Every theorist has their own philosophy concerning different aspects of life, human behavior, culture and society as a whole. Their interpretation of art work is normally different with others having conflicting ideas. Some philosophers are idealists whereas others are realists. For instance, theorists, Ronald Barthes and Plato, view art completely different with contradicting interpretation. Indeed, philosophy is diverse and as long as every individual’s opinion is well defended then no theory should be rejected. This paper discuses Barthes approach to realism, his view of images as a representation of the original, significance of language in culture and society, his view of postmodern relationship between culture and nature and his reasons for considering the relationship between sign and signified ambiguous in reference to the film Blow-up by Antonioni while comparing his theories to that of Plato’s theory of art as a representation of the original.
People Also Read
Language, according to Barthes, is an important aspect of culture and society including art. Finney (2014) describes language as an essential tool in human communication. Artists use expressive language either images or textual to present their ideas. In addition writers use language in accordance with the setting of their plays. Barthes highlights the necessity of proper language in developing meaningful conversations and entertaining. He brings about the notion that language is continuous and its application varied. He advises that language should be applied appropriately to suit the context of every circumstance so as entertain readers just as in the film, Blow-up, that the writer uses fashion terminologies and present an ironic twist when Thomas, discovered a body in the park and is determined to find the killer that captivates the readers as explained by Richmond (2009).
The language, either word or sign or both, employed in art should be consistence and relevant to the setting of the play. The language combination used of either words, signs or both should be self-expressive so to avoid confusing the reader. For instance this play Blow-up is about fashion. The signs and word language employed by the writer are relevant to fashion as he uses symbols like models and photographs making it easier for the audience to comprehend the events of the play and hopefully make it possible for the reader or viewer to understand the message they are trying to communicate according to Richmond (2009).
According to Vaughan (2010), Barthes believes realism only exists within a historical context. This is because in historical context, there are references to real events. However, he disputed the concept of realism in art arguing that the writers’ works were their own thoughts and opinions just like in the film, Blow-up, the writer presents his opinions in the world of fashion but that according to Barthes does not make it a reflection of reality in that sector of fashion. What we believe is realistic is conservative realism that ignores certain essential aspect of life in relation to nature. For instance, he does not agree that every stunning fashion photographer’s lifestyle is represented by the dazzling fashion photographer, Thomas, in the film Blow-up as the play may suggests, as expressed by Richmond (2009).
Vaughan (2010), goes further to explain that, Barthes viewed realism as an illusion present only in the writers mind since no one can mediate between our self and the reality. He was against the language of mass culture that observed few behaviors and issues in the society and termed them a representation of the reality. Barthes believed that the ideas presented in art were subjective as they were exposed to the readers’ interpretations and since we are all unique, by mature, the deduction from a particular writing is bound to be different. Vaughan (2010) agrees that Barthes felt that the readers’ freedom of creative interpretation should be individual and not taken away from them by terming the writings a representation of reality. He views realism as myth-an illusion because to him, using a few people’s ideas to convince people that they are a mirror in the society is stereotype. To him it, would be unfair, selfish and insensitive to group people together and judge them depending on someone’s writing whose main purpose is to entertain thus there is no connection of the writings to the real world just like in the film Blow-up that is a fiction story about the life of a spectacular freelance photographer, Thomas, whose life dictated by his job and the desire to be attain economic stability by concentrating in marketing rather than production and the photographs he takes are just a mere perception of beauty hence are qualitative as justified by Richmond (2009).
However, according to Richmond (2009), Plato reasons otherwise. He believes that art represents reality. According to Plato, writers are inspired by events in the society and in the life of human beings thus, making art a representation of events happening in our society. He believes that the writer’s intention is to educate the reader by discussing issues that affects the society since imitation is a suitable natural way of learning morals and ethics. In the film, Blow-up Thomas symbolizes the artists in a commercialized world as suggested by Richmond (2009).
Finney (2014) states that Barthes claims that the relationship between sign and signified is ambiguous. Barthes was an expert of sign language. Thus, he did think that the signs used in art to signify a particular situation is unclear. He believes there is no clear relationship between these signs used and what they signified according to the writer since they are subjected to interpretation and just by the fact that human beings are different means the interpretation is bound to differ making the relationship between signs and signified infinitive as language is used in the interpretation yet language does not end. For instance, in the film, Blow-up, the writer uses a propeller as a symbol of Thomas’ unique desirable identity he was trying to create in the world of fashion and elegance but has no monitory value, yet anything could be used to represent that elegance and style and that propeller could as well represent a totally different thing depending on the readers understanding of the text as validated by Finney (2014).
