Semiotics
Semiotics is the study of symbols and how they can be interpreted within social context and without. Denotation refers to what we can see within the image, the straightforward, simplistic, superficial parts of the image, which need no explanation. By contrast, connotation refers to the hidden messages, or the ideologies that we can relate to the symbols within the image.
Denotation |
Connotation |
Denotation is the direct things that you can see in the image, without having to know anything about the photograph. It is the focal subjects of the image, whether that be human or object, or the refraction of light.
|
Connotation is the relationship between the subjects of the photograph and reality; what they may mean if we were to see the scene in the street and try to figure out what was going on. For example; two people holding hands may be the denotation, but from this we can infer that there is a type of relationship between the two people by the intimacy they are sharing. If it is a young person and an old person we may think parent and child, two people of similar ages may be husband and wife, girlfriend and boyfriend. It is the meaning behind the symbols shown within a scene.
|
Garry Winogrand
Denotations:
A white woman and a black man, dressed in smart clothes, holding chimpanzees which have been dressed up in clothes. In a busy crowded area, with many people around them. Connotations: During the civil rights period, where racism and segregation were the norm in America. The racial slur of referring to black people as monkeys seems to be the background of this image. We can connote from the social context, that this mixed couple holding monkeys dressed up like children has racist connotations. |
However, the context of this image says otherwise; from accounts by Winogrand, we know that he was, in fact, at a zoo, and the couple in the image were models on a photoshoot.
The denotations of this photograph:
I can see a boy, with his shirt half off, wearing two chain necklaces, and one fingernail is painted black. The connotations of this photograph: A boy wearing nail polish may be about gender norms, the chains imply a sense of manliness, and are usually related to American gang culture, which contrasts with the way in which we perceive nail varnish to be worn. The half off shirt implies a warm day; it also has connotations of being comfortable in ones own skin, and is also something very central to boys. It is socially unacceptable for a girl to do the same. |
Roland Barthes' Camera Lucida
The Studium and the Punctum
The idea of the Studium derives from a general kind of existence of the image, as something that is just there. Not the thing that draws you in, more just the general knowledge that you can describe about an image, without any context. The indexical factors that exist within the image, which allows you to spectate, to to establish, and to animate the photograph in front of you. The name studium exists in Latin. It does not mean to study, rather, "application to a thing, taste for someone, a kind of general, enthusiastic commitment of course, but without special acuity".
The idea of Punctum is the thing, whatever it may be, that reaches out from the image and punches you. It is subjective to everyone, and also from image to image, may not exist. The punctum may be a detail of some sort; something only half visible, or something that relays a personal connection to the viewer of the image. The punctums relation to your own self means, as Barthes states, it is, " In a certain fashion, to give myself up".
The idea of the Studium derives from a general kind of existence of the image, as something that is just there. Not the thing that draws you in, more just the general knowledge that you can describe about an image, without any context. The indexical factors that exist within the image, which allows you to spectate, to to establish, and to animate the photograph in front of you. The name studium exists in Latin. It does not mean to study, rather, "application to a thing, taste for someone, a kind of general, enthusiastic commitment of course, but without special acuity".
The idea of Punctum is the thing, whatever it may be, that reaches out from the image and punches you. It is subjective to everyone, and also from image to image, may not exist. The punctum may be a detail of some sort; something only half visible, or something that relays a personal connection to the viewer of the image. The punctums relation to your own self means, as Barthes states, it is, " In a certain fashion, to give myself up".
The Studium of this image is that I know it is an abandoned horse riding stable, one I have visited myself, a few times in my youth. The graffiti is new, as is the decaying appearance. This brings no concern to me, as this place was not central to my life; these are mere facts, not my Punctum. The half opened draws are probably from a group of teens exploring, and are the crosses that cover the room next to it.
