vanLeeuwen-analyzing visual texts through iconography

This is a summary of one of hte chapters from Handbook of Visual Analysis. I think we should further explore the notion of visual semiotics and iconography. Also, as noted in Rose (the chapter on semiotic analysis) I think we should further investigate Barthes notion of "mythology". I think that Barthes' mythology is a good way to think of our memes...citing Rose: myth is thus a form of ideoilogy...but the myth is believable precisely becaue form does not entirely replace meaning...the interpretation of mythologies requires a broad understanding of a culture's dynamics". Therefore, like memes, in terms of information literacy, the more you know, the more you see. The more you know, the more you see, the more you can make interesting meaning. One other really intersting notion of Barthes is htat he notes: "myth is not defined by the object of its mesage, but by the way in which it utters that message: there are formal litmits to myth, there are no substantial ones" (pl 117) Myth is a "second order semiological system" (p. 123) This is a double order meaning system. Individuals who are visually and media literate will be able to interpret the secondogical system" Myth builds on first order signs...with a signifier and signified. However, the denotative sign becomes a signifier at hte second or mythological Or memetic level of meaning. at this second level the signifier is accompanied by its own signified. The first level of meaning is the form, the sifgnified a concept. But at htis second level, at the level of myth or memetic meaning, this is signification. When image becomes form, the richness of the image is left behind and the gap is filled iwth signification. Myth makes us forget that things were and are made but naturalizes the way things are.(rose, p. 91). Therefore, when we insert memes into movies, we are constucting virtual realities beyond the first level meaning of the simple form. Additionally, using Rosenblatt's theory of transaction between reader and text, these meanings are derived through personal experience and the interaction between reader and text. Also, the meanings change based on the school-based literacy and other literacies of individuals. For example, people well versed in pop culture will find more meaning in certain types of media.
Here is the chapter summary...
Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Semiotics and iconography. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewett (Eds.). Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 92-118). London: Sage.
In this book chapter, van Leeuwen discusses two approaches to visual analysis: visual semiotics of Roland Barthes (1973, 1977) and iconography. He began by discussing how the two approaches search for the meaning of representation and the question of the hidden meanings of images. However, while the Barthes notion studies the image, treating cultural meanings as a given currency shared by all in a particular culture; iconography also attends to the context and how and why cultural meanings came about historically.
In Barthes’ semiotics, the key is the layering of meaning; the first meaning is the denotation (who or what is depicted) and the second layer is the connotation (what ideas and values are expressed through what is represented and how it is represented). For Barthes, denotation is relatively simple. Perceiving photographs is close to perceiving reality because they provide a point by point reference in terms of denotation. The first layer of interpretation is to simply recognize what we already know. Although denotation is partially “up to the eye of the beholder” it also depends on the context. These pointers relate to problems inherent in a Barthian description of visual denotation, factors which can change the meaning: categorization (including the use of captions); groups vs individuals (can have a similar effect); distancing (zooming); and surrounding text (or pictures).
The second layer of meaning, according to Barthes, is connotation—the layer of ideas and values, what things ‘stand for’ or ‘are signs of’. According to Barthes, this idea is already established as part of a cultural norm. For example, specific photographic techniques (zoom, shutter speed, effects) have been defined by Barthes as ‘myths’ in that they are first very broad concepts but they link together everything associated with a single entity. These are also ideological meanings, serving the status quo or the interests of those in power. Barthes further described the unwritten ‘dictionary’ of poses that can color meanings; he described the posing of objects where meaning comes from the object photographed as a ‘lexicon’. However, the specific parts of images are not simply a series of discontinuous ‘dictionary entries” but Barthes also reads them together as a “discursive reading of object-signs’ (1977, p. 24). Therefore, there is a ‘syntax’ because the ‘signifier of connotation is no longer to be found at the level of any one of the feragments of the sequence but at that…of the concatenation’ (1977, p. 24).
Connotation can also come through the style of artwork or photogenia, the techniques of photography such as ‘framing, distance, lighting, focus, speed’ (1977, p. 44). Some analytical categories, such as social distance, point of view, and modality fall under this category. Van Leeuwen provides an example of a visual qualitative and quantitative analysis on page 98-99.
Iconography, the second form of analysis, utilizes three layers of image meaning: representational meaning, iconographical symbolism, and iconological symbolism. ‘Representaitonal meaning’ is close to ‘denotation’ in that it is the recognition of what is represented on the basis of our past experience and prior knowledge (Panofsky, 1970). ‘Iconographical symbolism, the ‘object-signs’not only denote a particular object but also the ideas or concepts attached to it. Panofsky called it ‘secondary or conventional subject matter’ (1970). Conventions of the past are more recognizable than developing conventions. ‘Iconological symbolism’ is what could be called ideological meaning or what Panofsky explained, “to ascertain those underlying principles which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religion, or a philosophical persuasion’ (1970, 55).
Van Leeuwen also discriminated between Barthian visual semiotics and iconography in that iconography uses both textual analysis and contextual research. Representational meaning is determined by the following: the title indicates who or what is represented. The identification of the represented can be done on the basis of personal experience, on the basis of background research, through reference to other pictures, or on the basis of verbal descriptions.
In terms of symbolism, van Leeuwen distinguished between abstract symbols (abstract shapes with meaning, like crosses) and figurative symbols (represented people, places or things with symbolic value). Figurative symbols are often seen as natural. Additionally textual and contextual arguments are used that give ‘pointers’ to tell viewers how to interpret an image. Hermeren (1969) discussed four kinds of pointers: a) the symbolic image is presented with more than normal care and detail or given a prominent position, or made more conspicuous through lighting, tone, color, etc.; b) someone in the picture points at the image and gestures; c) the motif seems out of place; or d) the motif contravenes the laws of nature. Moving from iconographical to iconological symbolism, we move from identifying conventional associated meanings to interpretation. These interpretations depend on ‘something more than a familiarity with specific themes or concepts as transmitted through literary sources’. Instead, it requires ‘a mental faculty comparable to that of the diagnotisician—a vaculty which I cannot describe better than by the rather discredited term “synthetic intuition” ‘ (1970, p. 64).
Both methods of interpretation provide arguments for using representational elements such as: poses and objects and elements of style (angle, focus, lighting). Both systems recognize that symbolism may be open or disguised.