Response to Barthes', "Rhetoric of the Image" and Wysocki's "Writing New Media"
There are many components to the thought of an image being used as a linguistic form of communication, but what I found incredibly interesting about Barthes' thoughts on the topic is the way in which he read different levels of meaning into a single image of an advertisement. Wysocki takes a similar approach when she discusses the image on an advertisement in the New Yorker.
It is obvious that the images in advertisements have an immense amount of meaning that directly refutes the claims of some that an image is a subsidiary way of linguistic communication. While reading “Rhetoric of the Image” the idea of hieroglyphics continued to bounce around in my mind as well as the thought of ancient civilizations’ cave drawings. There was a time in our history that images were the only linguistic representations of communication available. It is because of these images that we have garnered great understanding of the past.
I believe that the true test of the message behind
an image is the thought process the creator of the image or the user of the
image has had before choosing it. In the same way an advertiser carefully
decides what images have an “Italianicity” connotation. As linguistic beings,
is there really a way for us to get away from images having a linguistic
meaning behind them? It is not likely if there was a critical selection process
completed in order to choose the image.
I immediately think of the Japanese alphabet because
each symbol, or picture, has a linguistic meaning. When you put those symbols
together, you form a different linguistic meaning. Why can’t we allow our
students to use visual images or symbols to represent linguistic communication
and to give them the opportunity to practice the skill of critical thinking?
For me, this is the key to making using new media in
my classroom meaningful and worthy of our extremely limited class time. Without
the thought and the process of careful selection, the image is indeed depleted
of any linguistic communication.
Response to Bolter and Grusin’s “Understanding New
Media”
We live in a world of instant gratification seekers
and “Understanding New Media” begins by discussing the emergence of new media
as a means to quench the unquenchable thirst of a culture lusting for
continuous immediacy and hypermediacy. Creators of media are trying to compete
with an ever changing environment, thus generating a void by continuous creation.
As an educator, I find that it is my responsibility to prepare my students for
a world that we aren’t even able to imagine yet, as this is the environment
they will most likely live in. I work hard not to allow my knowledge of the new
forms of communication via new media to become stagnant. If I stop learning, I
will be left behind in a world that revolves around how to make our world even
more accessible.
Bolter and Grusin speak to how the purpose of media,
is to create the illusion that we can experience things as if we are right there.
While sitting in the movie theater watching Avengers in 3D, another form of new
media that is becoming a sort of requirement for any action film, it was like I
was on top of those buildings with those superheroes.
The idea of replacing the old with the new is a
common theme in a society of instant gratification seekers, but in my
classroom, I believe a combination of different communication methods is
essential.
Images are good. They are good enough to use in the classroom. I agree that we need to use them in conjunction with words to make meaning. I even believe that they can be a more powerful and efficient way of communicating at times. Ancient civilizations knew this, and I commend them for the record they left in a universal langugage. However, we evolved. I believe that while images are valuable, especially for young people who are just starting to develop their vocabularies, words should be the ultimate goal of our communication--the highest achievement in personal expression. As I type that however, I think of music, paintings (which you alluded to in your previous post), and all the other ways artists express themselves. I realize that I value poets, but that does not make them superior to their peers, other artists who express themselves in other ways. I appreciate this post because it has helped me undermine my own stubborn defensiveness and be more open to new possibilities.
ReplyDeleteI think what you are saying is that we must as writing teachers focus on the linguistic message of the image. But maybe I'm misreading you. In any event, I agree that the use of images of visual rhetoric in my classroom is about the message those images communicate. We use words to understand images, to make sense of and to analyze images. When students are using or creating images in their work, even a strictly visual essay, they are using words to help us understand why they have done what they have done, and we are using words to make sense of what we see. I don't think that we lose our love of words, of storytelling, when we appreciate and help our students appreciate the various relationships between image and word.
ReplyDeleteI share Katie’s sense that you are emphasizing the linguistic meaning behind the image, even though it is clear that you are also acknowledging the power of images in history and today. I was curious when you say that “the true test of the message behind an image is the thought process the creator of the image or the user of the image has had before choosing it.” Images are typically created and circulated with intentions behind them, and certainly we and our students need to be attentive to those intentions. But how do we know what an image maker or user intends from his or her use of an image? Barthes seems to be suggesting that it is the “linguistic message” that represses all the stray associations and meanings that an audience might bring to a particular image. The linguistic message is crucial in controlling the meaning of the image, and therefore things like captions and textual context provide key ways for an author (and for society) to use words to control images and the meanings made from them. One the other hand, what do images add to words that words can’t do by themselves? I share your sense of amazement at the way Barthes unpacks the different layers of the Panzani ad. What unique powers and dangers does this openness of the image to so many layers of meaning have for writers? How can we as writers (and our students) responsibly control this power?
ReplyDelete