LEVEL 06

1ST YEAR
2ND YEAR
3RD YEAR

FINAL ESSAY

 Discuss The Relationship Between Type and Image Through Interpreting and Understanding Representation

“Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak. But there is also another sense in which seeing comes before words. It is seeing which establishes our place in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words, but words can never undo the fact that we are surrounded by it. The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled.”  (Berger, 1972, p.7)

It is as John Berger wrote, the relationship is never settled, this essay is a chance to address how the relationship between type and image works and how we interpret and understand the world through a series of representations, through semiotics, as the study of cultural sign processes. Umberto Eco notes that semiotics is somewhere between ‘a mental image, a concept, and a physiological reality’. (Chandler, 2002, p.16))

Belgian Surrealist, Rene Magritte painted ‘La Trahison des Images’ translated in English to, ‘The Treachery of Images’ or sometimes ‘The Treason of Images’, in 1929. It is an oil painting on canvas, of a pipe, with the inclusion of text in the image, this piece of art has created extraordinary revelations in the way we read the painting, and in turn how we can look at the world. The questions we ask ourselves to find the meaning within the text. It is understood that as a species we are homo significans, meaning makers, this is fundamental in our understanding of the world. We do this through the interpretation of signs. (Chandler, 2002, p.13)

Saussure shows the model of the sign to be a two part system, he showed the sign to consist of a ‘signifier’, which is the form the sign takes, and the ‘signified’ the concept it represents. This relationship between the signifier and the signified is known as the ‘signification’. (Chandler, 2002, p.15). Charles Sanders Peirce says “We only think in signs”. Signs can take the form of anything but do not necessarily mean anything or have any value unless we as a culture give reference to such objects. “Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign”, declares Peirce. (Chandler, 2002, p.13)

The painting depicts a realistic version of what we would call a pipe, a simple common smoker’s pipe. The object we refer to as a pipe is centred in the middle of the painting, and is against a simple plain light murky yellow background. The painting itself denotes the pipe to be dark brown in colour and from a side angle shows the pipe from one thick side, in order to put tobacco, to a thinner side as the mouth piece, where the pipe has a gold ring, coloured black on the opposing side. The painting is highly realistic and has not been painted to look like a painting, with no visible brush marks. The painting however does not depict any shadows cast from the pipe, and therefore floating in the composition but the painting is shown to be 3D from the use of light hitting the painting from the top left, giving the surface a polished look.

What makes this painting so interesting however is Magritte’s choice of the inclusion of text in the painting. The type is in cursive and sits below the image in black, it reads ‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe’ (‘This is not a pipe’).  This statement gives us cause to pause and think of implications this has, as image and text disagree. The painting is so clearly a smoker’s pipe, without it being recognised or mistaken as anything else, it is then that we see this statement in the painting and initially perceive the image as ‘elementary or perverse’ states Foucault. The text easily displaced the image as easy as writing an opposing statement. The composition of the image is displayed like a children’s reading book, where you could find the words ‘This is a pipe’ educating your child on what a pipe is, with a clear indication of how it looks, this is what seems perverse to the viewer (Chandler, 2002 p69).

The statement itself, ‘This is not a pipe’, in English is made up of signifiers in themselves. The letters /T/ / H/ /I/ /S/ / for example are individual sound concepts and as signifiers. This is the basis of communication as a cultural society, how we understand and break down communication problems is how we interpret signs as signs. All representations can be influenced or altered depending, the selection and use “We are in a world of objects, with given names, in turn the exchange and movement of letters and so forth we can understand objects as a concept. The name is a concept” (Swiboda, 2010)

In Malcolm Barnard’s book, 2005, ‘Graphic Design as Communication’ his thoughts on Magritte’s painting and choice of the inclusion of text is that “pointing out that this is not a pipe is to draw attention first to the fact that it is a representation of a pipe and second to the fact that we routinely refer to representations as though they were the actual thing represented.”  This is incredibly common as representations are there simply to stand in for another; one thing (being the signifier) stands in for another (the signified). It is this that is being emphasized by Magritte; the text accompanying the image of the pipe displaces the pipe as an object, and shows us merely a representation.

