Visual Communication Experiences

Pisa, Italy

St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City
Rome, Italy

Modernity and Realism/Perspective: Ch. 3 & 4

Modernity is a term that scholars use to refer to the historical, cultural, political, and economic conditions related to the Enlightenment: the rise of industrial society and scientific rationalism; and the idea of controlling nature through technology, science, and rationalism (p. 95). In modernity, technological and social changes are viewed as both beneficial and imperative to progress. The alienated worker, the liberal human subject, and the subject constituted through scientific inquiry and concepts of progress all are common to the period of modernity. Foucault as well as several influential modern thinkers challenged the concept of the autonomous, self-knowing subject. Foucault's subject is never autonomous but is always constituted in relationships of power that are enacted through discourse (p. 100).

In visual theory, spectator (the individual who looks) and spectatorship (the practice of looking) have added meanings that derive specifically from film theory. Not only is the spectator's gaze constituted through a relationship between the subject who looks and other people, institutions, places, and objects in the world, but also the objects we contemplate may be described as the source of the look in the gaze. Once again, Foucault is revisited and the gaze is said to be constituted through a relationship of subjects defined within and through the discourses of institutions. Foucault's concept of discourse is helpful to better understand how power systems work to define how things are understood and spoken about in a given society. The term discourse describes passages of writing or speech, the act of talking about something (p. 105). The gaze, whether institutional or individual, thus helps to establish relationships of power. The act of looking is commonly regarded as awarding more power to the person who is looking than to the person who is the object of the look. The photograph is a central tool in establishing difference (p. 111). The main point here is that images are central to the experience of modernity and provide a complex field in which power relations are exercised and looks are exchanged (p. 136).

The term realism typically refers to a set of conventions or a style of art or representation that is understood at a given historical moment to accurately represent nature or the real or to convey and interpret accurate or universal meanings about people, objects, and events in the world (p. 146). The goal of realist art is to produce reality as it is. Foucault, once again, discusses art's ability to reflect truths about society. He used the term episteme to describe the way that an inquiry into truth is organized in a given era. An episteme is an accepted dominant mode of acquiring and organizing knowledge in a given period of history (p. 149).

Perspective refers to a set of systems or mechanisms used to produce representations of objects in space as if seen by an observer through a window or frame (p. 151). In perspective, the size and detail of objects depicted corresponds with their relative distance from the imagined position of the observer. There are challenges to perspective. Human vision is infinitely more complex than perspective's model of a stationary viewer and a world organized around line and space suggest. Impressionism and cubism are types of art that defied the tradition of perspective. Cubism in particular is a style that deliberately challenged the dominant model of perspective through an analytic system that broke up the perspectival space of the conventional painterly style (p. 166). Cubism just so happens to be one of my most favorite periods in art history. It appears as if someone has taken the picture, dropped it, and it broke into thousands of pieces only to pick up the individual pieces and put them back together. Digital media and imagining have also presented new modes through which the viewer can experience a multiplicity of perspectives on a multiplicity of virtual worlds within the same screen.

An Intro to Visual Culture: Ch. 1-2

In the first chapter, "Images, Power, and Politics" Sturken and Cartwright discuss representation. They assert, "Representation refers to the use of language and images to create meaning about the world around us" (p. 12). Further, they discuss the historical debates about representation considering whether representations "reflect the world as it is, mirroring it back to us through mimesis or imitation, or whether we construct the world and its meaning through representations" (p. 12). Immediately, Kenneth Burke comes to mind and his ideas of terministic screens and symbolic action. Burke says we all view the world through a different screen. Much like Sturken and Cartwright, he believes that the world is not simply reflected back to us through representations that stand in for things by copying their appearance. My point is, that it's highly unlikely that each of us viewed the images in the book in the same way or through the same lens. The picture that illustrates this point best is the Weegee (Arthur Felig) photograph entitled, "The First Murder." All of the people in the photograph are viewing the same scene, but each person has a different sentiment, emotion, lens, or screen they are viewing it through.

Another interesting point made in the first chapter is the widespread use of digital imaging technologies since the 1990s. Sturken and Cartwright purport these technologies have "dramatically altered the status of the photograph relative to truth claims, particularly in the news media" (p. 22). The result is that digital imaging has "partially eroded the public's trust in the camera image as evidence, even as the truth-value of the photograph clings to digital images" (p. 22). The authors make an excellent point saying that images are an important means through which ideologies are produced and onto which ideologies are projected. What ideologies or examples come to mind after reading this? Personally, the first thing that came to my mind are airbrushed images in magazines that have attributed to the distortion of acceptable female body types in America. Digital technologies have been employed to convey how women should look according to a particular ideology and mindset. Studies have shown correlations between these digitally altered images and the prevalence of eating disorders.

