Baffled by Barthes

Reading philosophy can be really hit or miss in terms of enjoyment. Depending completely on what you find interesting and what you believe, philosophical writing can be entertaining or it can be painfully drab. This particular piece by Barthes most definitely falls in the latter category. I don't find Barthes' writing confusing, I just don't entirely agree with his systematic analysis of images. That being said, I apologize if this entry strikes you as more of a criticism and less of an analysis. Although, truth be told, any entry worth reading should be a mixture of both.

"Hence in every society various techniques are developed intended to fix the floating chain of signifieds in such a way as to counter the terror of uncertain signs; the linguistic message is one of those techniques." - Roland Barthes

Essentially, Barthes is stating that images are simply empty vessels whose meaning is attributed to them in a combined series of messages. That is, without the added "techniques" such as the linguistic or coded-iconic messages, the image would not indicate a clear meaning and thus leave the viewer with an uneasy feeling of confusion and uncertainty. While it is true that linguistic messages can be used as a technique to guide an audience to a premeditated conclusion, I find it rather ludicrous to suggest that without a caption an image would lack meaning or depth. A photograph taken candidly (impartial and disorganized) and without a caption can still provide significance to a viewer. Nevertheless, the meaning and significance of the photo can, and certainly will, often vary from person to person.

"At all events, the denoted image, to the extent to which it does not imply any code (the case with the advertising photograph), plays a special role in the general structure of the iconic message which we can begin to define (returning to this question after the discussion of the third message): the denoted image naturalizes the symbolic message, it innocents the semantic artifice of connotation, which is extremely dense, especially in advertising." - Roland Barthes

Barthes is arguing that natural organization of the image (i.e. the pasta, tomatoes, onions, etc.) adds to the fluidity of the picture which, in turn, diverges the audience's attention away from the more obvious iconic messages (i.e. Panzani logo). In essence, Barthes is stating that the linguistic and coded-iconic messages will not suffice. Instead, a picture must be organized in such a fashion that the audience may perceive the general structure as being found naturally in that state so that the implications behind the image (in this case the image is an ad suggesting you buy Panzani products) are not forced on the reader but rather subtly suggested. Barthes views can certainly be substantiated by analyzing advertising images (on this much we can agree), but his systematic approach doesn't work so well for other images. For example, what is to be said of the meaning found in images whose general purpose is not to sell the viewer a product? What about images that are taken "just because" and have no caption? There can and will ALWAYS be meaning in every image simply because it is part of human nature. I'm inclined to believe that we are programmed to derive meaning and life from inanimate objects simply because we long to be connected; both to each other and to the world.