“When type and image are used objectively, they have strong denotative properties and are relatively free of personal bias or strong connotative qualities. The designer uses rudimentary elements of communication to convey meaning. A simple additive process occurs as these communicative signals are placed in proximity to one another.” (Meggs, 1992, p.62)

Here we have a new discussion talking about the usual, or the norm of how type and image work together, where they come together in order to create one unifying message. This contradicts what we see with Magritte’s painting, where type and image do not correlate and create confusion. Meggs sees the two contexts, type and image to be strongly denotative and to have little connotative qualities, which may well be the case for simpler images but in ‘The Treachery of Images’ however it in fact confuses the denotative qualities and connotes something different entirely.

Michel Foucault’s reading of the text is that it undermines the relation between image and text, as that relation is normally experienced. Seeing a pipe represented like this we would say it is a pipe but what Magritte’s pipe does is show us exactly what it is and makes it clear that it is a representation. Foucault wrote on the subject that “representation [can be put] into two categories, ‘resemblance’ and ‘similitude’”. Where resemblance is the degree or extent to which a likeness exists, similitude is a similarity of likeness but there is strong difference in the two, which both Foucault and Magritte agree on, “‘Resemblance’ and ‘similitude’ need to be differentiated. That much is inescapable”. (Levy, 1990, p.50)

Foucault’s leading argument was that resemblance allocates how the relationship is comparable in certain respects, analogous, between an object and its reproduction. In letters to and from Foucault and Magritte, they discussed various issues and Magritte’s readings from books Foucault had published. In a letter from Magritte to Foucault he explains the principles of the two words, resemblance and similitude.

“It seems to me that for example, green peas have between them relations of similitude at once visible (their colour, form, size) and invisible (their nature, taste, weight). It is the same for the false and the real, etc. Things do not have resemblances, they do or do not have similitude’s.

Only thought resembles. It resembles by being what it sees, hears, or knows, it becomes what the world offers it." (Foucault, 1968, p.57)

Magritte’s thoughts on the two words are quite inspiring and interesting to the extent of how he has summarised what could be seen as aspects of its similitude, and resemblance. This can be applied to his very own painting, what is real and what is unreal. The representation of the pipe in this sense has to be looked at carefully and how the similitude and resemblance could shed light on the painting, The Treachery of Images.

It is from this interpretation of these two words it can be identified that the similitude of the painting bears what is physical, and what we can see from the painting. This is what we denote from the painting. As stated the pipe depicts an accurate portrayal of what a standard pipe would look like, a common pipe, a painting which does justice to our look on the depth and lighting of this object. The resemblance of this pipe however is down to the viewer, what it connotes, how it is placed in the mind. Firstly the sense of lighting connotes to us the object is to be regarded as 3D, but even this is a representation. The connotation of the pipe as an object announces a sense of old fashion, and quite a grand and posh object.

When reading the image, and we notice what is written underneath the well placed object there is a shift in our thinking. ‘This is not a pipe’ forces us to review what the painting is actually denoting. The painting here in turn is an argument between the words and images, there is a decision soon to be made as to which point of communication is truly giving us an accurate message or the meaning intended by the artist.

As Malcolm Barnard wrote in Graphic Design as Communication, Foucault on Graphic Design, that when looking at generalised compositions including text and image, the text will take over the role of the illustration, as Barnard put it ‘anchor’ images. And in turn, images portray or ‘shed light on’ the text. (Barnard, M., 2005, p.49)

This seems to be an accurate formula to how type and image works, but here with The Treachery of Images, it is no longer clear as to how these interpretations of image and texts work within the paintings. It is this slight conflict in messages that has led to such discussion and controversy of how we interpret objects and their representations in everyday life. There is at first to be a breakdown in semiotics, at a basic level there are two signifiers in the image, but they are opposing.

