WEEK 2: Reading Words & Images

Carrying on from the last lecture, we looked further into semiotic terminology. It was particularly helpful to firstly compare both words and images as signs.

As a signifier, a word does not physically resemble what it describes - it is therefore an arbitrary sign. It requires knowledge (of language, linguistic rules and cultural definitions) to decode. How words are said or written affects the reading of meaning - this is the 'plane of expression'.

As a signifier, an images does resemble what it describes - it is therefore an iconic sign. Images are usually experienced before words are (as memories are experienced visually before we reframe them in words). How an image is captured or rendered affects the reading of meaning - this is the 'plane of abstraction'.

---

ANCHORAGE

​"Anchorage is where text and image stand in a complementary relationship."

​An important term to note is anchorage - used by Barthes, this describes the relay between words and visuals. There are different types of anchorage:

• word-specific (written or verbal): providing all or most of the information needed to decode through words.
• image-specific: providing all or most of the information needed to decode through images.
• dual message (amplification): using words and images to communicate the same message in tone or content.
• independent (convergent): words and images being used together but contributing independently, to convey a message neither could do alone.
• parallel (divergent/multimodal): words and images being presented together, but on different paths.​​

---

PLANES OF MEANING

Signs are polysemous, meaning they are open to many interpretations. When using signs, consider the planes of meaning:

• denotation (primary meaning): a sign's most immediate reading - non-coded, reflects broad consensus, and requires only literal deduction.
• connotation (secondary meaning): a sign's underlying meaning - uses coded interpretation to invoke ideas and link other concepts (intertextuality).

​

SIGNIFIER + SIGNIFIED = DENOTATIVE SIGN [ + CONNOTATIVE SIGNIFIER ]

---

CASE STUDY: 'THE TREACHERY OF IMAGES' - RENE MAGRITTE, 1928/1929

'The Treachery of Images', Rene Magritte

Rene Magritte was a Belgian surrealist artist. His paintings, like the one above, were known for being dreamlike and thought-provoking. Arguably his most famous work, the image shown is the perfect exercise for a semiotic analysis.
​

raw notes on the exercise taken during lecture

We have to consider both the written and image messages here, and the primary and secondary meanings of both.

In terms of the image message, take the literal observations first. We can clearly see a smoking pipe - it has a gold band, and it is floating. The image seems to be an oil painting, and is rendered realistically. In terms of the text message, we can see the words "ceci n'est pas une pipe" in handwritten script - this translates to "this is not a pipe" in the French langue. These are our denotations.

​Taking the image on a secondary plane of meaning, we start to make connections based on our experience and knowledge of reference. The smoking pipe relates to the Victorian era - its gold band suggests it is well made, perhaps middle or upper class. We also know that in society, especially in Victorian culture, this kind of pipe was seen as a symbol of masculinity. The fact that the pipe is floating gives a sense of surrealism, bringing to mind 1920s surrealist paintings. The text reinforces this - the statement of "this is not a pipe" seems so bold and contradictory that it invokes skepticism in the viewer. We get a suspicious, dreamlike sense of "things are not what they seem". These are our connotations.

Both the image and text play off each other to encourage response; both are required together to convey the intended message, making this an example of convergent anchorage. In my view, the main anchored theme of this work of art is the surrealism - both the image and the text suggest a certain level of illusion, or trickery. When you think of the title, 'The Treachery of Images', you can begin to piece together what Magritte was going for.

At the end of the day, it isn't a pipe. It is a painting ​of a pipe.

---

LECTURE NOTES