Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
book review: chapter 1
semiotic landscape: review and discussion
Ironically, the examples provided in this chapter have helped me to better understand what the authors are saying. Much like the authors speak of children and their ability associate with visual grammar, I too found that I relied upon the aid of the visual and verbal representations (in the form of examples) to grasp the author's point of view, with out it, I'd be lost.
The authors indicates a disagreement with Roland Barthes argument that images and there meanings (and other semiotic codes like dress, food, etc.) is always related to and, in a sense dependent on, verbal text. Images by themselves are too ‘polysemous’ and too open to a variety of meanings. Language must come to the rescue. Also interesting, the authors credit the book’s existence to the the achievements of linguist yet do not see their approach as a linguistic one
An interesting and in-depth comparison is made of two children's books (Bruna and Ladybird) that demonstrate "semiotic shifts". The shift stems from 'un-coded' naturalistic representation (image of a bathtub accompanied by text) to stylized, conceptual images (bird in a tree) and prompts the below question:
Questions:
1) Does anybody in the class agree with Barthes argument?
2) Is the move from verbal to visual a loss or gain and what would be an example of each?
3) The book expresses a concern about the "new semiotic order" and addresses the concern of how we handle it and ultimately poses the question, How will the introduction of new mediums affect the shape and context of our preexisting semiotic landscape?
Ironically, the examples provided in this chapter have helped me to better understand what the authors are saying. Much like the authors speak of children and their ability associate with visual grammar, I too found that I relied upon the aid of the visual and verbal representations (in the form of examples) to grasp the author's point of view, with out it, I'd be lost.
The authors indicates a disagreement with Roland Barthes argument that images and there meanings (and other semiotic codes like dress, food, etc.) is always related to and, in a sense dependent on, verbal text. Images by themselves are too ‘polysemous’ and too open to a variety of meanings. Language must come to the rescue. Also interesting, the authors credit the book’s existence to the the achievements of linguist yet do not see their approach as a linguistic one
An interesting and in-depth comparison is made of two children's books (Bruna and Ladybird) that demonstrate "semiotic shifts". The shift stems from 'un-coded' naturalistic representation (image of a bathtub accompanied by text) to stylized, conceptual images (bird in a tree) and prompts the below question:
Questions:
1) Does anybody in the class agree with Barthes argument?
2) Is the move from verbal to visual a loss or gain and what would be an example of each?
3) The book expresses a concern about the "new semiotic order" and addresses the concern of how we handle it and ultimately poses the question, How will the introduction of new mediums affect the shape and context of our preexisting semiotic landscape?
Monday, February 4, 2008
book review: introduction
reading images: the grammar of visual design
This will serve as the first installment of a series of posts that will review the reading assignments of our in class text book, "Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design" by Gunter Kress and Theo van Leewuen. Some pretty complex reading for an introduction that took the better part of 16 pages to explain and still left me confused as to what exactly is "semiotics". I now know thanks to Wikipedia!
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
say hello to my little friend!
self representation
Here I introduce you to my digital self in the form of pixels. This is British Dumpling! That's not easy to forget is it? This is my Second Life avatar. I tried "British" everything it seems like from the selected list of last names and "Dumpling" was available an now I'm stuck with it. You may as well take a look a me now as I'm sure like many of us at this novice stage will go through changes. I found myself actually trying to represent myself as I am in real life in terms of physical features and dress sense. Am I wasting the opportunity to live a "second" life by doing this?
Sunday, January 27, 2008
continuing the brainstorm
social interaction
After conferring with my colleagues about their project ideas, it seems as if everyone is on a completely different wavelength or perhaps this is some really good and broad brainstorming.Well!.....After finally entering the virtual world of Second Life (SL), creating my avatar, and just simply walking and flying around the pixelated kingdom has given me enough experience to generate more ideas and/or thoughts for a theme to connect the series of semester projects together. I will not abandon my initial idea of "identity" as common bond, however, "social interactivity" is another idea I would like to entertain. In SL we are provided with a palette of tools to communicate with other residents from simply chatting to making a specific gesture, the list goes on. I'm curious about the social interaction that takes place in SL and how it is provoked and/or promoted. Indeed, as in real life, social interactivity can be non existent, or the experience can be positive or negative. I'm interested in the components that promote positive social interactivity between SL residents whether its through a specific place, an event, interest group, visual appearance or any combination of these components. I look forward to sharing my views in class and encourage my classmates to comment on my thoughts.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
project idea
Identity
Pictures, symbols, icons, avatars and digital characters are emerging more than ever in the digital world as a way to identify ourselves. Why do we choose certain and very specific names, symbols or icons to visually represent, or in many cases, misrepresent who and what we are? Many of us log onto our computers with a thumbnail sized icon attached to our name. What is the layered meaning behind choosing a flower over an abstract background, or uploading a picture of ourselves, or of something/someone special to us? I think that there are many reasons why we try to personalize our digital experience, and why we feel the need to humanize our computers. We name them, refer to them, and depend on them. We have serious relationships with them. They become an extension of us just as our Avatar does. It is fascinating how we choose to digitally represent and/or misrepresent ourselves. Through Second Life the user is responsible for the visual representation of their Avatar. I am curious to evaluate how users portray themselves digitally and how that may/may not differ from their real physical form, and to explore the deeper meaning of what it all means. Obviously, in a digital "second life" realm the user can be who he/she wants. But, why do many people misrepresent themselves? I'm not convinced that I will have a finite answer to these questions, but I hope to have a better understanding of visual communication as a whole at the end of the semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