Representations are spoken and accepted as the real thing in culture, it is unoften that we are shown what is ultimately a crude truth, but what is actually reality within portrayal. This is by making it so apparent that it is not an object but a representation as illustration. The illustration was therefore to shed light upon the meaning to the words, and the text to anchor the image, but the point has been made to make this redundant. Its representation therefore was only to give meaning to another representation. Therefore leaving the signifier and the signified obscured, and arbitrary to how we read the images, the representation has become a product of cultural choice as any illustration no matter how simple can be turned to an ineffective signifier. What is communicated to us has been altered by another representation.

Rene Magritte

‘La Trahison des Images’, translated as ‘The Treachery of Images’

1929.

Bibliography

Berger, J. 1972. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin.

Chandler D. 2002. Semiotics. The Basics. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Levy, S. 1990. Foucault on Magritte on Resemblance, Modern Language Review Vol. 85, p.50

Barnard, M. 2005. Graphic Design as Communication. New York: Routledge.

Foucault, M. 1968. This Is Not A Pipe. Los Angeles: University of California Press

Meggs, P. 1992. Type and Image: The Language of Graphic Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Swiboda, M. 2010. Reality, Virtuality and Hyperreality [Lecture] Contextual and Theoretical Studies, Leeds, 9^th December

PORTFOLIO TASK 6. THEORY INTO PRACTICE

Looking at Garry Barker's blog I have decided to focus my attention on his post titled Conflict Resolution and Metaphor. This blog post discusses the use of typography in both a sense of conflict and resolving conflict. Type can be used in a number of ways but there is one specific use of type that has more power over you when interacting with it, and that is how typography is language written down, the way you speak it, its tone of voice and what it is you are trying to communicate.

Gary has pointed out how typography has been used to record part of a conversation with an IRA prisoner in one of the H blocks Her Majesty’s Prison Maze, it has been set out to to record individual rhetoric tropes, specifically metaphors. This has been done using software and therefore has been set out oddly, doesn't read clearly or with clarity, and as Gary pointed out, represent voice. Examples had been given of kinetic type videos, displaying how type can really represent a tone of voice or speak to you as the audience, this reminded me of my video I produced earlier this year for our Top Ten project, to create motion graphics in After Effects.

Here is an ident I made for the project, which was about Dubstep. 

I made this ident, using a quote I found about dubstep, I did not want to use a voice over but simply let the audience read the quote to the sound of the music to the video. I used the quote in order to give an impression or an idea to what dubstep is like, it is a metaphor. The aim of using this quote feeds directly to what gary has said "It achieves its effects via association, comparison or resemblance and the concept of understanding one thing in terms of another is very powerful."

This video is a lot shorter than another kinetic type sequence I have done but I feel it works well if not better as it is simple and to the point, I have chosen different typefaces for each word of the sentence which could seem to confuse the message, or add entropy to it but it has been done in order to communicate dubstep and not let one typeface define what the genre is. This was my example as to trying to use typography properly and clearly to communicate the correct tone of voice, what typography really is as opposed to system default settings of software which we see in the example of the conversation.

PORTFOLIO TASK 5. SUSTAINABILITY

Critical summary on Capitalist and Sustainability looking at Balser, E (2008) 'Capital Accumulation, Sustainability & Hamilton Ontario'


Sustainability is defined within the text through looking at what it is does in both concept and practical. It is said to be defined as concerning itself in the concept or idea of justice in society looking at social, environmental, economic, moral and political gages of society. This tells us of the idea that everything is down to each individual as part of a collective to help with work together, that in theory it is communal. "Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs", it can never be done by one person and is focussed on the future, the idea of helping those generations still to come.

The main characteristics of capitalism are to have an ever expanding entity as capitalism. It thrives to create, and subsume the other, constantly to gain profit, it is constantly looking for new things to commodify. It is seen as continuously expanding and trapping things, it never confines itself or has its own territory but instead  overflows and internalises itself in new spaces.