Barthes argues that the writings are not specific, they use signs whose significance are only known to themselves hence would be unrealistic to expect the readers to think in the same line because our opinions differ (Finney, 2014). Besides, signs do not always represent a specific thing hence can be taken to represent anything which may not be what the author intended. Moreover, the writing is normally filled with symbolism that could be interpreted using language yet language is organized although distributed without closure hence ambiguous. The signs used could represent anything in the society depending on the readers’ scope of knowledge concerning the subject matter, culture and environment. He claims that the use of signs to signify particular events and behavior in the society is vague as explicated by Finney (2014).For example, in the film, Blow-up, a reader could interpret Thomas’ car to be a sign that signifies wealth yet the writer had signified something absolutely different as described by Richmond (2009). Thus, he blames language for not being able to validate itself. As a solution, Barthes presents a situation where language is clear because it is a direct relationship between the signifier and the signified, and the availability of an unwavering logic that is autonomous of culture and society.
However, Plato disagrees. He believes signs used in art like films do signify a specific object, culture or behavior in the society. For instance, in the film Blow-up photographs taken by Thomas for his book represent the aesthetic phenomenon of people. In addition, Thomas’ photo art-book implies that he is an artist as pointed out by Richmond (2009).
Vaughan (2010) says that the images presented in writing, according to Barthes, are not a representation of the original image. Unless the image refers to a historical event then they do not represent an original form in the real world instead are imaginations and ideas of the writer. In this film Blow-up, for instance, the writer creates an image of a dazzling fashion photographer who uses photographs-prints and blow-ups to bring a preconception alive. The world Thomas, the photographer, dwells in and experience in his career are not similar to that of every photographer in the real world hence that image developed by the Antonioni cannot act as representation of all photographers. Therefore, a notion that suggests otherwise is stereotyping and undermines nature that views every individual as unique hence unfair, selfish and misguided. Such assumption does not hold water because there is no exact reference but just an imagination of the writer and his own view of the situation but should not be taken to represent the views of every individual. Everyone is unique and has a way of thinking thus it is important to acknowledge that and give the reader the opportunity to interpreted the writings the way they see it instead of manipulating their thoughts into agreeing with the writers views by generalizing the whole situation as explicated by Richmond (2009).
Conversely, Richmond (2009) says that Plato believes art is the imitation of absolute reality. Every image depicted in art has an original form in the real world and to understand them, we have to refer to factual reality that is steered by our senses. He views art as a mirror of the society since art brings about culture and portrays the behavior of human beings. For instance, in the film, Blow-up, the image of a stylish, ambitious, self-driven artist of Thomas resembles an actual career oriented individual in the society with the goal of being exception in attempt to be economically stable in the real world especially that of fashion as explained by Richmond (2009).
According to Richmond (2009), nature is a reality that is associated with permanent steadiness while culture is a social element that relies on human beings. Barthes suggests that culture and nature are correlated such that the culture depends on nature, and depending on what human beings design, think and experience as nature. Human beings make rules and regulation followed and believed termed as culture and often gives nature as reasons for their actions. Thus the postmodern relationship between culture and nature is symbiotic in that human beings can choose what to view as nature and the aspects of nature to include in their culture making culture and nature difficult to distinguish. Therefore, in postmodern, nature leads to the rise of different cultures. For instance, in the Film, Blow-up, there is a beautiful park that people have made a culture of relaxing in it and there are bushes and trees that poses as a hiding place serving as a place people have formed a culture of carrying out illegal activities like killing as supported by Vaughan (2010).
Vaughan (2010) says that the theories presented by Plato and Barthes are still evaluated by other philosophers to determine their relevance and authenticity as it is difficult to determine which of the two theorists is wrong and which is one right although some of the philosophers have accepted both theories on the grounds that Barthes is an idealist while Plato is a realist. It has been hypothesized that there is a connection between the two theorists each trying to explain the role of art in the society from the writers’ and the readers’ point of view while consumed in their own ideas and judgments instead of keeping an open mind. He goes ahead to advice philosophers to keep an open mind as they will find it a necessary tool in understanding each other’s theory.
In conclusion, the two theorists tend to have conflicting opinions on how writings should be viewed by the society, their role and purpose in the society. For instance, Plato implies that they do represent reality- events and human behavior in the society and should be looked at as a mirror of the society. However, Barthes disagrees arguing that experiences are different for every individual thus, a story presented in a play should not be generalized as a representation of the whole society He terms that line of reasoning as conservative realism which ,to him ,is an illusion instead he suggests that the language used in literature is meant to entertain and the reader should have the final say concerning the theme of the writer in relation to issues in the society depending on their personal experience, environment, history, politics and scope of knowledge. He asserts that nothing in writing represents the whole society instead represents the writer’s opinions on those issues. Moreover, he also claimed that images do not represent an original form and what they represent depends on the readers’ interpretation and asserts that the language and sign used to signify a particular issue is ambiguous.
Reference lists
Finney, E. (2014). The words we speak: An explanation of the loss of precision and meaning in language today. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida.
Richmond, W. (2009). Art without compromise. New York: Allworth Press.
Vaughan, H. (2010). What is the French philosophy of Cinema? An introduction. New review of Film and Television Studies. doi: 10.1080/17400300905329281
With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.
