"We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash" (Barthes,146).
As Barthes mentioned, a text is a complex multidimensional space that is open to multiple interpretations and meanings. Texts are not created casually, but are influenced and shaped by various cultural, historical, and social factors. (This reminds me of the last artist talk by David Najib Kasird, where he talked about how his creations are influenced by his cultural background.) Thus, the meaning of a text is not singular or fixed, but a product of the reader's interpretation, which is influenced by their own cultural and personal context. Previously, it was thought that the author was omnipotent, and then there was the "author-God" view, in which the author controlled the meaning of the text. But Barthes believes that the meaning of a text is a collaborative effort. I also agree that it is the viewer and the creator who together can understand the meaning of an image correctly. Actually, I have another question. Sometimes if the viewer misunderstands the creator's intent, is it a matter of the viewer not appreciating it carefully, or is it a matter of the creator not describing it clearly?
At the same time we can read: Barthes does not consider the author to be an original creator. The text is sacred and has an intrinsic meaning. The text used by the creator is seen as a "tissue of citations," consisting of various elements and meanings borrowed from the cultural and social environment in which the text was produced. The concept of origin thus becomes irrelevant, since the text is not the product of a single origin or source, but of multiple intertwined influences that converge in its creation.
As I imagine my project, may not include some text in there. But I think my project can reflect Barthes' idea. My project is based on some photography works, which are like a record of what happened. So, not only text but maybe other elements in my project are all "citations". Here's an example photo in my project. The text here is from posters on the lamp posts, which is about Lawrence celebrating 175 years birthday. The text there is not created by myself, and I'm like a "transporter" of them.
Great image! It's interesting to think about what can be considered "text." I think not only is it explicit written text, but images or films can also have a type of "text" that the readers/viewers interpret.
ReplyDeleteI think what you bring up about not being the creator, but observer of text is interesting, given that we all speak a language that is given to us. As children, we often make up our own words, right? But as we get older, we lose that personalization of vocabulary. In a way then, we often are observers rather than creators of text. To be truly a creator of text, I think we must make the effort of creating new ways of speaking, new grammar flows, new vocabulary. Cuz otherwise, how much "authorship" is there in asking someone passing by "how are you'?
ReplyDeleteBarthes argues that there is no one "Author-God" who creates a text with a singular meaning, but rather a plurality of voices and influences that shape its meaning.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the meaning of a text is not determined solely by the intentions or beliefs of the author, but is instead shaped by a variety of cultural, social, and historical factors. In his view, a text is a product of a network of discourses, rather than the product of a single authorial voice. This means that a text can be read and interpreted in many different ways, depending on the perspective of the reader and the context in which it is read.
For your project, including texts in an image can provide additional context and help narrow down the possible interpretations, as the image may provide visual cues that support a social and historical context.