A crisis of capitalism for example could be the environmental crisis, this is because of the capitalist views of the world, as it isolates and ostracises various populations who cannot afford to become sustainable. It is said that with evert crisis, capitalism will reach a limit, but the reinvention of capitalism ensures that this is not the case. Technologies, policies or ideas constantly push past limitations as time goes on, but this in itself is simply further perpetuates the cycle of capitalism. The only crisis that appears that it could destroy capitalism is one of environmental descent, where humanity can no longer beat the limitations of the earths natural resources, but the environmental crisis has continuously moved past this and reinvented itself. It adapts and acclimatises to capitalism, never ending the cycle but only perpetuating it.

There are four main points outlined for business' to become more environmentally responsible and therefore help with sustainability. These include increasing productivity of resource use, production with no waste, and no toxicity, reinvest in natural and human capital. This itself is said to be flawed simply as influential environmentalist writers validate capitalism which therefore furthers the belief in it. "Sustainability is no longer about the salvation of nature but the prolonging of human life and human social and economic systems, namely capitalism." A way of helping with sustainability is the proposed site for BIOX plant in the North End of Hamilton, which has only been chosen due to its ease and cheapness. The location only a few hundred feet from homes, and on a community green space. The fact it was so close to a residential area violates many health and safety regulations, and has had a a huge negative effect on the area, ruining the houses due to tremors. It has been done at the sacrifice of social equality, for one simple reason, to make profit. 

Sustainability and Capitalism are not compatible at least not in the same way, capitalism thrives off of the idea of sustainability and uses it as it uses anything, to make money. Sustainability will never be able to get away from capitalism, it blames capitalism for the current state we are in but at the same time looks to it for solutions. Whilst doing this ostracising plenty of populations who cannot afford what shouldn't cost, being sustainable. It is all for money.

PORTFOLIO TASK 4. COMMUNICATION THEORY

Use Shannon & Weaver's model of the communication process to write a 300-400 word analysis of a work of Graphic Design. Comment on the ways in which the piece of Graphic Design attempts to communicate to a specific audience, using techniques of redundancy, entropy or noise.

By looking at Shannon and Weaver's communication model, I can look at this piece of graphic design and analyse this sign on a level of how it communicates. First of all is an information source and next the transmitter which together are the message. The information source is the sign, and then the transmitter encodes the message as a signal or signals. Here what is being encoding and transmitted as signals is the simplistic image of a male and female in white with a thick stroke in between them on a dark blue background. The channel is how the sign exists, it is a physical object which appears to be present on a fence here. The next thing is receiving the signal, or decoding the signs. What or how the signals represent, connote or denote, to the viewer perception, the destination.

The image has been created with one sole purpose and that is to be a sign to show for public toilets, both male and female. The image is associated worldwide and has been accepted into culture to stand for toilets, because of this the image has been created to be redundant. It is about as redundant as possible without showing toilets or having the word used in the sign as well, but without a doubt the image has been recognised throughout culture as a sign for toilets. The fact it is so redundant means the image has a very high predictability but low information, not much needs to be said. This creates a high effectiveness to the message and also helps to fight the possibility of noise, therefore try to combat interference.

The sign has been designed to have as little noise as possible, but things that could possibly interfere with the communication of this sign might be if anything got in the way of it, obscuring some of the image or if the image had been defaced by graffiti or the paint had started to come off which would manipulate the image and interfere with its signal.

There would be no entropy to see here in this piece of communication, entropy is the opposite of redundancy. It is unpredictable, unconventional and can include a lot of information. It is because of this it can often communicate a lot more than redundant design but may target a smaller audience, as opposed to this sign for example, where it has been designed to communicate to everyone.

