Chapter two is and in-depth look at how viewers make meaning. The sentence that I think best summarizes the whole 40 page chapter is this: “Meanings are produced through the complex negotiations that make up the social process and practice though which we produce and interpret images.” (49) A wordy sentence, I know, but it really highlights the different sections of the chapter which include: Producers’ Intended Meanings, Aesthetics and Taste, Collecting, Display, and Institutional Critique, Reading Images as Ideological Subjects, Ending and Decoding, Reception and Audience, Appropriation and Cultural Production, and Reappropriation and Counter-Bricolage. I have to admit, I’m a little intimidated by this book, and even the class at times (Perhaps I’ll blame it on being a freshman). These are all new ideas to me, so I’ll give it my best shot to summarize and reflect on chapter two: Viewers Make Meaning.
The first section talks about the producer. The producer isn’t always a singular entity who creates the image, but can also be a collective group that creates this certain “category or brand of work” as the author describes on page 52. The author then goes on to say that “there is no ultimate authorial meaning for readers to uncover the text…The text is also open to meanings and interpretations that exist alongside and even against the more obvious meanings” (52). I definitely would have to agree with this statement. As an artist, I don’t feel pressure to create a certain meaning for my viewers to find, in fact, that’s one of the last things I think about, art to me is more personal, sort of like a diary and I would rather have my viewers come up with their own meanings and try not to think what my motives were. That way the piece becomes more personal to them; the chapter goes into this in the following sections.
Other quotes from this section that I enjoyed are: “Most if not all images have a meaning that is preferred by their producers…We usually have no way to know for certain what a producer, designer, or artist intended his or her image or structure to mean” (53-54) I also like the idea that the producer isn’t omniscient to the meanings of the image because the view brings in experience that the producer didn’t expect.
Lastly in this section, I thought is was really interesting how, “The visual clutter of the context alone of say, a place like Time Square, may affect how viewers interpret these images, as may juxtapositions with other images” (54). It never occurred to me that the location can change the meaning of an image so much – but it makes sense: I never see a flyer on a telephone pole; I see a telephone pole littered with layers and layers of brightly covered paper screaming at me. I’m sure graphic designers really need to take that into account when designing their images.
I found the following section, “Aesthetics and Taste” very straightforward and agreeable. The main point of this section is “The criteria used to interpret and give value to images depend on cultural codes, or shared concepts…All viewer interpretations involve two fundamental concepts of value – aesthetics and taste” (56). This quote and entire section relates back to the first chapter’s discussion about value.
Following the introduction of the section, it talks about aesthetics, “Aesthetics has traditionally been associated with philosophy and the arts, and aesthetic objects have stood apart from utilitarian objects” (56). Before reading the rest of the chapter, I realized at how this is changing so much in our modern society; being a huge fan of interior design, I’d have to disagree that art is separate from utilitarian objects now-a-days. Look at Scandinavian design – they have perfectly merged art and function. Moving on…Taste was the next subject up for discussion in this section. “Taste is not simply a matter of individual interpretation. Rather, taste is informed by experiences relating to one’s class, cultural background, education, and other aspects of identity” (57). I really never thought of taste as that definition, but it really makes sense, although the idea of “good taste” is constantly changing today. This chapter really opened my eyes to social standards and how we have, and do view images – past and present.
The first section talks about the producer. The producer isn’t always a singular entity who creates the image, but can also be a collective group that creates this certain “category or brand of work” as the author describes on page 52. The author then goes on to say that “there is no ultimate authorial meaning for readers to uncover the text…The text is also open to meanings and interpretations that exist alongside and even against the more obvious meanings” (52). I definitely would have to agree with this statement. As an artist, I don’t feel pressure to create a certain meaning for my viewers to find, in fact, that’s one of the last things I think about, art to me is more personal, sort of like a diary and I would rather have my viewers come up with their own meanings and try not to think what my motives were. That way the piece becomes more personal to them; the chapter goes into this in the following sections.
Other quotes from this section that I enjoyed are: “Most if not all images have a meaning that is preferred by their producers…We usually have no way to know for certain what a producer, designer, or artist intended his or her image or structure to mean” (53-54) I also like the idea that the producer isn’t omniscient to the meanings of the image because the view brings in experience that the producer didn’t expect.
Lastly in this section, I thought is was really interesting how, “The visual clutter of the context alone of say, a place like Time Square, may affect how viewers interpret these images, as may juxtapositions with other images” (54). It never occurred to me that the location can change the meaning of an image so much – but it makes sense: I never see a flyer on a telephone pole; I see a telephone pole littered with layers and layers of brightly covered paper screaming at me. I’m sure graphic designers really need to take that into account when designing their images.
I found the following section, “Aesthetics and Taste” very straightforward and agreeable. The main point of this section is “The criteria used to interpret and give value to images depend on cultural codes, or shared concepts…All viewer interpretations involve two fundamental concepts of value – aesthetics and taste” (56). This quote and entire section relates back to the first chapter’s discussion about value.
Following the introduction of the section, it talks about aesthetics, “Aesthetics has traditionally been associated with philosophy and the arts, and aesthetic objects have stood apart from utilitarian objects” (56). Before reading the rest of the chapter, I realized at how this is changing so much in our modern society; being a huge fan of interior design, I’d have to disagree that art is separate from utilitarian objects now-a-days. Look at Scandinavian design – they have perfectly merged art and function. Moving on…Taste was the next subject up for discussion in this section. “Taste is not simply a matter of individual interpretation. Rather, taste is informed by experiences relating to one’s class, cultural background, education, and other aspects of identity” (57). I really never thought of taste as that definition, but it really makes sense, although the idea of “good taste” is constantly changing today. This chapter really opened my eyes to social standards and how we have, and do view images – past and present.
No comments:
Post a Comment