If I were not the photographer, I would not know that the room next door, of which is barely in the image, has been painted purple, with crosses covering the walls, and a singular armchair in the middle of the room. This draws me in, but it is in fact, the open can of baked beans that is my Punctum. The wire attached is supposed to heat them up, and it has been used recently. This infers that I was maybe not alone when I took this image. |
The Ethics Of Photography
The studium:
From the title we know this photograph is taken in the Bronx, a fairly impoverished area of New York in 1970. It is a family portrait of sorts, the mother and the father are visibly shorter than the son; The Jewish giant, as he is referred to in the title. The parents expressions are that of concern maybe. Contextually, I know that the boy didn't have the best relationship with his father. I also know contextually that Eddie Carmel suffered from acromegaly, resulting from a tumour on his pituitary gland, which meant he wouldn't stop growing. He grew to be 8'9, and died two years after this photograph was taken. |
Susan Sontag on Diane Arbus
Susan Sontag is critical of Arbus: her colonialist views upon photography and how we take images expose a lot about her practice. Arbus took pictures with no responsibility for the individuals lives; she photographed the ostracised, with no awareness. She exploited their struggles. Sontag states “Photographing an appealing underworld... she has no intention of entering into the horror of those images as experienced by the inhabitants of those worlds”. She does not photograph for awareness, but for her own purposes- by contrast, Donna Ferrato, an activist photographer, photographs around the horrors of domestic violence, living with the victims she photographs, and exploring their reality. She has set up a women’s shelter, and donates to charities. Her work informs, and empathises; Arbus’ work instead comes from a place of privilege. Her physical attributes, and abilities mean that she holds the power in these images, and the way in which they portray the people in them. Her abuse of such power is the issue; she believes that simply because she has a camera, it releases her of any responsibility, as though these people aren't people, they were simply objects for her to play with. Sontag talks about how Arbus' work doesn't focus on the horrors which have been made a public outcry, like "Thalomide babies or napalm victims." These are subjects which have been presented to the public already; They know the tragedy, a different message has been put forward already. By contrast, the "freaks" she photographs had no public dialogue, no-one to defend the way in which they are portrayed. It also drew attention to disadvantaged groups, from the perspective of the safe, middle class viewer. They had no obligation to help, as that was not the focal point of the photographs.
Solomon-Godeaus on Diane Arbus
Solomon-Godeaus ideas on Arbus' practice differ greatly. Instead, she views Arbus' work as too harshly critiqued by Sontag.
Susan Sontag is critical of Arbus: her colonialist views upon photography and how we take images expose a lot about her practice. Arbus took pictures with no responsibility for the individuals lives; she photographed the ostracised, with no awareness. She exploited their struggles. Sontag states “Photographing an appealing underworld... she has no intention of entering into the horror of those images as experienced by the inhabitants of those worlds”. She does not photograph for awareness, but for her own purposes- by contrast, Donna Ferrato, an activist photographer, photographs around the horrors of domestic violence, living with the victims she photographs, and exploring their reality. She has set up a women’s shelter, and donates to charities. Her work informs, and empathises; Arbus’ work instead comes from a place of privilege. Her physical attributes, and abilities mean that she holds the power in these images, and the way in which they portray the people in them. Her abuse of such power is the issue; she believes that simply because she has a camera, it releases her of any responsibility, as though these people aren't people, they were simply objects for her to play with. Sontag talks about how Arbus' work doesn't focus on the horrors which have been made a public outcry, like "Thalomide babies or napalm victims." These are subjects which have been presented to the public already; They know the tragedy, a different message has been put forward already. By contrast, the "freaks" she photographs had no public dialogue, no-one to defend the way in which they are portrayed. It also drew attention to disadvantaged groups, from the perspective of the safe, middle class viewer. They had no obligation to help, as that was not the focal point of the photographs.
Solomon-Godeaus on Diane Arbus
Solomon-Godeaus ideas on Arbus' practice differ greatly. Instead, she views Arbus' work as too harshly critiqued by Sontag.
John Berger
John Berger is a marxist- his whole view is formed under this ideology.
John Berger holds the view that colour photography reinforces capitalism, and the consumer society that we live in. Advertisements use colour photography to produce this dream, an unachievable one, that is full of glamour. Glamour, he says, is a recently made up concept; prior to our capitalist society, there was no consumer based society. The ruling classes where able to flaunt their wealth via oil paintings, and this was seen as an unachievable status, especially as it was ascribed rather than achieved. However, as people started working in factories, a new class appeared, the middle class. They had an achieved status, of which they showed off using photography.
This idea of a more palatable dream is used in the colour photography of advertisements of the 1970's. These images advertise an alternative way of life, which we can achieve through consuming more. This status can theoretically be achieved by anyone, but is realistically only enjoyed by the few.
The oil paintings of the past and colour adverts of the present sell the same ideas, produced using similar devices of atmosphere and setting.
John Berger holds the view that colour photography reinforces capitalism, and the consumer society that we live in. Advertisements use colour photography to produce this dream, an unachievable one, that is full of glamour. Glamour, he says, is a recently made up concept; prior to our capitalist society, there was no consumer based society. The ruling classes where able to flaunt their wealth via oil paintings, and this was seen as an unachievable status, especially as it was ascribed rather than achieved. However, as people started working in factories, a new class appeared, the middle class. They had an achieved status, of which they showed off using photography.
This idea of a more palatable dream is used in the colour photography of advertisements of the 1970's. These images advertise an alternative way of life, which we can achieve through consuming more. This status can theoretically be achieved by anyone, but is realistically only enjoyed by the few.
The oil paintings of the past and colour adverts of the present sell the same ideas, produced using similar devices of atmosphere and setting.