was it simply the newspapers opinion on the instance? When looking at connotation, is this studyied to find certain techniques to use in the media?
In the "signification" article, I was a little confused on Barthes 3 ways in which signs works in the second order...are connotations and myths completely unrelated to each other? From what I was understanding, it seemed to me that our connotations are based off of our cultural myths, but was not sure why Barthes had separated them into different categories of how signs work. If they are different, how?
ReplyDeleteI also wanted some clarification regarding the "Knotting Hill" section of this article. When Fiske, on p109 mentions "whether other cultures, or subcultures within our own society, have the same paradigm of 'ways of photographing the police,'" is Fiske using the term "paradigm" to mean a culture's or subculture's connotation? Again, I am interpreting them as very similar and am having trouble making a distinction between the 2 terms...so if they are different, how?
As I was reading Fiske's "Signification," I instantly thought of political economy and production. On pages 6 and 7, Fiske discusses myths, and the naturalization of myths to support a dominant force. Can we think of any modern societal myths? If so, who do they serve and how are they being naturalized? Historically, slavery, discrimination against women, and violence against people with non-heterosexual desires are examples of myths supported and "nauralized" by the media. More recently, gender myths have changed...for instance, women are no longer expected to marry by a certain age, or have children. How have gender myths in our society changed, and how have they changed in terms of dynamism?
ReplyDeleteOn page 6 of Fiske's "Notting Hill" article, the text states, "Meanings are never just textual; they are always socio-political, and it is upon this dimension that the mythologist functions." If everyone who consumed media texts could read and understand this passage, how do think their perception of the media would change? Do you think it would vary cross-culturally, or are Americans the most concerned with media messages and their effects on our children, our culture, etc.?
On page 8, Fiske mentions the connotations associated with photo captions, and the significance of what these captions say and mean. In another course, I read an article about Muslim women in a Dutch paper. The photo showed a picture of a woman from the neck up, with only her eyes showing. The rest of her body was covered with a thick black veil. There was no photo caption. In this case, what does the lack of a caption say to the reader? What connotation does it give the article and the image? What kind of "preferred reading" do you think the lack of a caption would suggest? In terms of aberrant decoding, what ideas would be closed-off to the reader, simply because the photo did not have a caption?
In the first reading on page 15 & 86 Fiske talks about the first and second order of signification. These two orders are not clear to me at all. He says, the first order describes the relationship between the signifier and the signified within the sign, and of the sign with its referent to external reality. To my understanding, he is saying the sound/image and the meaning or concept needs to be understood within what the sign stands for in the external reality. He goes on to talk about the second order of signification and uses connotation to describe it. He says connotation describes the interaction that occurs when the sign meets the feelings or emotions (the signified?) of the users and the values of their culture. He uses a composer’s instructions to illustrate this idea.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don’t really understand the difference between the first and second order. So the first order is important because we are trying to understand a sign within its context. And the second order is important because we look at how the sign changes interactions based on the users feelings and emotions. These seem very similar. Aren’t emotions and feelings a part of a users context?
As I read further in the second reading on page 106 Fiske states, “Once we start thinking about the signifieds, we realize how unreal the distinction is between the first and second order.” Can we clarify further in class the difference between the first and second order of signification, and why the two categories are separate. Are these to orders just different ways of explaining connotation and denotation or do they tell us more?
That first page number is supposed to read 85 not 15.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. In the first section, Fiske describes the second way signs work in the second order of signification (according to Barthes). This entails the utilization of myth--which is defined as a story by which a culture explains and understands some aspect of reality. He goes on to say that primitive myths are about life and death, men and gods, and good and evil. Sophisticated myths are something different. But don't you think that primitive myths still persist to this day? They have become more layered, but I don't think you can so easily categorize them as primitive since they are still envoked in our society. We still, after all, have creation myths thanks to Genesis. We still have a simplified, cut-and-dried version of good and evil that the government likes to explain to us: terrorism: bad, our way of life: good. Maybe a way to explain a culture as backwards and regressive would be to analyze how old their myths are and how long effective they still are.
ReplyDelete2. I was interested by Barthes' definition of anchorage, or the captions accompanying photographs. Visuals are polysemous, or comprise of floating chains of signifieds. The viewer can choose some and ignore others. The words provided by the caption ground the viewer and "fix the floating chain of signifieds to counter the terror of uncertain signs". If that is the case for our modern society, which some think to be oppressive and overburdened by the dominant code (and preferred reading), then will revolution come in the form of art? It seems like that is the source of freedom, which is constantly tied down and bound by text.
On Page 87 Fiske goes into detail about the connotation in a hierarchial society. Fiske notes that a high ranking officer's uniform connotates ranking. I was confused if Fiske only says that a high ranking officer's uniform can be understood as a connotation or does he mean all of the army's code of uniforms is a connotation. Starting with the person who has the lowest ranking uniform and on up.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I completely understand Fiske's mentioning of science and its counter-myth. Is Fiske saying that science is a connotation in that is it is a counter-myth?
On page 91 of Signification, the author uses the term dynamism. I was a little confused as to what the term means?
ReplyDeleteAre myths very similar to connotative meanings since they both require a person’s past experience to garner a response?
@Dugan. Primitive myths are still around. You can think of them as undergirding the more "sophisticated" myths that circulate. At base, you may be able to reduce those "sophisticated" myths to their "primitive" origins.
ReplyDelete@Eddie. Re: use of "dynamism" on p. 91 -- this refers to change and idea that myths can and do change over time.
More on these ideas and others' questions in class today.