LECTURE 6 // SUSTAINABILITY

FIRST DRAFT ESSAY

Discuss The Relationship Between Type and Image Through Interpreting and Understanding Representation

“Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak. But there is also another sense in which seeing comes before words. It is seeing which establishes our place in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words, but words can never undo the fact that we are surrounded by it. The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled.”  (Berger, 1972, p.7)

It is as John Berger wrote, the relationship is never settled, this essay is a chance to address how the relationship between type and image works and how we interpret and understand the world through a series of representations, through semiotics, as the study of cultural sign processes. Umberto Eco notes that semiotics is somewhere between ‘a mental image, a concept, and a physiological reality’. (Chandler, 2002, p.16))

Belgian Surrealist, Rene Magritte painted ‘La Trahison des Images’ translated in English to, ‘The Treachery of Images’ or sometimes ‘The Treason of Images’, in 1929. It is an oil painting on canvas, of a pipe, with the inclusion of text in the image, this piece of art has created extraordinary revelations in the way we read the painting, and in turn how we can look at the world. The questions we ask ourselves to find the meaning within the text. It is understood that as a species we are homo significans, meaning makers, this is fundamental in our understanding of the world. We do this through the interpretation of signs.

Saussure shows the model of the sign to be a two part system, he showed the sign to consist of a ‘signifier’, which is the form the sign takes, and the ‘signified’ the concept it represents. This relationship between the signifier and the signified is known as the ‘signification’. (Daniel Chandler, 2002, p.15). Charles Sanders Peirce says “We only think in signs”. Signs can take the form of anything but do not necessarily mean anything or have any value unless we as a culture give reference to such objects. “Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign”, declares Peirce. (Chandler, 2002, p.13)

The painting depicts a realistic version of what we would call a pipe, a simple common smoker’s pipe. The object we refer to as a pipe is centred in the middle of the painting, and is against a simple plain light murky yellow background. The painting itself denotes the pipe to be dark brown in colour and from a side angle shows the pipe from one thick side, in order to put tobacco, to a thinner side as the mouth piece, where the pipe has a gold ring, coloured black on the opposing side. The painting is highly realistic and has not been painted to look like a painting, with no visible brush marks. The painting however does not depict any shadows cast from the pipe, and therefore floating in the composition but the painting is shown to be 3D from the use of light hitting the painting from the top left, giving the surface a polished look.

What makes this painting so interesting however is Magritte’s choice of the inclusion of text in the painting. The type is in cursive and sits below the image in black, it reads ‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe’ (‘This is not a pipe’).  This statement gives us cause to pause and think of implications this has, as image and text disagree. The painting is so clearly a smoker’s pipe, without it being recognised or mistaken as anything else, it is then that we see this statement in the painting and initially perceive the image as ‘elementary or perverse’ states Foucault. The text easily displaced the image as easy as writing an opposing statement. The composition of the image is displayed like a children’s reading book, where you could find the words ‘This is a pipe’ educating your child on what a pipe is, with a clear indication of how it looks, this is what seems perverse to the viewer (Chandler, 2002 p69).

The statement itself, ‘This is not a pipe’, in English is made up of signifiers in themselves. The letters /T/ / H/ /I/ /S/ / for example are individual sound concepts and as signifiers. This is the basis of communication as a cultural society, how we understand and break down communication problems is how we interpret signs as signs. All representations can be influenced or altered depending, the selection and use “We are in a world of objects, with given names, in turn the exchange and movement of letters and so forth we can understand objects as a concept. The name is a concept” (Marcel Swiboda, Reality, Virtuality and Hyperreality Lecture, 9^th December 2010)

In Malcolm Barnard’s book, ‘Graphic Design as Communication’ his thoughts on Magritte’s painting and choice of the inclusion of text is that “pointing out that this is not a pipe is to draw attention first to the fact that it is a representation of a pipe and second to the fact that we routinely refer to representations as though they were the actual thing represented.”  This is incredibly common as representations are there simply to stand in for another; one thing (being the signifier) stands in for another (the signified). It is this that is being emphasized by Magritte; the text accompanying the image of the pipe displaces the pipe as an object, and shows us merely a representation.

