It took for a few reads of Chapter 2 to truly digest the meaning on the semiotic theory. Once I had a clearer understanding that according to Kress and Van Leeuwen that semiotic theory is the theory of the interpretation of meaning, basically the understanding of how humans interpret imagery. As I continued through the chapter I felt that I could relate it to through my prior coursework in Communication Sciences in the 1990's prior to the internet. Much of my coursework was focused on communication campaigns in underdeveloped countries with a high rate of illiteracy. Imagery is just as or as powerful than the written word and through the semiotic theory we can understand how powerful imagery can be.
To better understand semiotic theory you must understand the interactive participant and the represented participant. Kress and Van Leeuwen describe the interactive participant as those who create the images or who are viewing the images. The represented participant are the participants who constitute the subject matter. In the case of the image 2.1 which was used in an Australian primary school text book (Oakley et al., 1985) where one graphic is of a neutral representation of aboriginal tools and the other a more personal interactive representation of Aboriginals holding up wooden weapons while British hold guns. The represented participants in the neutral representation of weapons are the Aboriginals and in the more personal and interactive image the represented participants are both the Aboriginals and the British. In this case the Interactive participants are Australian primary school students. By using imagery The Aboriginals are characterized as primitive and less advanced than the British who colonized them.
Propaganda pieces are a great example of semiotic theory, before TV and the Internet were a mainstay the use of propaganda imagery was prevalent in everyday life. Iconic WW2 propaganda posters are still recognizable today. Images were used throughout the war effort to aid in conscription before the draft and to encourage women to join the work force. The example below of the woman dressed in a navy uniform is one of my favorite propaganda pieces. The US government information office being the interactive participants in this piece and the young men of the US. Resources
Oakley, M. et al. (1985) Our Society and Others, Sydney, McGraw-Hill
HI Cheryl:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post and for using propaganda as an example of what images can do to influence people. War time images seem to have even more effect on society. Even though your image is very cute the message behind it is very powerful.
During the gulf war wars the images our government want is us to see total affected public opinions . I listen to the show On the Media (NPR) and they have very good discussions on what images we see and what we do not and how that affect public opinion. Behind the scenes the war of images continue and Madison Avenue firms are still the priests that know who to craft the language and visual message.
Best wishes.
Khader
I enjoyed reading your post, I to had to read the chapter a couple of times for it to fully absorb. Your utilization of propaganda pieces was certainly a great example! I have actually collected a few of those old posters; I love history and vintage items. Today we often do not think about marketing in this way, everything is dedicated to televisions spots, social media and magazines. Yet when you look at the old propaganda posters you see that they are often, direct, short and serve a specific agenda. While we all perceive a visual article differently, I do believe that back during those times there wasn’t as much wiggle room in terms of misunderstanding or missing the main point. However, I am sure that some woman definitely were not thinking, “Gee I wish I were a man” and others were probably thinking that they could do anything a man could do; perhaps even better!
ReplyDelete