People Want to be Seen

The Panoptican Prison was designed to make the need for bars, guards, and any other security tactics obsolete. A tower with bright lights on top blinded the surrounding rows of cells. The lights were so big and bright that the prisoners in the cells could not tell if any one was actually in the tower, whether or not someone left the tower, and hindered the prisoners from seeing into other cells. Essentially, prisoners could not tell if or when they were being watched.

Foucault relates this same concept in his article “Panopticism” directly to our society. People tend to act like they are always being watched. As a person, you have to decide whether you are the seen or the see-er. As a result, the seen behaves like they are always on camera. They change their behavior that makes them appear in a more favorable light. The power the Panoptican instills in the seen creates a fear that forces them to alter their behavior. Focault writes, “But the Panoptican was also a laboratory; it could be used as a machine to carry out experiments, to alter behaviour, to train or correct individuals” (pp. 66-67). If people assume they are always being watched, their bad behavior will disappear and we will be left with better people.

Although the Panoptican may change behaviors, it also creates a society where people think they don’t exist unless they are on film. For example, when you go vacationing and don’t take pictures do you feel bad? Do you feel like you missed out? Images actually classify reality, in particular how people should behave. Furthermore, images classify reality. For example, everyone you go you need a photo ID. The image gives us reality. The picture on the ID is you, you are legal to drive, drink, etc. If you lose the identification, you essentially don’t exist because you can’t do anything.

Focault gives us the idea of Panopticism, but it leads to today’s society obsessed with wanting to be watched. Youtube.com is a way people can post videos and see how many people view them. The recently popular chatroulette.com created another channel for even more people to become the seen. The Panoptican may be a utopian ideal, but it’s not perfect because creates people who are obsessed with images and being seen. Instead, people should be concerned with what is going on in the world rather than who in the world is watching them.

Reality and Images

Norman Bryson says "In its perfect state, painting approaches a point where it sheds everything that interferes with its reduplicative mission; what painting depicts is what everyone with two eyes is his head already knows: 'universal visual experience'." In other words, an ideal image would show reality just as it is, nothing added or left out. Since the first painting and up to a certain point, the artist that was able to create the most realistic works was considered the best. Creating something just as it is seen is what Husserl called "natural attitude." Even a certain style that an artist might demonstrate in his or her works detracted from the art if it didn't capture "natural reality," the world as it appears to us.

However, artists such as Picasso became very popular in their time with art that did not necessarily reflect the world as we see it. Still, it can be argued that the imagination is a part of human reality, and transfering an image from the imagination to canvas exactly as it is imagined counts as containing natural reality.

The idea that images have been forever created to portray reality means that images hold quite a lot of sway in society. When people look at images, they tend to give them credit as true representations of reality, especially since the invention of photographs. The truth is, though, that images, even photographs, hold the mark of the artists and photographers - images are always influenced by their creators in some ways. That's why it is always important for us as a society to consider what images we use to portray certain ideas; and it's equally important for us as individuals to be aware that no image is reality. One much used example of an untrue, yet extremely popular, image in American society is that of super thin , beautiful women. American females are exposed to these images day-in and day-out. It is often discouraging to the majority of women who do not look like models to see these unattainable pictures, even though they know that that kind of beauty is extremely rare and often fake. Images can never reflect reality as it is, even if that is their purpose.

Chicken or the Egg

Do images reflect reality or is reality created by images? Did the chicken come before the egg? For example, are Americans pressured to be skinny because the media places a high value on images of unnaturally skinny people? Or perhaps the media takes a lot of pictures of skinny people because Americans have an obsession with being skinny. What is reality anyways? The only true reality, according to Bryson in “Natural Attitude,” is when it is from the perspective we like. If we don’t like the perspective the image is from, it is not real. Bryson argues our culture’s role of the image is to become a substitute for the real.

As a whole, we judge the value of an image by how real it seems to bed. For example, video games have evolved since the first ColecoVision. Video gaming systems have become gradually more realistic with their images. The PS3 can easily trick the untrained eye into thinking it is real. Who knows what the next video game system will look like? All we know is it will look more “real” than the PS3? Because of this assumption of substituting the real, we devalue paintings from the past.

When we look at paintings, images, and photographs of the past, we capture only surface change. However, we don’t think about why. These past images give the impression that it happened, that it was there, and it just existed. The question why it was that way never crosses our minds. Therefore, our culture today lessens the value of history’s paintings and photographs.

According to Bryson in Natural Attitude, reality doesn’t give us images, but rather images construct reality. On the other hand, reality is different from person to person. We assume that photographs and films capture reality, but someone still had to take the picture or video. The perception of the photographer or the video’s director comes into play. Style and perception come into play. Essentially, style gets in the way; it takes away the purity of the image. As a result, just as the chicken or the egg argument continues so will the images reflecting reality or images shaping reality argument.

The Image Speaks

Advertising relies on the ability of the audience to decipher the messages amidst the pictures and words. Barthes points out that, like most advertisements, the Panzani advertisement has three different levels of meaning. The first is the linguistic meaning. The Panzani logo on the products, the text at the bottom of the page; these words help the viewer to decipher the intentions of the advertisement. These words add anchorage to the advertisement. From these words, the viewer perceives a sense of Italianicity, giving the product a more authentic feel. To interpret this message, all the viewer needs is the ability to read and a basic sense of world languages. The text in the ad allows the viewer to uncover the denotative meaning. No serious thought is needed to put together that the company Panzani wants you to buy their products because they are authentically Italian. The text serves as a guide through signifieds of the image.