Michel Foucault’s reading of the text is that it undermines the relation between image and text, as that relation is normally experienced. Seeing a pipe represented like this we would say it is a pipe but what Magritte’s pipe does is show us exactly what it is and makes it clear that it is a representation. Foucault wrote on the subject that “representation [can be put] into two categories, ‘resemblance’ and ‘similitude’”. Where resemblance is the degree or extent to which a likeness exists, similitude is a similarity of likeness but there is strong difference in the two, which both Foucault and Magritte agree on, “‘Resemblance’ and ‘similitude’ need to be differentiated. That much is inescapable”. (Levy, 1990, p.50)

Foucault’s leading argument was that resemblance allocates how the relationship is comparable in certain respects, analogous, between an object and its reproduction. In letters to and from Foucault and Magritte, they discussed various issues and Magritte’s readings from books Foucault had published. In a letter from Magritte to Foucault he explains the principles of the two words, resemblance and similitude.

“It seems to me that for example, green peas have between them relations of similitude at once visible (their colour, form, size) and invisible (their nature, taste, weight). It is the same for the false and the real, etc. Things do not have resemblances, they do or do not have similitude’s.

Only thought resembles. It resembles by being what it sees, hears, or knows, it becomes what the world offers it." (Foucault, 1968, p.57)

Magritte’s thoughts on the two words are quite inspiring and interesting to the extent of how he has summarised what could be seen as aspects of its similitude, and resemblance. This can be applied to his very own painting, what is real and what is unreal. The representation of the pipe in this sense has to be looked at carefully and how the similitude and resemblance could shed light on the painting, The Treachery of Images.

It is from this interpretation of these two words it can be identified that the similitude of the painting bears what is physical, and what we can see from the painting. This is what we denote from the painting. As stated the pipe depicts an accurate portrayal of what a standard pipe would look like, a common pipe, a painting which does justice to our look on the depth and lighting of this object. The resemblance of this pipe however is down to the viewer, what it connotes, how it is placed in the mind. Firstly the sense of lighting connotes to us the object is to be regarded as 3D, but even this is a representation. The connotation of the pipe as an object announces a sense of old fashion, and quite a grand and posh object.

When reading the image, and we notice what is written underneath the well placed object there is a shift in our thinking. ‘This is not a pipe’ forces us to review what the painting is actually denoting. The painting here in turn is an argument between the words and images, there is a decision soon to be made as to which point of communication is truly giving us an accurate message or the meaning intended by the artist.

As Malcolm Barnard wrote in Graphic Design as Communication, Foucault on Graphic Design, that when looking at generalised compositions including text and image, the text will take over the role of the illustration, as Barnard put it ‘anchor’ images. And in turn, images portray or ‘shed light on’ the text. (Barnard, M., 2005, p.49)

This seems to be an accurate formula to how type and image works, but here with The Treachery of Images, it is no longer clear as to how these interpretations of image and texts work within the paintings. It is this slight conflict in messages that has led to such discussion and controversy of how we interpret objects and their representations in everyday life. There is at first to be a breakdown in semiotics, at a basic level there are two signifiers in the image, but they are opposing.

Representations are spoken and accepted as the real thing in culture, it is unoften that we are shown what is ultimately a crude truth, but what is actually reality within portrayal. This is by making it so apparent that it is not an object but a representation as illustration. The illustration was therefore to shed light upon the meaning to the words, and the text to anchor the image, but the point has been made to make this redundant. Its representation therefore was only to give meaning to another representation. Therefore leaving the signifier and the signified obscured, and arbitrary to how we read the images, the representation has become a product of cultural choice as any illustration no matter how simple can be turned to an ineffective signifier. What is communicated to us has been altered by another representation.

Rene Magritte

‘La Trahison des Images’, translated as ‘The Treachery of Images’

1929.

Bibliography

Berger, J., 1972. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin.

Chandler D., 2002. Semiotics. The Basics. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Levy, S., 1990. Foucault on Magritte on Resemblance, Modern Language Review Vol. 85, p.50

Barnard, M. 2005. Graphic Design as Communication. New York: Routledge.

Foucault, M. 1968. This Is Not A Pipe. Los Angeles: University of California Press