Barthes explains how the image doesn’t have a straight forward language from which it can be interpreted, which is further complicated by the fact that the images is a mere representation of reality rather than reality itself. He then goes on to describe the three different types of message that might be found within an image and which can be used to interpret it. These are:
- Linguistic messages which are taken from captions and labels connected with the image. Text can either be used to precisely define and identify objects, or, to interpret an image in a certain way. Text can also be used alongside an image to portray a further message, often not to be found in the message (to relay).
- Iconic messages are symbolic and their interpretation will be based on the viewer’s cultural values.
- Literal messages are those that can be perceived from the explicit elements of an image.
Both the symbolic (iconic) and literal messages are understood together by the viewer, with the literal message being denoted (direct meaning) and the symbolic message connoted (suggestive).
Most images are polysemous (having many meanings) and the viewer can choose which ones to note and which to ignore. Literal messages such as text help to control the potential confusion of an open interpretation.
I have been giving some thought to the issues discussed by Barthes and tried to apply them to some of my own photos, with the following photograph raising some interesting thoughts for myself.
In terms of linguistic messages there are none. I will at some stage need to decide whether to add some text to relay further messages (or further information) which are perhaps different from those most obviously posed by the symbolic and literal messages contained within.
The literal message I take from this photo is that it is of a house which is fronted by brick walls. Whilst I might expect that this literal message can be read by most people who would come across this image, this conclusion cannot be guaranteed; some people across the world might not recognise this as a house, or may never have come across bricks. The literal, denoted message cannot, therefore, ever be pure and will always be influenced by cultural values but, as Barthes suggest, this is not a reason to fully ignore the literal message, particularly as it will almost always be read at the same time and in conjunction with the symbolic messages within the image. I therefore find myself reading this literal message from the photo from a reasonable context of understanding rather than from an absolute perspective.
The first symbolic message I read (or at least record) from this photo is that this house is suggestive of somebody’s home. I then work from this position and find other clues to suggest who this ‘somebody’ might be. To do this I notice the style and age of the house, local features such as the satellite dish and the plastic window frames, and the state of the garden and grassed area. These clues give me something to work off but there seems little else to suggest why the photographer made this scene significant by taking the photograph and presenting it to the viewer – but I also ask whether is this a purposeful tactic of the photographer, to not reveal its full significance?
As the person who made this photograph it does have further significance to me which goes beyond what can be immediately read within it. I will thus have to decide how much further I want to reveal (either through using a different photograph or presentation of it, juxtaposing it with another image(s) to create a further message(s), or, by adding some supporting text).
To provide some insight, this is a photograph of a house that I remember looking at when I was about 7 years old. I was with my Dad at the time, returning from a trip to the local park. My memory tells me that what I saw then is similar to what I now see in the photograph, (even though at first I was slightly uncertain as to whether I had found the right house when I returned to take the photograph some 35+ years later). My memory also recalls, however, that at the time my Dad saw something completely different to me. In his reality he saw his home, whereas I just saw another house.
This situation, where a person interprets information differently to the norm (based on the way that the mind works rather than cultural differences), is a dimension that Barthes’ explanations of the language of the photograph does not touch on. It presumes, which most of us would agree with, that we all have the same perception of reality when experiencing it at the same time. Hence the ‘rhetoric of the image’ presumes a universal perception of reality where the message taken from our eyes to our brain is constant and consistently interpreted – before the process of further, cultural interpretation begins.
This issue might not necessarily be something specific to the interpretation of the photograph but I am finding it interesting and useful to use this context to better understand my father’s ‘strange behaviour’ at that time. I wonder whether if I had taken a photograph and shown it to my father, would he have believed it? The modernist belief that the photograph never lies was probably a common understanding in the mid 1970’s, hence, would the photograph have been all-convincing, or, would his interpretation of reality have crossed over to his interpretation of the photograph? Could this photograph have been further used as future documentary evidence to help my father to demystify his altering perception of what was real? I will never entirely have answers to these questions but by considering them it is helping me to better understand my father’s difficulties all those years ago. This internal dialogue is also raising questions about the often discussed relationship between the photograph, truth and memory – as well as how this relates to different perceptions of reality.
I want to finish this post by reflecting on the image itself. I am not entirely convinced by the aesthetics of this image and will most likely retake it, but what has struck me from this dialogue is how the ‘rhetoric of the image’ is unlikely to change too much. A new photograph may add something about the aesthetic decisions of the photographer in trying to tie a series of photographs together, and I might be able to incorporate more (or less) visual clues to be interpreted, but the key significance of this image, as I have described, will not change – the photograph itself becomes almost insignificant yet, at the same time, its significance lies in the fact that I have decided to make and present it within this context.
Major Project 