The second level is the Iconic level. This allows the audience to form a connotative meaning for themselves. Although an Italian would notice the French basis of the company's name and probably think nothing of seeing a fresh tomato, the intended audience of people outside of Italy get the message. The subjective terms by which the audience forms their perceptions allows for some flexibility, but when most people in the target audience see this image, they think Italian food. The old-world feel of the image gives people the hint of authenticity, and the simplicity of the image reinforces this idea.

The third level of meaning is the Literal meaning. This level is nothing more than "what you see is what you get." The text and the image combine to form the total ad, and what is there is undeniable. All of these things are occurring at one and the same time in this image, the literal level supports the Iconic level. The symbolic level allows for connotative interpretations, and the literal allows for denotative. When the three levels of meaning are seen as once, it allows the reader to view the ad with the correct level of perception.

Roland Barthes' Ideas on Messages in Images

Roland Barthes says in his essay "Rhetoric of the Image," that the word image can be linked to the ancient word imitari, which means imitation or copy. However, as Barthes explains, images do much more than simply duplicate objects and settings; they incorporate certain meanings and ideas into their subjects, sometimes without intending to. According to Barthes, there are three messages that can be present in an image - linguistic, coded iconic, and non-coded iconic, although he later argues that the last message is unachievable.
The linguistic message comes across in any written words that appear in the image, whether they be captions or labels. Barthes says that the linguistic aspect of an image serves two purposes - anchoring and relaying. Anchorage, in relation to text and image, helps to narrow down the broad connotations for that image. Barthe writes that anchorage helps the viewer "to choose the correct level of perception" (37). There are thousands of meanings that could be attached to a single image; text that anchors hopes to lead the viewer's thoughts in an intended direction. In advertisements and newspaper photographs especially, anchoring is a very common technique.
Text that relays in an image is less common than anchorage. Barthes gives the example of a comic strip to depict relay. In a comic strip, the text and the images work together to bring about an understanding of the whole piece. For example, if all the text were taken out of a comic strip, it would most likely appear as a confusing set of linked images. The situation and motives of the characters would probably be very diffficult to understand without the text. Likewise, a comic strip with only text and no pictures would also be disconcerting as some of the characters' actions are only understood from the images. In instances of relay, Barthes describes the text and the image as having a "complimentary relationship" (38).
The coded iconic message in an image is a culture-bound one. Objects, shapes, colors, background settings - anything that an image could possible depict can stimulate a variety of thoughts in people, but they all depend on each person's own experiences. For example, an image of a rose would likely call to mind thoughts of love and romance for most Americans. However, a person living in China would probably not associate the rose with love, because it's not seen the same way in Chinese culture as it is in American culture. Parts of an image don't have to be as obvious as a rose to conjure up certain ideas, either. The same effects can be gotten from much smaller details, such as color. Most Americans see pink as a female color; any advertisement that has a lot of pink in it will be approached with the mindset that it is geared towards females. Again, we can see that this is a culture-bound idea because Chinese culture does not necessarily see pink as a feminine color.
The last message Barthes writes about is the non-coded iconic. Simply put, the non-coded iconic message is what is left after the linguistic and coded iconic messages of an image are shed. The non-coded iconic message is not culture-bound and does not have the purpose of directing the thoughts of the viewer in any way. Barthes describes it as a pure image. He goes on to say that such an image is impossible. Every image holds some bias that will draw the viewers attention away from the direct subject. An image might come very close to achieving a non-coded iconic message, but the fact that it does appear as pure would have it labeled as such and associated to other cultural ideas of pureness. So, we can see that our culture and experiences make it possible to see the linguistic and coded iconic messages in an image, and impossible to see the pure, non-coded iconic message.

Objective Images do not Exist

Images are worth a thousand words. We have all heard this throughout our lives, but it may just be an understatement. In the Rhetoric of the image, Roland Barthes argues that images polysemous. In other words, images are not spontaneously important. There is no pure, naïve image; there is no objective image. Barthes agrees that there nothing is not constructed. All images are always cultural implying that culture distinguishes what images mean. Images, Barthes states, get their meaning from three different levels.

The first level is that of linguistic or literal message of the image (i.e. the text that goes along with an image). In order to decode this linguistic message, we must know the language. Within the linguistic message there are two parts: anchorage and relay. Anchorage is making sure the meaning is anchored down. An image is over-saturated with meaning; however, when text is attached, the meaning is understood. In addition, relay directs the reader to the correct meaning; it makes sure the reader does not misread the image.

Simultaneously with the linguistic message, we are attaching meaning by the coded iconic which is the second level. This is what the image displays without the text in terms of the cultural connotations or associations. We are decoding the coded iconic by essentially decide what the image signals to us.

The third level which Barthes argues does not actually exist is the denotation of the image. Barthes states, “We have seen that in the image properly speaking, the distinction between the literal message and the symbolic message is operational; we never encounter a literal image in a pure state” (p. 38). Even photographs which are a recording of reality, they are still coded with meaning. Readers understand that photographers have styles in terms of where they were standing, what they cut out of the image, etc.

Therefore, even if we stripped away the linguistic and coded iconic meanings, the image is still not pure. No image can speak for itself. Culture determines an association with the image. For example, even if we create a perfectly naïve and pure image, culture would immediately code the image as pure and naïve. When selecting an image, we have to be careful. Choose an image that will be understood by all readers. Keep in mind that images convey many meanings; we are never going to get an objective image.