Images
That essay was a really tough read. After our class discussion it seemed like there was some discrepencies. In the beginning of the essay Barthes says, "the image is felt to be weak in respect of meaning." Which as discussed in class says that images don't have meaning and we give them meaning using our cultural codes. However, later we talked about all the various meanings that can be found in the Panzani image. So if they hold no meanings then how is it that we found so many?
Another thing seemed a little far fetched for me to believe. And after talking with some of you after class I think that you are with me on this one. The Micheal Jordan poster and the race issue. As someone so eloquently put it "it looks like Nike was just trying to sell some fucking shoes." I think they are right. When creating this poster I think that Nike had some alterior motives, I doubt they were thinking, "this is going to show a black person transceding race." I mean that's a little out there don't you think?
All in all I am looking forward to digging deeper into the Barthes essay to learn more. I think we had a good discussion in class and I am excited to hear more about what you guys think.
Another thing seemed a little far fetched for me to believe. And after talking with some of you after class I think that you are with me on this one. The Micheal Jordan poster and the race issue. As someone so eloquently put it "it looks like Nike was just trying to sell some fucking shoes." I think they are right. When creating this poster I think that Nike had some alterior motives, I doubt they were thinking, "this is going to show a black person transceding race." I mean that's a little out there don't you think?
All in all I am looking forward to digging deeper into the Barthes essay to learn more. I think we had a good discussion in class and I am excited to hear more about what you guys think.
posted by Chelsea @ 1:22 PM
3 Comments:
At 8:50 PM,
That One Girl said…
I said this on someone else's blog too, but here is what I think the Barthes essay is trying to say. An image is what it is. It is a record of a moment. Images resist representation. The meaning isn't actually in an image, but is in the social codes that we give them. This can happen in 3 ways, as described by Barthes' essay. The linguistic meanings act as anchors, the iconic meanings are denoted, and the symbolic meanings relate to cultural codes. Basically, an image doesn't mean anything on it's own. It only means something when we interpret it through our social codes, which are virtually inescapable. This is being discussed on others' blogs as well.
As I also said on someone else's blog (maybe Kyle's), I really don't find the interpretation of the Michael Jordan Wings ad to be that far off. I do agree, however, that obviously the ad was trying to sell shows. Disregarding the race factor, if MJ is God-like and wears Nikes, the ad is saying if you wear Nikes, you'll be God-like too. A big target audience for Nike is minorities, so I really don't think the racial interpretation of it is far off. That's just my opinion though, and you are equally entitled to yours. (Duh)
At 10:13 AM,
Matt Stonecipher said…
I wasn't saying the meaning behind the Jordan picture was off. I was just confused as to why he said images are less open for interpretation but he was going into further depth behind the meaning of the picture.
At 12:28 PM,
cbd said…
I think the key here is the gap between what is commonly believed about images and what we can find out by digging deeper: that's why Barthes says "the image is felt to be weak." By working with the image in detail, Barthes (and Banash and y'all) recover some of those meanings, which as Julie writes, can for Barthes be considered in a few ways.
Post a Comment
<< Home