Semiotics

I have been reading Key terms media theory. It's an interesting read, and I found myself drawn to the section on semiotics. I noted a few quotes I found relevant to my questions within my project and reflected on the new information found.

As Gyorgy Kepes argued, ‘The visual language is capable of disseminating knowledge more effectively than almost any other vehicle of communication.’ (Kepes 1995. P 13) A bold statement, though one with enough substance to permit, as the strength of visuals is a very powerful tool, especially within today’s climate where people are bombarded with icons and advertisements daily.

When discussing semiotics and how people currently absorb information, Laughey highlights how everyone decodes meaning in different ways, and how, to an extent, society’s opinions and views are already shaped through what people absorb through TV, newspapers and radio. (2007. P55.)

While this gives an understanding of how people think, it does not explain the more artistic experience of how people relate to visuals and poetics. Surely if a poetic documentary is screened, it too can have an effect on the opinions and views of society. Furthermore, if the documentary is made immersive and engaging, it will have the capabilities of influencing (provoking thought?) the audience.

Within this documentary investigation, the aim is not to inflict views to an audience through rhetoric or propaganda, on the contrary, it is a ‘mature communicator’ investigation into poetic visuals which aims not to condition nor divert the viewer, but to show ‘life with all of its contradictions and human mystery’  (Rabinger. 2009. P21).

‘A sign (word) such as ‘rat, for instance, has two properties: a sound and an idea. But there is no connection between the sound and the idea: ‘the choice of a given slice of sound to name a given idea is completely arbitrary’ (Saussure 1966: 113).

If true, is it relevant to subscribe a sign (word) an unrelated visual? How does a visual relate to sound, just as how does the sounds relate to the sign? Tarkovsky believes the process of providing visuals is a subjective one. How could you visualise the word? The idea the word contains is what is important. The word contains an idea and an emotion. This will always be subjective. It’s as Nichols  said, ‘We cannot see poverty as a concept, for example; we can only see specific signs and symptoms of a deprived or debased existence, to which we then assign the concept “poverty.” (Some viewers, following other dispositions, might assign other concepts to the same images such as “white trash” or “ghetto life.”)’ (2001. P 65) You do not illustrate the semiotics of the sign, therefore it is appropriate when filming for documentary to understand the deeper levels of what is being said through audio and depict the signs (words) shared in a suitable method to enhance the emotions to the audience. Semiotics can be found in

This is not defying reality, it is merely emphasising what is already there. Although thoughts and imagination are commonly disregarded as they have not formed into words or actions, it does not mean they do not exist, they merely cannot be described. When discussing the importance of experience and the unique elements that combine to express ideas, Herwitz quotes Wittgenstein’s definition of peculiar, which is requesting the description of the aroma of coffee. ‘However, at a certain point language stops before the portal of experience. Either you know the aroma or you don’t.’ (Herwitz. 2008. P145-146) In this simplistic explanation of how some experiences cannot be articulated without the subject being present, gives film advantage as it can present the unknown world to the viewer.

When deliberating over the appropriateness of the inclusion of foreign visual elements appropriateness of animation within documentary, and whether it constitutes as reality, Fores asserted ‘that both animators and documentary filmmakers frame their work in relation to particular understandings of the nature and expressive possibilities of visual illusionism.’ This claim allows filmmakers to embrace subjectivity and portray the factual understanding through personal means. Fore’s carries on to say ‘.. one commonly understood difference between the forms has to do with documentary’s supposed ‘purity clause’, a requirement for such works to maintain an umbilical connection with a pre-existing material reality.’  (2011. P278)