Much of the chapter also discusses denotative and connotative meanings. According to Sturken and Cartwright, denotative meanings refer to an images literal, explicit meaning. Whereas connotative meanings are informed by the cultural and historical contexts of the image and its viewers' lived, felt knowledge of those circumstances--all that the image means to them personally and socially (p. 20). Company logos operate according to a principle of instant recognition, counting on the fact that the denotative meaning slides into connotative meanings. They use the Nike swoosh as an example. The denotative meaning is the swoosh equals Nike. The connotative meaning is the swoosh means quality and coolness that will (hopefully) boost sales. What other examples of company logos come to mind, and what are the denotative and connotative meanings? Also, consider how different audiences view certain company logos. Take for example, Apple and their apple logo. Apple users see the logo and identify with the company as well as their products. There is a sense of "Apple pride" in that these consumers stick apple stickers on their car and boast about Apple computers trumping any other brand. However, for PC users, the apple may not necessarily be a symbol or representation of a preferred line of products. Instead, the PC users may shun the apple logo and see it as representing a cult or specific group of people whose interests are inherently different.

In the second chapter, Sturken and Cartwright discuss the production of meaning saying that it involves at least three elements besides the image itself and its producer. They are as follows:

(1) The codes and conventions that structure the image and that cannot be separated from the content of the image.
(2) The viewers and how they interpret or experience the image.
(3) The contexts in which an image is exhibited and viewed.

The authors go on to define a viewer as an individual who looks, and an audience as a collective of lookers. After they describe this distinction, they discuss the idea of interpellation as it applies to media and images. They assert that "images interpellate viewers" and purport interpellation describes the way that images and media texts seem to call out to us, catching our attention (p. 50). To be interpellated by an image is to know the image is meant to be understood, even if one's interpretation is unique or goes against the grain of a meaning that seems to have been intended. Advertising seeks to interpellate viewer-consumers. It seems as if advertising and other mass media campaigns target audiences. However, Sturken and Cartwright place a lot of emphasis on the individual and viewer in Chapter 2. Why do you think the authors have chosen to consider viewers, not audiences? They say by considering viewers they can describe some of the "many ways that viewers make meanings outside the boundaries of producers' intended messages and effects, even as viewers recognize those intended meanings" (p. 52).

Semester Project Ideas

I have two different routes I can take for my semester project. First, I could focus on my interest in corporate communications and come up with a way to incorporate a digital remix, video, Second Life and other avenues of visual communication. However, I can anticipate the question that immediately follows this assertion... "Corporate Communications is so broad, what area do you want to focus on?" Well, that's where I am stuck. My initial thought is creating my own corporation from scratch and coming up with visual deliverables including a digital remix, news releases, perhaps a company newsletter, a video and other types of internal and external communications. However, I would truly benefit from brainstorming and hearing others' ideas on how I can make this initial thought become a reality.

My second option would be to branch outside of corporate communications, and take a more exciting approach to this project. I could do something I've always wanted to do, but I know that the only real chance of me doing this particular task would be for a project of this nature. I adore the Food Network, and I would love to be able to cook like Paula, Giada, Sandy, and Rachael, but let's be honest, who really has that kind of time? Especially when you work part time, and you're in graduate school full time? So, I've always longed for a Food Network show where there is a chef/person who works a 9-5 job and then comes home to prepare meals much like the previously mentioned chefs do. Rachael Ray boasts of 30-minute meals, but I've tried them, and they are not 30 minutes. I spend at least 30 minutes in the grocery store just searching for the ingredients! Therefore, my intent is to create a Food Network show for people who work 40 hours+ a week who want to cook, but may not necessarily be able to prepare meals that take hours of preparation. I will also teach smart cooking strategies including preparing meals on Saturdays and Sundays and freezing them, or making the slow cooker your new best friend. My digital remix could be a cookbook of sorts with pictures, recipes, and smart cooking tips. Vizzie McAndrews, my SL avatar (Vizzie is short for visual comm), will be the typical Corporate America wife and mother who works 40+ hours a week, but still manages to put a decent, healthy meal on the table!

Obviously, my second option is much more involved and directed than my first option. However, I want to choose the option that will make the most sense for my career interests and goals. If option one is the route I need to go, that's fine. However, if I can achieve my objective and still have fun, I would like to go with option two. Thoughts?

Perhaps Vizzie could join the ranks of these chefs aka a few of my personal heroes!